1932 réponses à ce sujet

[DomeWing333]

That's not what I meant, I'm not saying that movie has no chance of becoming the version of Captain Marvel people know the best or that it cannot be as popular as the other franchises. I'm saying that they can do a female protagonist, because there's no other Captain Marvel most people immediately think about, when they hear the title. Introducing female versions of Iron Man or Thor is very different, because both the male characters and the actors are very much the faces of those franchises. Introducing another male actor to play Tony Stark would be difficult enough, let alone a black female version. So I don't see Iron Man 4/5/... with a female protagonist happening anytime soon.

I don't think that's necessarily such a big issue. Before the Dark Knight and the MCU made things so mainstream, comics were and largely still remain a relatively niche medium. RDJr will remain the face of Tony Stark to the majority of people but the majority of people also don't buy and read comics. The comic book afficianados I know all have their own de facto versions of their favorite heroes, written by specific authors in specific issues. Many of them, while appreciative of the movie portrayals don't see those actors as *the* Iron Man or *the* Thor because they already created their own image of them through reading the comics.

Take a character like Robin. The Robin for most people 20 years ago would have been unequivocably Dick Grayson. But nowadays, if you ask people, you might get a few Dick Graysons, a few Tim Drakes, and maybe even a couple Damian Waynes. Perceptions of character can evolve and change, it just takes a couple generations of stick-to-ittiveness to get there. And just because it might not effect this generation of comic book readers doesn't mean it won't affect future ones.

[Steelcan]

Well, sometimes that is the case though. Take the white male-dominated fields of real life and think about what it would take for them to be diversified. It doesn't mean simply adding some odd number of jobs for various minorities on top of the existing jobs for white males. The old guard needs to retire and be replaced by a younger, less experienced, more diverse group.

So the experience that Riri Williams is having in the comic books serves as a parallel to the experience that people like her are going through in the real world. That of coming into a role that historically hasn't been yours and claiming it as your own.

Well I don't really see a reason for art to imitate life here.  The issue of people retiring for new blood to come in doesn't really apply to comics, unless you are saying that since it is utterly impossible for new heroes to be made they have to resort to "retiring" older white male ones.

 

There's no law saying that Marvel can't write new heroes for a new generation, but is making them at the expense of the old guard, both characters and fans, worthwhile?

[Biotic Apostate]

@DomeWing333

I mean sure, in 8 years a whole new audience will go to the cinemas to watch brand new Marvel movies without any memories of Downey Jr., but the characters need to stay around long enough and get the exposure to make an impact. I don't know what the case will be with Iron Maiden, but Jane Thor, as Dani said, is still less important than Old Thor, and Miles and gay Alan Scott are Earth## alternatives. If they really think it's time to refresh Iron Man or Green Lantern, why not just make them the main characters and kill off the others?

 

Either way, my main point stands - I'd prefer original characters rather than retrofits. I'd like to have my own heroes, not hand-me-downs. A gay Sulu is disappointing, but if Disney really planned it from the start and will reveal Poe Dameron is gay - that would be huge. I'm sure some people will love Jane Thor, or gay Sulu, but for me it's not enough.

 

(My fears that Sulu would have his sexuality toned down ended up being right - a kiss with his husband was cut, and that role is small enough that they filled it with one of the screenwriters)

[vertigomez]

I'm so exhausted I feel like I'm gonna melt right out of my bones but I'm simultaneously achey and creaky and aaauuughh.

I love my job.

[DomeWing333]

Well I don't really see a reason for art to imitate life here.  The issue of people retiring for new blood to come in doesn't really apply to comics, unless you are saying that since it is utterly impossible for new heroes to be made they have to resort to "retiring" older white male ones.

Not impossible for them to be made, but the Marvel hero universe is so utterly jam packed with iconic superheroes at this point that it's very difficult for a newcomer to gain as much traction as the old ones did when they came out. And if they want the character to serve a similar role or have a similar superpower, the presence of the existing hero would certainly overshadow the new one.
 

