Star Trek Beyond (2016)

[DisneyBoy]

Super bummed about his passing. Just horrible. And he was honestly my favorite part of the first film. He stood out, even in such a small part.

[JustaPerson]

God, this is such awful news. I always thought his character was absolutely adorable, and a highlight in all the movies. 

[Sharpie66]

I just heard about Anton Yelchin. So sad! He was a really good actor. I first saw him play a 15 year old potential serial killer in an ep of Criminal Minds ("Sex, Birth, Death") that is pretty widely considered to be one of the show's best. 

[Morrigan2575]

4 hours ago, Sharpie66 said:

I just heard about Anton Yelchin. So sad! He was a really good actor. I first saw him play a 15 year old potential serial killer in an ep of Criminal Minds ("Sex, Birth, Death") that is pretty widely considered to be one of the show's best. 

That's one of my favorite episodes.  He was great.

[ketchuplover]

His vehicle make and model may be subject to recall

[dwmarch]

I hope this picture links correctly. Some poignant fan art here:
 

[JessePinkman]

So did they fire the company that made that first terrible trailer? Because I'm really liking what I'm seeing here. If nothing else the movie will be GORGEOUS.

[SmithW6079]

I thought the trailer was awful. It was loud and frenetic and gave me a headache. Rihanna's song was terrible, almost as bad as the theme from "Enterprise."

[Morrigan2575]

I loved the 2nd and 3rd trailers. Greatly improved over the first. I'm actually excited to see the movie now.

[Kromm]

Rihanna reveals (or at least claims) that she's been a secret Star Trek nerd since childhood: http://www.digitalspy.com/music/news/a799672/rihanna-shares-a-childhood-secret-with-fans-shes-a-massive-trekker/

And her new music video dropped today (the song, co-written by Sia, was released last week I believe):

[Ubiquitous]

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 11:44 AM, Lugal said:

I agree with pretty much everything you say, except I like some of the Beastie Boys songs (just not in Star Trek).  I've always hated JJ Abrams, I think he's a hack whose sole talent is generating hype and his movies come off like bad fanfiction. 

Yeah, I despise Abrams and refuse to give him my money.

[stealinghome]

This movie looks terrible. And also like a rehash of the first Abrams Star Trek, which we also rehashed in the Wrath of Khan knockoff. Can someone please bring an original--or at least different--idea to this franchise?

[SmithW6079]

I follow a bunch of Star Trek groups on Facebook, and the consensus is they hate JJ Trek, and given the recent CBS/Paramount iron fist smashing down on fan films, will never ever support any "Star Trek" from CBS/Paramount. 

[Kromm]

I hated the first one. I tolerated the second one. So I have minor hopes the third may be at least decent. For me a lot of it comes down to if they recognize and address how grotesque it was to have Kirk become the Captain of Star Fleet's flagship in the nonsensical way he did. That wounded my sensibilities deepler than anything else and even if the overall relationships were better in the 2nd movie, that bit of bullshit felt unresolved. Some of the dialogue we've heard in the new one about why James got into Star Fleet vs. why his father did makes me hopeful they might even indirectly address this. His place as Captain is corrupted basically and they need to fix it so it feels as earned as it did with Shat-Kirk.

The other stuff like destroying Vulcan, or Spock boning Uhuru is all survivable. 

The iron fist on Fan films is a giant backstabbing, I agree. There was no reason for it. Historically allowing it never hurt the bottom line on legit Trek projects in the least and the sense of betrayal those people are feeling now will. Their core fandom now hates them. 

[millennium]

I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing CBS/Paramount was in a position to defend its copyright or else risk losing control of it.    As I understand it, you can't enforce a copyright selectively.   If you look the other way when party A infringes (even if for benign reasons), your legal right to complain and seek damages may be diminished when party B infringes maliciously and on a larger scale.

I suppose it could be remedied by fans applying for and receiving limited use permission.   But Star Trek is such a valuable property that probably the legal department wants to play it safe and avoid all potential legal pitfalls down the line by imposing a blanket moratorium. 

I thought Yelchin's most memorable role was in the Broken Bells video with Kate Mara.

