Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 19:11:15 GMT
I'd be cool with it. I find it funny that people still think movies featuring minorities, women or gay people is some earth shattering thing. If people exist in real life why shouldn't they be featured in movies?
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Dec 7, 2018 19:29:52 GMT
As long as they do better than how Star trek 3 did this go for it I don't understand why the way it was portrayed in Star Trek Beyond bothered people. If they showed him with a female and child in the same way I would see it in the same light. I also would just take it as the makers wanting to show you the stakes. Families were on board the station. That makes Kralls treachery worse. We find out later he knows who is on the station he wants to liquefy everybody in. I would take it as one of the main crew's family is proxy for the importance of the other families on the station. It was done off handily. It's not the first time we were introduced to Sulu's family. His daughter was in Generations with the original Cast and was kind of shoehorned in. I don't think I heard a peep about her when Generations came out. At best you can say her inclusion echoed the theme of time being a thief, but her inclusion felt forced to me. At best in Beyond you can take the shoehorning of that relationship reveal as hammering home not just Federation Officers was on the station but Families.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 7, 2018 19:43:44 GMT
*shrugs* Hope it’s good.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 7, 2018 19:57:11 GMT
Do we know how many relationships Falcon has been in the past? Do we know if Warmachine has kids? Do we know what Shuri's favorite color is? Do we know if Loki is still a virgin? All of these would be facts regarding the characters yet none of them were addressed in the movies. Why? Because they weren't essential to the plot. It's the same with sexuality. We don't need to address the character's sexuality unless it serves the plot. And this is not just limited to LGBTQ, this is for straight characters as well. Let me address your point that I don't want extra pressure to be on LGBTQ characters only, I want the pressure to be on any character. Their sexuality should be addressed only if it's part of the plot, regardless of what that orientation is. You don't want a straight character just saying "Hey, I'm straight" out of nowhere. If they're going to show that a character is heterosexual then at least make sure it's part of the plot... Otherwise just don't address their sexuality at all. This is the reason why we don't know the sexual orientation of characters like Bucky, Falcon, Valkyrie, Shuri, M'Baku, Loki, Warmachine, etc. Their sexual orientatiom was never addressed because it was not necessary for the plot. Assuming they're straight would be incorrect. So the MCU has actually handled this pretty smartly in the past... I hope they continue with it. I get what you are saying but fleshing out a character doesn't always serve the plot. There should be a happy medium. We know Falcon is at least interested in women because he tells cap to come by the VA to impress the girl at the front desk. Now I know that serves the plot so Cap can go to the VA later. Also in the Winter Soldier you have the on going conversation of Widow trying to get Cap on a date. This doesn't specifically move the plot. It's banter between two colleagues. To me it would hold no more like or disdain if Widow threw in a few male names and Cap show slight interest, but ultimately turned Widow down. (Like he did throughout the movie with the females) Fleshing out a character always serves the overall story/plot, so that's important. But there's a big difference between saying facts about a character because you're really intent on fleshing out the character and simply making statements for agenda purposes and hiding it behind "fleshing out a character". Being part of the plot is not the same thing as being necessary to the plot, so I'll make that concession. I'm not asking relationships and sexual orientation to be necessary to the plot, I'm simply asking that they're part of the plot. That they fit into the overall story. That they don't simply come out of nowhere in order to tick a diversity checkbox. Adding sexual information about a character to flesh out their character is good. Adding sexual information about a character simply to make a statement is bad. BW's banter with Cap about dating actually fits in with the plot... since we assume that Cap was a virgin when he went into the ice and hasn't seem to have dated since coming back out... so this banter fits in with the story. And that's all I'm asking, that if they tackle the issue to make sure it flows with the story. It doesn't need to be an essential piece of the plot as long as it fits the plot. Am I making sense? And like I said, I'm not limiting this simply to LGBTQ characters. Had Thor engaged Loki in a discussion about how many women he's slept with and the conversation not had any relation to the story or plot that was happening, I would have been just as irritated. As an example: Hogarth (from DD and JJ) engaging in romantic relationships with women and making it part of the story? Awesome! Mr. Terrific (from Arrow) repeatedly mentioning that he's gay during random conversations? Irritating.