There's no law saying that Marvel can't write new heroes for a new generation, but is making them at the expense of the old guard, both characters and fans, worthwhile?

How much of an expense is it really, though? It's not as though there aren't still lots and lots of white male characters for the previously-catered to portion of the old guard to emulate and identify with. This including the classic iterations of Iron Man, of which new media is still being made about. Adding in a version of the character that caters to a different demographic doesn't take any of that away and it shouldn't dissuade interest in good storytelling with compelling characters.
 

If they really think it's time to refresh Iron Man or Green Lantern, why not just make them the main characters and kill off the others?

Well for anyone who keeps abreast of comic book trends, having characters killed off and replaced is hardly indicative of a permanent change. Having a sudden "Tony Stark is dead now, here's your new black female Iron Man" would smack of short-lived publicity stunt a lot more than establishing a mentor-mentee thing. Jane Thor did always strike me as a temporary thing though.
 

Either way, my main point stands - I'd prefer original characters rather than retrofits. I'd like to have my own heroes, not hand me downs. A gay Sulu is disappointing, but if Disney really planned it from the start and will reveal Poe Dameron is gay - that would be huge. I'm sure some people will love Jane Thor, or gay Sulu, but for me it's not enough.

Well Jane Thor and Iron Maiden (screw it, I'm calling her that) are original characters unlike gay Sulu. I agree with you that adding diverse original characters would be refreshing. I just also find the passing-the-torch angle to be fine as well, as long as the integrity of the original character is respected in the transition. Taking a straight character and turning them gay doesn't do that. But nothing about Riri's introduction would necessarily compromise the integrity of Tony Stark. ^{Except Tony would totally tell her to pick a different name.}

[Steelcan]

Not impossible for them to be made, but the Marvel hero universe is so utterly jam packed with iconic superheroes at this point that it's very difficult for a newcomer to gain as much traction as the old ones did when they came out. And if they want the character to serve a similar role or have a similar superpower, the presence of the existing hero would certainly overshadow the new one.
 

How much of an expense is it really, though? It's not as though there aren't still lots and lots of white male characters for the previously-catered to portion of the old guard to emulate and identify with. This including the classic iterations of Iron Man, of which new media is still being made about. Adding in a version of the character that caters to a different demographic doesn't take any of that away and it shouldn't dissuade interest in good storytelling with compelling characters.

Yet here we are seeing Marvel phasing out white male characters in favor of minority and female ones.  How long does this go on for til we say "enough is enough, hands off character X".  It's becoming pretty clear that Marvel is intent on pushing these new characters (even if their actual commitment to minority characters is somewhat superficial) and they certainly aren't going to be introducing new white male characters anytime soon.

[DomeWing333]

Yet here we are seeing Marvel phasing out white male characters in favor of minority and female ones.  How long does this go on for til we say "enough is enough, hands off character X".  It's becoming pretty clear that Marvel is intent on pushing these new characters (even if their actual commitment to minority characters is somewhat superficial) and they certainly aren't going to be introducing new white male characters anytime soon.

I think that's a vast overstatement. Considering the line-up of white male heroes they have, they are executing this plan at a glacial pace. It's kind of telling that when I search of a list of white male Marvel superheroes, the first result is just a list of Marvel heroes...Yeah, that well isn't running dry any time soon.

[Biotic Apostate]

Well for anyone who keeps abreast of comic book trends, having characters killed off and replaced is hardly indicative of a permanent change. Having a sudden "Tony Stark is dead now, here's your new black female Iron Man" would smack of short-lived publicity stunt a lot more than establishing a mentor-mentee thing. Jane Thor did always strike me as a temporary thing though.

Yeah, death is treated more like a coffee break, even I mentioned that a few posts back, but you know what I mean  I think you cannot (or should not) introduce a character that is supposed to be the replacement, and still have the previous around, especially if that old character still acts in the same capacity. Or maybe I'm not that keen on mentoring stories. I feel like having the old version out of the picture would give the new one more room to grow, less expectations. And dead or not, it would be more convincing that the new version is here to stay, if they don't go 'remember this guy?' every now and then.