[BetterButter]

Sulu Is Gay in Star Trek Beyond and It's Not a Big Deal

[starri]

There are no words to describe how happy that makes me.

[millennium]

George Takei thinks it's a big deal, and he's NOT happy about it.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-takei-reacts-gay-sulu-909154

I'm so sick and tired of political correctness fucking with established story lines.    I second Takei, who says if you want to add a gay character then create a NEW character. 

Edited July 8, 2016 by Athena
fixed link

[Zuleikha]

Did Sulu ever have a heterosexual love interest on screen? Because I don't remember him ever having one.

Also, the whole point of the reboot is to fuck with established story lines. (which is why I hate it, but that's neither here nor there)

[millennium]

2 hours ago, Zuleikha said:

Did Sulu ever have a heterosexual love interest on screen? Because I don't remember him ever having one.

Also, the whole point of the reboot is to fuck with established story lines. (which is why I hate it, but that's neither here nor there)

No.    The closest he came was in the Mirror universe, when Mirror Sulu seemed very heterosexually interested in Lt. Uhura's overtures.    I imagine somebody somewhere might argue that aha! the Mirror Sulu is the opposite of Regular Sulu, so if Mirror Sulu is apparently heterosexual, then Regular Sulu must apparently be gay.   Except the Mirror Universe isn't Bizarro World, where everything is opposite.   The interdimensional reversal of the Mirror Universe seems only to affect morality.    Certainly the sexual orientations of other characters did not change -- Kirk was a hound in both universes.   Using that as a guide, we can assume that if Mirror Sulu was heterosexual, then Regular Sulu was as well.

Edited July 8, 2016 by millennium

[Chaos Theory]

7 hours ago, Zuleikha said:

Did Sulu ever have a heterosexual love interest on screen? Because I don't remember him ever having one.

Also, the whole point of the reboot is to fuck with established story lines. (which is why I hate it, but that's neither here nor there)

To each is own I guess.  Fucking with established storylines is kinda why I love it.  (it's the whole point of a reboot not telling the same story over again).   As for Sulu I don't think he ever had a love interest on the show but then I am not sure anyone but the top three (Kirk, MCCoy, Spock) really ever did.  But I might be mistaken.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[starri]

10 hours ago, millennium said:

Certainly the sexual orientations of other characters did not change -- Kirk was a hound in both universes

Kira, Ezri, and Leeta's did.

Simon Pegg gave a very polite and respectful response about why he disagrees with George.

Edited July 8, 2016 by starri

[Trini]

Quinto disappointed with Takei's disappointment: https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/entertainment/star-treks-zachary-quinto-aint-cool-w-george-takei/8a7e2db0-d331-4113-a38a-4ce7df018150.htm

[millennium]

I heard Deep Space Nine did a Mirror universe episode.    I didn't see it, because I dislike Deep Space Nine almost as much as some people hate Enterprise (but I like Enterprise, go figure).   Enterprise did a Mirror Universe episode.   Can't recall anyone switching teams there.

It just seems like Simon Pegg fuckery.   By his own admission, he made Sulu gay because George Takei is gay.   Something about that invokes shades of tokenism.   What if Sulu had been gay from the get-go, but Simon Pegg came along in 2016 and said "Guess what?  John Cho plays Sulu and John Cho is heterosexual, so we're making Mr. Sulu straight now."  That would be wrong too.   

I'm not a fan of revisionism for the sake of diversity or political correctness.   It always feels hollow and forced.   Like pandering. 

Pegg probably figured he'd be lauded as a politically correct social warrior and at the same time generate a publicity buzz for what's looking like a bad film.    Bet he never anticipated that George Takei himself would hang him out to dry.

[Morrigan2575]

I've kind of viewed Sulu as gay since Voyage Home so I really don't see the big deal. 

[starri]

15 minutes ago, millennium said:

I heard Deep Space Nine did a Mirror universe episode.    I didn't see it, because I dislike Deep Space Nine almost as much as some people hate Enterprise (but I like Enterprise, go figure).   Enterprise did a Mirror Universe episode.   Can't recall anyone switching teams there.

 

So, it doesn't count because you didn't personally see it?

[millennium]

No, it means I didn't feel confident commenting on it because I didn't see the episode and have no idea what transpired.

