M
MLMartin97
Guest
The pendulum’s swung … Roddenberry had more influence on the first two seasons of TNG than before or since. But generally, you’re right on all points. This is the man who wanted to make God the villain of TMP.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
It is a possibility!
Matt. 22:30 - “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”
R
Rose71
Guest
Wow! I never knew Rodenberry was like that! However, it doesn’t change the fact that I agree with Mr. Takei that the fundamental reason why Sulu should not become gay is that he was not created as a gay character. No established fictional characters should be changed so fundamentally just conform to characteristics of the actors who play them (especially if he, himself, thinks the idea is dumb)For me, it’s not about whether gays will exist in the future, or whether they will be able to somehow reproduce: that’s all sheer speculation.
Let’s make Mission Impossible all about Scientology. In fact, let’s do a remake of Grease where Danny and Sandy become Scientologists. Why not, going back to Star Trek, have Kirk and Spock convert to Judaism? They are both Jews and have done a lot for the Jewish community after all.
As we now know the dog who played ‘Lassie’ was a dog, not a ***** - why not do a remake called ‘Lassie: A Collie in Transition’ about the brave struggles of a prize-winning sheepdog who feels trapped in the wrong body? More PC nonsense, I see. My perfectly correct use of the word for female canine has been replaced with some little stars! As a woman myself, I’d much rather hear it used in the appropriate context a lot more: maybe then it would take away the shock value for those imbeciles who use it as an insult.
P
Padres1969
Guest
“God” was the villian in Star Trek V. After all, “What does God need with a Starship?”
http://www.ew.com/sites/default/files/i/imgs/081016/james-t-kirk-moments/asking-god_l.jpg
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Rodenberry is no William Shakespeare and Star Trek is not Hamlet or some other great piece of fiction. It was a TV show. It hardly matters if the characters are changed in any way.
M
MLMartin97
Guest
That was a pretender … although apparently at one point, Shatner wanted to make it the literal Devil. In Roddenberry’s drafts, we would have found out that Jesus was actually a messenger from a malfunctioning or hostile alien entity.
i enjoy Trek (primarily DS9 and TOS), but the more I learn, the more I find I enjoy it more despite Roddenberry than because of him.
P
Padres1969
Guest
Star Trek didn’t really begin to flourish until it was taken out of his hands beyond the TOS years. I mean he came up with Star Trek TMP’s idea and that movie ended up being a financial disappointment. Star Trek II they handed off control to Harve Bennett and the rest is history. Gene also nearly ran TNG into the ground in its early years and the show didn’t begin to take off until he’d been stripped of control and Berman was put in charge.
Not to say Berman didn’t eventually run the franchise into the ground either when he got stale for ideas (Enterprise and Nemesis were when he was far past his own prime). But it was really other people that made Star Trek the juggernaut it became, not Gene. His ideas in the early days weren’t bad, but just as Berman ran out of gas, so too did Gene. It’s bound to happen to anyone.
T
tomarin
Guest
Odd that the ‘Mirror’ universe version of Sulu didn’t seem inclined that way.
G
GEddie
Guest
And even Shakespeare isn’t sacrosanct. It is and was entertainment. I recently attended a local high school drama-club’s all-chick version of Hamlet. While I doubt they would ever win a Tony, they were pretty good.
ICXC NIKA
T
Thorolfr
Guest
R
Rose71
Guest
Yes, of course Shakespeare’s plays have been performed in different settings, but the dialogue doesn’t change i.e. Shakespeare’s words and nor do his characters and the dynamics between them. Other people have used the storylines and themes to create new works, like West Side Story, for instance, but that was never passed off as ‘Romeo and Juliet’.
Changing a heterosexual character to a homosexual one is not the same as updating the setting. It would be like Hamlet getting it on with Horatio, as opposed to the Kingdom of Denmark being portrayed as another place where the same themes that the author intended could run convincingly through.
In the same way, The Philadelphia Story was re-interpreted as High Society, but Tracy Lord still ended up with Dexter Haven and the dynamics between the key characters remained the same: it’s not like Dexter decided to run off with George at the end!
Changing a heterosexual character to a homosexual one is not the same as updating the setting. It would be like Hamlet getting it on with Horatio, as opposed to the Kingdom of Denmark being portrayed as another place where the same themes that the author intended could run convincingly through.
In the same way, The Philadelphia Story was re-interpreted as High Society, but Tracy Lord still ended up with Dexter Haven and the dynamics between the key characters remained the same: it’s not like Dexter decided to run off with George at the end!