And they really blew the importance of female Thor out of proportions if she's gone in a year or so.

 

Well Jane Thor and Iron Maiden (screw it, I'm calling her that) are original characters unlike gay Sulu. I agree with you that adding diverse original characters would be refreshing. I just also find the passing-the-torch angle to be fine as well, as long as the integrity of the original character is respected in the transition. Taking a straight character and turning them gay doesn't do that. But nothing about Riri's introduction would necessarily compromise the integrity of Tony Stark. ^{Except Tony would totally tell her to pick a different name.}

I admit the situation is not exactly the same, but it's still recycling, just to various degrees. Gay Iceman was the laziest approach, they just took the character, and said he's been lying to himself, and that he's really gay. Gay Lantern and Sulu take a lot of parts from their straight counterparts, and say they are from alternative realities. Miles gets parts of the old plot, abilities, and the costume design (it's basically a palette swap), and Jane Thor gets her costume and abilities. I know not everyone will be this strict about it, but if they want a minority character, I'd prefer for them to come up with skills/powers, background, and visual design that's more unique to them.

[vertigomez]

Kate Bishop as Hawkeye is amazing and I'm in love with heeerrrr. I feel like the way it worked out with Hawkeye and Hawkguy was really the ideal way to do a legacy character. There's a good dynamic there, neither really overshadows the other. They can complement each other (as in Matt Fraction's Hawkeye) and also exist as two entirely separate, well-developed characters (when Katie's off with the YA and Clint's presumably crying over his dog).

[nightscrawl]

Also why is it that all superheroes have to have premarital sex with one and/or multiple people, or those that don't don't only because it is dangerous for the partner?

I understand where you're coming from with this, but the reality is that most people in Western countries do have pre-marital sex or at least don't mind the idea of it, so it's really just reflecting the culture of most of the population. That doesn't mean that they can't or shouldn't have a character with those values, but it's not surprising that they don't. Also, sex sells.
 
 

(My fears that Sulu would have his sexuality toned down ended up being right - a kiss with his husband was cut, and that role is small enough that they filled it with one of the screenwriters)

GRRR the no kiss thing is SO disappointing, not because "ooo m/m kiss *_*," but because gay men are so often shown to have no sexuality beyond stating "I'm gay." It took several seasons before Will on Will & Grace got to have a kiss on camera (I didn't actually watch this show, I've only heard about it).
 
As far as the casting, I'm kind of iffy on that. I read a bit where John Cho, in an interview, talked about how so many gay Asian men are paired with non-Asians, whereas the traditional looking couple (Asian/Asian), which he and other Asians grew up with, is very rare, so it was important to him to have that shown. I thought that was an interesting aspect to the casting.

The piece also said the original actor dropped out of the shoot.
 

One interesting aspect to Sulu’s romance is that his husband in the film is portrayed by an Asian man—screenwriter Doug Jung, as it turns out, after the original actor dropped out the day of the shoot—per Cho’s request:
 

The reason was that I grew up with some gay Asian male friends. You don’t really see Asian men together very often. It’s very rare in life. I’ve always felt that there was some extra cultural shame to having two Asian men together, because it was so difficult to come out of the closet, so difficult to be gay and Asian, that they couldn’t really bring themselves… It’s easier to run away from people that look like your family. I wanted the future to be where it was completely normal and therefore, aside from the gender, they look like a traditional heterosexual couple. So that relationship, to me, the optics of it are that it looks very traditional on the one hand and very radical on the other.

 

[edit]
After having read the article you linked, and the remarks about Doug Jung not being an actor, it sort of makes it seem like an unfortunate set of circumstances that brought this about. The original actor dropped out. Because John Cho thought it was important to have an Asian man, they had Doug sub in, but because he isn't an actor, it was more of a difficult process for Doug so they scrapped the kiss because of that.

I understand all that. Unfortunately, and I realize this is looking at it in hindsight, if they had had those considerations from the outset (hiring an Asian actor) then this might not have been an issue. Then again, we don't know what race the original actor was, but John Cho's remarks made it seem like it was a change to cast an Asian from the previous casting.