Edited July 8, 2016 by millennium

[starri]

The Prime version of Kira Nerys had extended romantic relationships with three different men over the course of the series; the Mirror version was shown to have sexual relations with both men and women.  Prime Ezri Dax had relationship with two different men; Mirror Ezri seemed to be exclusively interested in women.  That is somewhat more complicated since she is the gestalt of a genderless symbiont (who has been bonded to both men and women) and the young female body, however we only saw that version interested in opposite sex partners; additionally, the Mirror Ezri was not bonded to the symbiont, and from what we knew of the Prime Ezri prior to her bonding, she was heterosexual. Prime Leeta was married to one of the male recurring characters, Mirror Leeta was more interested in Ezri.

All of which is a long-winded way to say that your assertion that the Mirror version of Sulu's leering at Uhura proves the orientation of Prime Sulu is objectively false.

At the end of the day, I am more in agreement with Simon Pegg in that the true token character is the one introduced exclusively to be the gay one.  I would honestly be okay with that, because for all of Star Trek's depictions of a diverse utopian society, sexual orientation and gender identity are things they've mostly avoided like the plague and their few attempts at doing so were either fair or downright offensive.  To the part of me that remains  the thirteen-year-old gay boy who fell in love with Star Trek twenty-five years ago, my only reaction to this is that it's about goddamn time.

1 minute ago, starri said:

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by starri

[Kromm]

I think I understand why Takei has an issue with this. Not because Sulu is gay, but because it smacks of tokenism.

No maybe that's not quite right. I mean Takei himself believes that Trek should have gay characters be represented. That's something people say is tokenism too. So we need another word. Pandering maybe?  Perhaps that's it. It seems like pandering to make Sulu gay because Takei is. 

Edited July 9, 2016 by Kromm

[starri]

I wouldn't say that George isn't entitled to his opinion, nor is he under any obligation to keep it to himself, I just think he's wrong.

The other problem is that the heterosexual bona fides of all of the other characters are pretty well established.  The only indication we have of Sulu being interested in women is when he's under the influence of space madness ("The Naked Time"), evil ("Mirror, Mirror"), or Deltan pheromones (TMP).  We see Kirk, Scotty, Bones, Chekov and even Spock with female love interests in TOS, and Uhura flirts with Spock like crazy and by TFF seems to almost be in a relationship with Scotty.  It kind of has to be Sulu by default.

[SmithW6079]

47 minutes ago, Kromm said:

I think I understand why Takei has an issue with this. Not because Sulu is gay, but because it smacks of tokenism.

No maybe that's not quite right. I mean Takei himself believes that Trek should have gay characters be represented. That's something people say is tokenism too. So we need another word. Pandering maybe?  Perhaps that's it. It seems like pandering to make Sulu gay because Takei is. 

Yes, I think that's it. If Takei wasn't gay, would Sulu have been?  Doubtful.  And wasn't Pegg told to make this Star Trek movie less "Star Trek-y"?

[BatmanBeatles]

Sulu had a daughter, but there was no mention of her mother. So it can be assumed that perhaps Sulu had a gay partner and used a surrogate.

[Kromm]

55 minutes ago, BatmanBeatles said:

Sulu had a daughter, but there was no mention of her mother. So it can be assumed that perhaps Sulu had a gay partner and used a surrogate.

I imagine since we can already come close to doing it here in the 21st century, in theory by the 23rd, a surrogate won't necessarily be needed if you use an artificial womb.

[Zuleikha]

The other problem is that the heterosexual bona fides of all of the other characters are pretty well established.  The only indication we have of Sulu being interested in women is when he's under the influence of space madness ("The Naked Time"), evil ("Mirror, Mirror"), or Deltan pheromones (TMP).

Exactly. Sulu hasn't been established as straight, so it's reasonable for Lin/Pegg to decide that he's actually gay. I don't have any issue with Takei not being flattered and speaking honestly about it, but I agree with Pegg that the better choice was to portray an existing main character as gay than to add a new character.

Fucking with established storylines is kinda why I love it.  (it's the whole point of a reboot not telling the same story over again).  

