When Will We See the First Trailers for Star Trek: Beyond?

You could just put him on ignore rather than get into long discussions with him about his fucked up viewpoints. Or just cut and paste his idiotic posts into the Greatest Hits thread and we can argue with him there. That way the media central threads don't get derailed.

Why would I put him on ignore?

@Dayton3 is one of the main reasons I still come here. For however much I disagree with him, he's interesting. In comparison most of the rest of you are boring as fuck.


Sorry.

In the same way as car wrecks are more interesting than smoothly flowing traffic.

That's all fine and good, but keep it the hell out of Media Central. Train wrecks belong in the Red Room. Got it Chup, got it Dayton?

QFT.

Thank you!

nuSulu revealed to be gay. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-gets-first-lgbtq-909032

About bloody time.

I may not be a big fan of JJ Trek, but a gay character in any Trek medium has long been overdue.

I can't wait to enjoy @Dayton3's inevitable tears over this.

Have to wonder, though - is he only gay because the actor who originally played him is gay?

The choice of character is obviously a nod, but so what?

Hah, Star Trek:New Voyages had them beat by several years by having a story written by David Gerrold which had Kirk's nephew be gay and serving aboard the Enterprise with his lover.

Still, like Chup said, it's about time.

Regardless of the gay angle, will the relationship add anything to the character, or will it just be needlessly tacked on like that between Spock and Uhurha?

Does it need to "add something"?

GEORGE TAKEI IS GAY?!?!?!?

Sulu's father has never been shown in canonuity. Maybe he showed up in the tie-in media? Anyway, cutting to the chase, George Takei could've played, maybe still play(?), Sulu's father in AbramsTrek!

Yeah, because otherwise what's the point in putting it in the movie? It's like having something blow up for no other reason than "it looks cool."

Jesus, really?

Will the next one be about traveling back in time to rescue some dolphins?

That was a pretty good episode. IIRC Denise Crosby guest starred as a Federation scientist.

Well, I don't known how it's going to be addressed yet...but I hope that it's just matter of fact.

Listen, my best friend is gay...and her relationship with me doesn't involve me worrying about her being gay. She's just a run of of the mill person who happens to be gay...it's exactly the same with my minority friends, be them also gay or black or Japanese or middle eastern. Same approach for my clients. They are just people to me, and that's why London is the greatest city in the world. There are no judgments here (which is why @Dan Leach you should be embarrassed for your constant derision of my home).

Point is, why do we need a massive plot point it to address it? If Sulu is gay, so fucking what. Do we still need, after 50 years, to explore why Uhura is black??

I expected better from you @Tuckerfan to be honest.

So Homosexuals to you are disgusting sinners, but you enjoyed a fan episode in defence of such people??

I don't remember the episode being "in defence" of homosexuals. IIRC it was about the Rigellian Blood Worms or some other deadly infection that Gerrold had originally featured in a story treatment for The Next Generation.

Peter Kirk and his boyfriend were simply along for the story.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are the definition of dumbest idiot on trek fandom's planet. Blood Worm was a rejected script from TNG's first season because it dealt with the supposed "gay plague " of the time. AIDS in other words. Need I point out that Gerrold himself is gay?!

Maybe this new nuTrek flick could've been a shoehorned crossover:

What's the point of having him be Asian? This is a basic premise in Star Trek, that all sentient beings are known most by what they contribute to the mission. Thus we should expect a much greater level of diversity, without need to remark on it.

As for how it's done, looks like it will just be put out there as something about Sulu without being a major story element.

Exactly right, there is no big deal to make, it's just part of who he is. Very much in the spirit of how Star Trek views minorities.

Warned for flaming.

Ha ha, that's weak sauce...but we've been holding onto that grudge for ages...just on off chance. Right?

*waits for neg*

Are you saying it wasn't a flame? Look, we've had a significant level of complaints about the Chup and Dayton show ruining Media Central. Staff agreed to take a firmer line. The friendlies haven't worked, and you guys keep flinging the shit. So now we have to take firmer measures, but go ahead and delude yourself in to thinking it has anything to do with some grudge I supposedly have toward you. I don't have the first clue what you're talking about, by the way, but flaming and trolling in Media Central is not going to be tolerated. Figure it out, or stick to the Red Room.

Que? In general, the romantic interests of most characters in Trek are inconsequential to the product. I, and others (including some who like nuTrek), didn't see the point to the relationship between Spock and Uhura, because it didn't really bring anything to the characters. That's not to say it couldn't bring something to the characters, just that what we saw onscreen added nothing.

If, as has been described, its a low-key thing, mentioned only in passing, I'm fine with that, for a couple reasons. One is that it indicates its something nobody really thinks about it as being "unusual" in the 23rd Century, the other is that its not going to be wasting time on an uninteresting, to me, plot element that potentially adds nothing to the story. I found much of the "romantic" recovery scenes in Casino Royale to be boring and tedious. They could have cut much of them, I felt, and not harmed the movie at all. You are free to disagree with me. (The shower scene where Bond comforts Vesper after they kill the guy in the stairwell, however, absolutely added to the story, because it showed that Bond genuinely cared for Vesper.)

A good reveal that Sulu's gay, I think, would be if they had him leaving his cabin/apartment to go on a risky mission and he gives his partner a quick kiss before heading out.

I'm not saying that it can't be done well, I'm just saying I'm not sure it needs to be done. After all, does it change our impression of the character of Chekov if we know who he's dating? I don't see how it makes one whit of difference. It could, of course, but that all depends upon the skills of the writers.

Funny, though, that you take issue with my comments on this, when you're the one who complains that Ledger's Joker wasn't true to the source material. One could argue that Sulu was heterosexual in TOS (his passes at Uhura in one episode and his daughter appearing in one of the movies), but neither of those are really conclusive as to his orientation, he could basically be described as being "asexual" as could Chekov, so for this film to conclusively say that Sulu's gay violates the source material.

I want to see them fucking on the bridge.


Then again, that's why they don't let me write for the Star Trek franchise.

And I want to see the pictures of Kim Cattrall on the bridge wearing nothing but her Vulcan ears. But I know I never will, even though that actually happened.