Since it was a "welcome-home kiss," they likely weren't tonguing in the middle of the space port or wherever, so it seems like the thought might be, "It's just a closed-mouth kiss, what is the big deal?" but you still want it to look as intimate and natural as possible -- these men are married! If a non-actor couldn't pull that off, then I think it's better to not have it at all than have a kiss that looks forced and uncomfortable.

 

My point is that there are a lot of factors involved, not just, "We don't want to have two men kiss," but I certainly see how it could have been better.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 25 juillet 2016 - 03:21 .

[Sifr]

I don't care if Iron Man happens to be female or another ethnicity.

 

What bothers me more is that Riri Williams' characterisation - a precocious teen-genius who is capable of MacGyvering impossible tech in her spare time - seems dangerously close to that of Wesley Crusher.

 

It's already far fetched that Tony was able to create a working suit in a cave "from a box of scraps", even using technology that he had either invented or was already familiar with. Having a teenager manage to figure out how to replicate and reverse engineer it seems even more dubious.

 

There's a reason why sometimes in Spiderman continuity, there are versions where Peter Parker doesn't always invent web-fluid and web-shooters by himself. However much of nerd he is, it doesn't seem feasible he could invent this miracle technology and formula at 15?

 

Teen genius characters can work, but they need to rein it in from time to time, as well as give the character clear and acknowledged flaws that ground the character, to avoid making them into a creator's pet.

 

Otherwise... we've got another Wesley in the making.

[vertigomez]

Otherwise... we've got another Wesley in the making.

Who doesn't want more Wesley? (edit: lmao I had no idea how NSFW this still makes the video look. It's only goofy, I promise!)

Spoiler

[Panda]

Yet here we are seeing Marvel phasing out white male characters in favor of minority and female ones.  How long does this go on for til we say "enough is enough, hands off character X".  It's becoming pretty clear that Marvel is intent on pushing these new characters (even if their actual commitment to minority characters is somewhat superficial) and they certainly aren't going to be introducing new white male characters anytime soon.

 

Since most of white male superheroes are still around I don't think this is issue right now, plenty of whiteness still around ^^;

 

I admit the situation is not exactly the same, but it's still recycling, just to various degrees. Gay Iceman was the laziest approach, they just took the character, and said he's been lying to himself, and that he's really gay. Gay Lantern and Sulu take a lot of parts from their straight counterparts, and say they are from alternative realities. Miles gets parts of the old plot, abilities, and the costume design (it's basically a palette swap), and Jane Thor gets her costume and abilities. I know not everyone will be this strict about it, but if they want a minority character, I'd prefer for them to come up with skills/powers, background, and visual design that's more unique to them.

 

Marvel has a problem though in terms that any of characters that have been around more than one or two decade couldn't be at least portrayed as gay due to it being forbidden until 1989 (looked number up) in US. Even in 90s Marvel had policy of LGBT+ being in adult only comics which is not much. So there isn't really way of them of having iconic and popular characters being LGBT+ without saying that they are now gay like in Ice man's case and then making it fit to story and character somehow. Though of course they can just make new LGBT+ characters too which they have done as well.

[Biotic Apostate]

@nightscrawl

There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting an Asian/Asian gay couple. But it doesn't seem a rash decision, so I think it's safe to assume they held some auditions searching for a 30-40 year old Asian man for the part. If their choice resigned, they could have went through that list again. That's one thing - couldn't they have gotten another actor, waited a few days to get that scene?

 

Another thing is that the part went to a screenwriter with absolutely no acting experience. This tells me the role is very small. And they cut the kiss. It was probably awkward, because kissing on demand in front of the cameras is hard to do for someone, who has never done that. And now, for however many movies they've got left in this generation, Sulu will be at most looking at a picture of his husband.