I agree with that; I just dislike the specific choices that the first two movies made about how to fuck with the established storylines. I'm intrigued by Beyond, though. I'm going to read reviews to decide whether or not to go see it, but I'm cautiously optimistic that the new creative team will better preserve the aspects of the original characters that I liked.

[millennium]

4 hours ago, Kromm said:

I think I understand why Takei has an issue with this. Not because Sulu is gay, but because it smacks of tokenism.

No maybe that's not quite right. I mean Takei himself believes that Trek should have gay characters be represented. That's something people say is tokenism too. So we need another word. Pandering maybe?  Perhaps that's it. It seems like pandering to make Sulu gay because Takei is. 

 

Yes, that's just what I was saying above.

Again, I have no problem with LGBT characters -- heck, the final episode of The Original Series foreshadowed the transgender phenomenon by stranding Kirk inside a woman's body (and some people are still waiting for that Janus II technology to be developed!).   And Data gave a public welcome to all "transgender species" in Star Trek Nemesis.

So create a new gay character.   Send the Enterprise to a gay planet.   Create a plot where the gay character's sexuality actually has some bearing and outcome on the storyline rather than just dabbing an existing character with a gay paintbrush.  Write a story that has a moral about acceptance and how in the end we're all the same.   THAT would be bolder and more socially relevant than Pegg's pandering. 

THAT would be Star Trek.

Not this shit.

Edited July 9, 2016 by millennium

[BatmanBeatles]

A gay planet?

[Kromm]

7 minutes ago, BatmanBeatles said:

A gay planet?

Not that planets have sex all that often anyway!

Hee.

[Kromm]

By the way, even if Original Trek ducked it, Next Generation was supposed to have an important gay character. David Gerrold wrote a script for the show dealing with homosexuality and AIDS (and this was back in the 80s when that really meant something) but the producers chickened out and never produced the episode. 

Gerrold eventually adapted it into this non-Trek book. A few years later the fan-made Original Trek based Star Trek Phase II/New Voyages films made another adaptation, both written and eventually directed by Gerrold, but this one clocked back to Original Trek, with the character becoming Captain Kirk's nephew, Peter Kirk. 

[benteen]

I dislike Simon Pegg immensely.  I think he's a vile person and a snake in the grass.  He'll do a project and then when there's criticism of it online, he'll go sculling to the internet crowd and start agreeing with them.

That being said, I do actually agree with him on this one.  If you introduce a gay character, he or she becomes a token character, defined only by their sexuality.  Sulu works because out of all the characters on the original show, the original movies and the JJ movies, he's never been portrayed as being in any kind of relationship.

[starri]

14 hours ago, millennium said:

So create a new gay character.   Send the Enterprise to a gay planet.   Create a plot where the gay character's sexuality actually has some bearing and outcome on the storyline rather than just dabbing an existing character with a gay paintbrush.  Write a story that has a moral about acceptance and how in the end we're all the same.   THAT would be bolder and more socially relevant than Pegg's pandering. 

How exactly is it bolder?  And IMO, adding a new character just for the purposes of ticking a box is the worst kind of pandering.

[Kromm]

48 minutes ago, starri said:

How exactly is it bolder?  And IMO, adding a new character just for the purposes of ticking a box is the worst kind of pandering.

It depends on if it's done organically for storytelling purposes. The David Gerrold story I mention upthread was purposefully written in the 80s to be about AIDS, for example, but wasn't pandering in the least. These days a comparable effort might be gay marriage or child rearing storylines.

[starri]

9 minutes ago, Kromm said:

It depends on if it's done organically for storytelling purposes. The David Gerrold story I mention upthread was purposefully written in the 80s to be about AIDS, for example, but wasn't pandering in the least. These days a comparable effort might be gay marriage or child rearing storylines.

If this were 30 years ago, I'd completely agree with that.  But we're a decade and a half into the 21st century, and as a culture I would like to think we are past needing a character who was created only because they need to fill the spot for a gay guy.  Sara on Legends of Tomorrow, Connor on How To Get Away With Murder, Jamal on Empire...none of them are there just to be gay.  Compare that to the gay Inhuman on Agents of SHIELD, and see how clumsy just checking the box can be.