G
GEddie
Guest
But how important is sexuality to the adventures of the crew of the Enterprise? I mean, it’s not like **Star Trek **in any of its iterations was presented as a trillion-mile-high club.
ICXC NIKA
R
Rose71
Guest
I agree that in the context of the story (unless something is way over my head) Sulu’s sexuality wasn’t ever an integral part of the plot - but I’d still question why there is any point in changing it - and to me, the answer (based on the information I’ve read) is twofold: firstly to honour an actor who does not want to be honoured in this way and secondly, to help normalise gay marriage.
To me, even though ST has always presented a very inclusive and diverse vision of the future (albeit one where all the aliens have done the decent thing and learned to speak fluent American English even if they do wish to destroy all humankind
) including pushing the boundaries with the first televised interracial kiss, re-packaging a character as gay in this way still sits uncomfortably with me because it doesn’t appear to have been done in order to bring something extra to the story and it’s drawing attention to an actor, rather than a character, which goes against what all the actors I know are trying to achieve.
I’ll shut up now, because I think I’m in the minority with this view!
To me, even though ST has always presented a very inclusive and diverse vision of the future (albeit one where all the aliens have done the decent thing and learned to speak fluent American English even if they do wish to destroy all humankind
) including pushing the boundaries with the first televised interracial kiss, re-packaging a character as gay in this way still sits uncomfortably with me because it doesn’t appear to have been done in order to bring something extra to the story and it’s drawing attention to an actor, rather than a character, which goes against what all the actors I know are trying to achieve. I’ll shut up now, because I think I’m in the minority with this view!
G
GEddie
Guest
I’m not really a Trekkie, so ignore if you want to, but was the interracial kiss you reference as problematic back then as this gay thing seems to be now?I agree that in the context of the story (unless something is way over my head) Sulu’s sexuality wasn’t ever an integral part of the plot - but I’d still question why there is any point in changing it - and to me, the answer (based on the information I’ve read) is twofold: firstly to honour an actor who does not want to be honoured in this way and secondly, to help normalise gay marriage.
To me, even though ST has always presented a very inclusive and diverse vision of the future (albeit one where all the aliens have done the decent thing and learned to speak fluent American English even if they do wish to destroy all humankind
ICXC NIKA
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Check this, regarding the episode: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_Stepchildren
“NBC executives” we’re “concerned” it would “anger TV stations in the Deep South”.
I bet most TV and film executives now are very embracing of characters in a same-sex relationship or same-sex marriage, whereas I doubt most across the board back in the 1960s where that way towards an interracial kiss or a relationship being shown in a TV show or film.
Regardless of Star Trek, I suspect you would see more opposition from TV executives nowadays to have character who was a committed traditionalist Christian or Catholic (and not somebody that was there to be made to look ridiculous) than somebody who was in a same-sex relationship or same-sex marriage.
jmcrae in post #65 pointed out that “interracial romance and same-sex romance” are “worlds apart.” I don’t intend to be patronising to anyone with this, but we do have to be careful when we are talking about same-sex relationships or same-sex marriage and interracial relationships (I know it was a interracial kiss in Star Trek rather than a relationship but I hope you understand the point), because opposition to one is not the same as opposition to another.
P
Potter
Guest
That creature wasn’t God, but when Shatner pitched the idea to Nimoy, Nimoy panned it and told him it would be like “the God Thing”. The God Thing was a movie Roddenberry was working on where the anti-religious angle would be much, much more pronounced. No one wanted to produce it back then, though.
P
Padres1969
Guest
Well first reviews of Beyond are out. Seems Simon Pegg wrote a great movie that captures the spirit of TOS in a way JJ Abrams didn’t with the last two movies. They’re saying it should have been the sequel to ST '09.
T
tomarin
Guest
But can I take my kids to see it with a clear conscience? Is the Sulu thing going to be in their little innocent faces?
P
Padres1969
Guest
As I understand it the Sulu scene is one of those blink and you’ll miss it things. I’ve heard it described in multiple places as subtle. Your kids probably get more exposure to gay couples simply walking around town or flipping through TV channels than they would at this movie.
If same sex relationships are a big deal to you, even a brief glimpse is being made out to be a big deal. If they’re something you vehemently disapprove of, it’s being made out to be a big deal. Reality is, it’s probably something most people wouldn’t have noticed if it hadn’t been pre-publicized.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Presumably the scene that kind of establishes that he’s in a same-sex relationship/same-sex marriage is a “blink and you’ll miss it” scene? Such minimal attention? Wow.
- Status