 

In the end, it doesn't matter why this will be yet another gay character, who's not allowed to be affectionate with another man, it just will. If you can edit out a gay character by removing a few seconds from the film, then what was really the point of all this? If this feels so right and is a tribute to Takei, then maybe they shouldn't have half-assed it. (sorry for the tone, but that news really pissed me off, gay ST fans will have to stop blinking, so they don't miss the gay part, and everyone involved will be super busy patting themselves on the shoulder for being so inclusive...)

[Biotic Apostate]

Marvel has a problem though in terms that any of characters that have been around more than one or two decade couldn't be at least portrayed as gay due to it being forbidden until 1989 (looked number up) in US. Even in 90s Marvel had policy of LGBT+ being in adult only comics which is not much. So there isn't really way of them of having iconic and popular characters being LGBT+ without saying that they are now gay like in Ice man's case and then making it fit to story and character somehow. Though of course they can just make new LGBT+ characters too which they have done as well.

I still feel it's super cheap. If they, for example, really had that in mind for Iceman, but couldn't do it, they would not have waited until 2015 to do it. As I've said, not everyone will feel about it as I do, but I really dislike hand-me-downs, no matter how well they'll do it.

[nightscrawl]

@nightscrawl
There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting an Asian/Asian gay couple. But it doesn't seem a rash decision, so I think it's safe to assume they held some auditions searching for a 30-40 year old Asian man for the part. If their choice resigned, they could have went through that list again. That's one thing - couldn't they have gotten another actor, waited a few days to get that scene?

Shooting doesn't work that way. The guy dropped out the day of shooting. If they had to halt production it would have cost a lot of money for various reasons, not only paying people for additional time, but extras that were only needed for that day and so on. I don't know if they can just go through the list of the actors they previously auditioned, called one up, and arranged it for him to be there that day for the shooting. There are contracts, agents have to be involved, and so on. It might not have been feasible. With Doug Jung, he was already there, already under contract, and already being paid. It was the simple, easy, practical solution that saved them money. Unfortunately, the price of that was the kiss. Some (big name) actors have been sued for breach-of-contract for dropping out of shoots because of the problems that it causes the entire production.

 

There are also SAG-AFTRA (actors' union) rules about hiring and all of that. According to IMDb, this is Doug Jung's first film role, so he may not be a member of SAG-AFTRA (which is itself a problem as they don't like the hiring of non-union actors, for obvious reasons).

 

It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

Also, as I said in my post, we don't know the race of the actor that dropped out. John Cho's remarks made it seem, to me, that the original actor was NOT Asian, and that this afforded them the opportunity to recast the character as Asian, per his request for the character for the reasons he stated.

 

In the end, it doesn't matter why this will be yet another gay character, who's not allowed to be affectionate with another man, it just will. If you can edit out a gay character by removing a few seconds from the film, then what was really the point of all this? If this feels so right and is a tribute to Takei, then maybe they shouldn't have half-assed it. (sorry for the tone, but that news really pissed me off, gay ST fans will have to stop blinking, so they don't miss the gay part, and everyone involved will be super busy patting themselves on the shoulder for being so inclusive...)

I agree with the sentiment, but I think that intent matters. They intended to have a m/m kiss between Sulu and his husband, but it just didn't work out. I agree that it is a bummer for several reasons, but I don't think that those reasons, being what they are, have the same weight as purposely cutting a kiss, or refusing to do it, because it was icky or controversial or something.

 

 

[edit]

In the end, I just don't think that this Sulu thing worked out very well at all, which is a shame.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 25 juillet 2016 - 08:16 .

[Biotic Apostate]

I realise that it would have caused delays and cost them money, but we're talking about one of the main characters and his characterisation. Nobody forced them to make Sulu gay. If it was so important to them to even go against Takei's recommendation, then they should put in the effort and money to make it work. I honestly can't imagine something similar happening with a female love interest.

 

Gah, I wasn't even going to see the movie, and I'm still upset. Sure, intent matters, but the end result is the same - gay representation that's a discount version of the straight thing.