And while I will say that I did enjoy Phase II's adaptation of "Blood and Fire," and while I do agree that it would have been pretty groundbreaking for 1988, everything I've ever read about Gerrold's original script said that it was not that great.  And the Bury Your Gays ending bugs.

Edited July 9, 2016 by starri

[benteen]

Having watched Agents of Shield, the gay Inhuman character Joey isn't defined by his sexuality.  It's just a part of his character but not something the show focuses on that much.  Though he hasn't exactly made a lot of appearances either.

[Chaos Theory]

Honestly I think it took a lot of guts to make Sulu gay.  He has a rich and full history in the universe and therefore not easily dispensed of.  I personally hate when people mention tropes but I will in this case because it is relevant to the conversation and not just someone justifying there anger or dislike of something;  if you fear the bury your gay trope it is less likely to happen with Sulu then with a character named Lt. Ed Noname who shows up for one movie then dies  in the next or disappears completely.  

Personally Sulu's sexuality only matters because Trek hasn't ever really had a long running gay character.  At least not a human one.   They could have told an interesting story with Beverly Crusher and the female trill on TNG but they went the opposite durection and Dax's  lesbian kiss on DS9 was less about gender and more about reconnecting with an old love and only lasted a single episode.  So to have a long running and vital character on the show be gay and to not have it matter or define him....is refreshing. 

[starri]

14 minutes ago, benteen said:

Having watched Agents of Shield, the gay Inhuman character Joey isn't defined by his sexuality.  It's just a part of his character but not something the show focuses on that much.  Though he hasn't exactly made a lot of appearances either.

With the admission that I still haven't seen the last two or three episodes of the season, I can't tell you much about Joey except that he's gay.  And also, as you said, barely there.

Now, contrast with Jerri Hogarth on Jessica Jones.  I probably should have included her in the list of characters who were handled well.

[millennium]

5 hours ago, starri said:

How exactly is it bolder?  And IMO, adding a new character just for the purposes of ticking a box is the worst kind of pandering.

But that's exactly what they did with Sulu.   They made him gay for the sake of ticking off the gay box in the Star Trek world. 

Times are changing, and storylines should reflect those changes.    The problem I think is the imposition of new values and attitudes on old, established stories.

I'm transgender, but you know what?   I don't ever want to go to a Justice League movie someday and find out that one of my beloved DC superheroes is coming out as transgender.    I like those characters precisely for who they were when I formed my bond with them and I don't want to see them altered -- especially for something as crass as political correctness or to create advance buzz.    The same goes for Star Trek or any other iconic show/characters of my past. 

I wouldn't mind as much if the changes made to the character substantially influenced the story but in most cases they are just cosmetic changes for the sake of pandering.   The one great exception I can think of is Ron Moore's opting for a female Starbuck in Battlestar Galactica.   The fact that Kara Thrace was female drove that story in directions it never could have gone had the character remained male.

What we really need are new stories and fresh characters that organically embody modern culture and can capture the imagination as effectively as ones of the past.    But few people today have the vision, talent or opportunity to create anything comparable. The few who do are probably overlooked or ignored by gun-shy studios afraid to take a chance on an untried property and who would rather rehash the past ad nauseum.    What we get are these recycled, politically correct hybrids that really don't satisfy anybody 100% and disgruntle some longtime fans in the process.  

Edited July 10, 2016 by millennium

[Bruinsfan]

On 7/9/2016 at 8:52 AM, benteen said:

I dislike Simon Pegg immensely.  I think he's a vile person and a snake in the grass.  He'll do a project and then when there's criticism of it online, he'll go sculling to the internet crowd and start agreeing with them.

That being said, I do actually agree with him on this one.  If you introduce a gay character, he or she becomes a token character, defined only by their sexuality.  Sulu works because out of all the characters on the original show, the original movies and the JJ movies, he's never been portrayed as being in any kind of relationship.

I completely agree, though I am torn. I'd say Takei, having played Sulu for 38 years, is the person with the deepest insight on the character, and has every right to make his opinion known whether or not that opinion thrills Simon Pegg and Zachary Quinto.