[nightscrawl]

^ Yepper, I agree. =/

[SardaukarElite]

I realise that it would have caused delays and cost them money, but we're talking about one of the main characters and his characterisation. Nobody forced them to make Sulu gay. If it was so important to them to even go against Takei's recommendation, then they should put in the effort and money to make it work. I honestly can't imagine something similar happening with a female love interest.

 

It's pretty common for male main characters in military stories to mention unseen women in their lives, and for military stories to provide only fleeting mentions of people outside of the unit the story focuses on in general. 

 

It's unfortunate, for a number of reasons, but I think the idea was always that it would be a minor detail of a supporting character in a big film. 

[nightscrawl]

^ Well the point is that if it was going to be that minor they shouldn't have made a big deal out of it in the first place. No announcement, no press interviews, etc. Just have this happen and the audience can either accept it, or not. Then after the film is released they can do interviews and explain their reasoning. I happen to prefer that creators let a work stand on its own, but that rarely happens.

 

In those same military action flicks, it would be SO EASY for some guy to take out a picture of another guy and look at it fondly, just like they do with women. But that doesn't happen in film, even though we know it happens in real life.

 

Heterosexual stuff is everywhere, in many subtle ways. The picture thing I mentioned previously, calendar girls on the wall in a barracks, a casual reference to wanting to go home (back to the US) and have "some p****." All of those things make a difference and contribute to the the overall appearance that straight is the standard norm and homosexuality is non-existent.

 

That is why it's a problem and it is pervasive in entertainment, which is absolutely absurd in 1016... er wait, 2016.

 

 

[edit]

I'll give one example of homosexuality that has nothing to do with the story and is just there. In the 2011 film version of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, when the heavy stuff starts happening, one of the guys is warned that he should take care of whatever he needs to take care of. The unsaid implication is to ensure that no one can use anything against him. At this point in the film, we have no idea what that might refer to.

 

Later, the audience can only watch as the following scene happens, we are as a voyeur looking through a window; there is no audible dialogue. We see a scene where the guy goes home to his boyfriend and then obviously breaks up with him. The boyfriend is upset and leaves, after which our guy just sits and cries. That's it. No mention is made of anything and nothing is ever said. It's a pretty powerful scene, and IMO really underscores what it means for this particular character to be doing what he's doing as part of British intelligence.

 

Now, I've been told by someone who has read the novels that this character is not gay in the novels; they changed that for the film. But it's a small change that doesn't alter anything in the overall plot or change anything about the character; he still does his work with our main protagonist.

 

Obviously, it was more dangerous to be a homosexual in the UK at that time, and I believe "buggery" was still illegal. But that scene could also have played out with a woman since a relationship, ANY relationship, is a weak point for any person and leaves them open to manipulation. They didn't have to change the character from the novel to make him gay, and as I said, it means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but they did it anyway because they could.

 

(It's an excellent film btw, one of my faves, and I've seen it several times.)

Modifié par nightscrawl, 25 juillet 2016 - 03:06 .

[Steelcan]

In those same military action flicks, it would be SO EASY for some guy to take out a picture of another guy and look at it fondly, just like they do with women. But that doesn't happen in film, even though we know it happens in real life.

 

Heterosexual stuff is everywhere, in many subtle ways. The picture thing I mentioned previously, calendar girls on the wall in a barracks, a casual reference to wanting to go home (back to the US) and have "some p****." All of those things make a difference and contribute to the the overall appearance that straight is the standard norm and homosexuality is non-existent.

 

That is why it's a problem and it is pervasive in entertainment, which is absolutely absurd in 1016... er wait, 2016.

You're not seriously suggesting that there's no pressures around being gay in the military are you?  Yes gay troops can now serve openly, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but the military as an institution is hardly going to be undergoing rapid changes in their outlook on sexuality and become a more open and inclusive group. 

 

There's still a ton of pressure on troops to be "normal" masculine coming from other troops, traditions, and even superiors. 

 

I also think there's a vast difference between treating heterosexuality as the norm and saying homosexuality doesn't exist, but that's as far as I'm going to go on that line of reasoning for now.

[Steelcan]

Also apparently the scene with Sulu being gay is in a montage at the end with everyone going home, and he goes home to his boyfriend or something.

 

So yeah

[United Servo Academy Choir]

I got my GTX 1070!

 

But...

 

I had an absolute bastard of a time trying to get this goddamn thing to seat in my case - which is annoying, because while this card is monstrous, my case (a Haf X) is ludicrously huge. The screws just wouldn't line up.

 

I ended up having to seat it in the secondary PCI E slot, but doing so causes the case fan on that side to scrunch up against the power cables and I can't put the bottom case screw in because if I do that, it pushes against the power cables, which in turn pushes the card into the mobo. Whatever cable management wizardry that might fix this is beyond me at this hour. But it works.

[nightscrawl]

You're not seriously suggesting that there's no pressures around being gay in the military are you?  Yes gay troops can now serve openly, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but the military as an institution is hardly going to be undergoing rapid changes in their outlook on sexuality and become a more open and inclusive group. 
 
There's still a ton of pressure on troops to be "normal" masculine coming from other troops, traditions, and even superiors. 
 
I also think there's a vast difference between treating heterosexuality as the norm and saying homosexuality doesn't exist, but that's as far as I'm going to go on that line of reasoning for now.

 
No, I wasn't suggesting that. We all know and understand the bro atmosphere that is present in the military and team sports. Given the high rate of sexual assault and the lack of institution-wide willpower to DO anything about it, as a woman, I'm pretty conscious of that bro atmosphere.
 
But film is about fantasy. Star Trek in particular is, and has ALWAYS been, about presenting an utopian ideal of the future, even if the real-life constraints of the time have necessarily restricted the creators from fully portraying that with things like sexuality or even interracial relationships (the Uhura/Kirk "kiss" was a big deal at the time, even if it wouldn't have been in-universe).

As I understand it, George Takei even went to Gene Roddenberry at one point during Star Trek's original run and asked him about showing a gay relationship. Gene's response was basically, "That would be a great thing to show for the future I want to portray, but I'm struggling keeping the show on the air as it is, we just can't have that." Star Trek only got a third season after a huge campaign from fans allowed it to continue, but never got a fourth.

Star Trek has always struggled in showing representations of same-sex relationships, and there are less than a handful, which is absolutely shameful for a franchise that is 50 years old.

 

People are already doing unrealistic things in these movies, and they make military life seem a lot more glamorous, and the killing seem a lot more clean than it is in real life. Why not extend that to sexuality as well? Why does the realism have to kick in at that point?
 
It's like the arguments about sexuality in Dragon Age. The series is called "Dragon Age," ffs, there are dragons, and also magic, and demons, and all sorts of weird crap, but people draw the line at having wide acceptance of various sexualties, or of even several of our party members representing those minority groups. That is absurd.

 

Also apparently the scene with Sulu being gay is in a montage at the end with everyone going home, and he goes home to his boyfriend or something.
 
So yeah

 
Ugh... it just gets worse and worse.
 
It's his husband, btw, and they have a daughter together. His daughter was already established in previous canon (Star Trek: Generations movie), with the great line by Kirk, "The enterprise always needs a Sulu at the helm," so it's pretty awesome they included her as well.
 
The beginning of the film takes place as the crew is going aboard a space station or something for shore leave, so I thought we might have gotten a scene following along with the goings on of everyone, which would necessarily include Sulu greeting his family. But I guess not...

[SardaukarElite]

^ Well the point is that if it was going to be that minor they shouldn't have made a big deal out of it in the first place.

 

Hang on, that's not the point I'm arguing.

 

My point was that I think the treatment of Sulu's homosexual relationship in film (and its priority in production) is the same as any hypothetical similar heterosexual relationship, from what I know of it. 

 

Yes, I absolutely think the makers have shot themselves in the foot by talking about it before release and I also think it's ridiculous that in 2016 this is the (only) example of a romantic relationship between two men in a mainstream film we have to discuss.

 

---

 

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is sublime and one of my favourite films.