[starri]

16 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

I completely agree, though I am torn. I'd say Takei, having played Sulu for 38 years, is the person with the deepest insight on the character, and has every right to make his opinion known whether or not that opinion thrills Simon Pegg and Zachary Quinto.

George has every right to share his opinion about it.  But I can't quite say that grants his opinion more weight than Pegg (the storyteller), Cho (the current custodian), or Quinto (the other gay dude).  

 

15 hours ago, millennium said:

I'm transgender, but you know what?   I don't ever want to go to a Justice League movie someday and find out that one of my beloved DC superheroes is coming out as transgender.    I like those characters precisely for who they were when I formed my bond with them and I don't want to see them altered -- especially for something as crass as political correctness or to create advance buzz.    The same goes for Star Trek or any other iconic show/characters of my past. 

Let me ask you a question.  If you did in fact show up to that Justice League movie, and Batman was trans, would that fundamentally alter the character?  To me it doesn't, because there's nothing about Batman (at least for me) where being cis is a fundamental part of the character.  Maybe for a character like Wonder Woman, whose gender was one of the driving forces behind her genesis, it would be.  But even then, I wonder what it would be like to have an avatar of female power being represented by someone who had to struggle to be herself.  But I'm not trans, so I think perhaps opinions about that are left to others who can speak more authoritatively.

As to Sulu, being gay doesn't change the fact that he's a bad-ass with a sword, that he can stare down Kahn, nor that he's the best pilot in Starfleet.  It's additive, not a replacement for other traits.  Bring in a new character, especially when you have a limited time to tell a story, and he or she becomes the gay character first.  I'm not saying that's a bad thing if it's done well, just that it's a lot less meaningful.  At least to me.

[Serena]

On 8/7/2016 at 0:13 PM, millennium said:

No.    The closest he came was in the Mirror universe, when Mirror Sulu seemed very heterosexually interested in Lt. Uhura's overtures.    I imagine somebody somewhere might argue that aha! the Mirror Sulu is the opposite of Regular Sulu, so if Mirror Sulu is apparently heterosexual, then Regular Sulu must apparently be gay.   Except the Mirror Universe isn't Bizarro World, where everything is opposite.   The interdimensional reversal of the Mirror Universe seems only to affect morality.    Certainly the sexual orientations of other characters did not change -- Kirk was a hound in both universes.   Using that as a guide, we can assume that if Mirror Sulu was heterosexual, then Regular Sulu was as well.

Or, crazy thought, Sulu is bisexual and happens to be in a same-sex relationship. He can find Uhura attractive and also his male partner.

I hate that any time someone adds a woman or a minority to a movie it's "pandering", but having all white all men all heterosexual movies is normal. How about no?

[Kromm]

2 hours ago, Serena said:

Or, crazy thought, Sulu is bisexual and happens to be in a same-sex relationship. He can find Uhura attractive and also his male partner.

I hate that any time someone adds a woman or a minority to a movie it's "pandering", but having all white all men all heterosexual movies is normal. How about no?

But there's a difference here. 

It's not necessarily pandering to add a woman or a minority to a movie. It CAN be but doesn't have to be. It's situational.

The situation here is that it's not merely that a gay character is being added. Takei himself would be horrified at that overall situation being described as pandering, I think. 

To some extent it's the notion of reinvention. Takei focuses on this when he talks about Gene's intent.

But I have to admit I think Takei, for once, shied away from saying fully what he REALLY feels. It's not just that the character is being reinvented. It's that it's specifically being changed in an apparent unasked tribute to himself. I think this embarasses him, and is specifically why I arrived at the word "pandering" before. Not "pandering" in a generic sense to the gay community, or even just to people who want to espouse ideas of equal representation, but a failed attempt to pander to Takei himself. He was, I think, supposed to act all appreciative and honored.  They expected this. But really they should have sussed him out first--before it went from the written page to shot footage. They just assumed he'd act a certain way if they pandered to him.  They treated him like a symbol of gayness first and a person second.

Do you see the unique shades of the situation? Making new Sulu gay seemed less about equal representation and more about using Takei to make a statement, and I think he resents that. He's very much his own man and has always attended to the issue of his sexuality as a personal thing, not as something symbolic. Pegg and company didn't comprehend that.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Kromm