|
|
|
Post by thenewnexus on Dec 7, 2018 20:06:37 GMT
As long as they do better than how Star trek 3 did this go for it I don't understand why the way it was portrayed in Star Trek Beyond bothered people. If they showed him with a female and child in the same way I would see it in the same light. I also would just take it as the makers wanting to show you the stakes. Families were on board the station. That makes Kralls treachery worse. We find out later he knows who is on the station he wants to liquefy everybody in. I would take it as one of the main crew's family is proxy for the importance of the other families on the station. It was done off handily. It's not the first time we were introduced to Sulu's family. His daughter was in Generations with the original Cast and was kind of shoehorned in. I don't think I heard a peep about her when Generations came out. At best you can say her inclusion echoed the theme of time being a thief, but her inclusion felt forced to me. At best in Beyond you can take the shoehorning of that relationship reveal as hammering home not just Federation Officers was on the station but Families. People were upset 1. Sulu is the only Asian character,they picked him to be gay,It was simon pegs choice funny how he didn't make scotty gay since he wanted a gay character 2. Just cause George Takei is gay in real life doesn't mean his character has to be,he felt offended
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Dec 7, 2018 20:13:24 GMT
I'd be cool with it. I find it funny that people still think movies featuring minorities, women or gay people is some earth shattering thing. If people exist in real life why shouldn't they be featured in movies? BUT SUPER PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST IN REAL LIFE !!!!!!!!!!!!!4
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Dec 7, 2018 20:51:16 GMT
I get what you are saying but fleshing out a character doesn't always serve the plot. There should be a happy medium. We know Falcon is at least interested in women because he tells cap to come by the VA to impress the girl at the front desk. Now I know that serves the plot so Cap can go to the VA later. Also in the Winter Soldier you have the on going conversation of Widow trying to get Cap on a date. This doesn't specifically move the plot. It's banter between two colleagues. To me it would hold no more like or disdain if Widow threw in a few male names and Cap show slight interest, but ultimately turned Widow down. (Like he did throughout the movie with the females) Fleshing out a character always serves the overall story/plot, so that's important. But there's a big difference between saying facts about a character because you're really intent on fleshing out the character and simply making statements for agenda purposes and hiding it behind "fleshing out a character". Being part of the plot is not the same thing as being necessary to the plot, so I'll make that concession. I'm not asking relationships and sexual orientation to be necessary to the plot, I'm simply asking that they're part of the plot. That they fit into the overall story. That they don't simply come out of nowhere in order to tick a diversity checkbox. Adding sexual information about a character to flesh out their character is good. Adding sexual information about a character simply to make a statement is bad. BW's banter with Cap about dating actually fits in with the plot... since we assume that Cap was a virgin when he went into the ice and hasn't seem to have dated since coming back out... so this banter fits in with the story. And that's all I'm asking, that if they tackle the issue to make sure it flows with the story. It doesn't need to be an essential piece of the plot as long as it fits the plot. Am I making sense? And like I said, I'm not limiting this simply to LGBTQ characters. Had Thor engaged Loki in a discussion about how many women he's slept with and the conversation not had any relation to the story or plot that was happening, I would have been just as irritated. As an example: Hogarth (from DD and JJ) engaging in romantic relationships with women and making it part of the story? Awesome! Mr. Terrific (from Arrow) repeatedly mentioning that he's gay during random conversations? Irritating. Ah ok. I think we were just off on the nuance factor. I like how Captain Cold's sexuality was handled. Not a big deal. I stopped watching Arrow before Mr. Terrific became a thing. I believe his normal character was introduced in the last one I watched before he became Mr. Terrific. I still watch Flash, but Arrow got tedious.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Dec 7, 2018 20:54:07 GMT
I don't understand why the way it was portrayed in Star Trek Beyond bothered people. If they showed him with a female and child in the same way I would see it in the same light. I also would just take it as the makers wanting to show you the stakes. Families were on board the station. That makes Kralls treachery worse. We find out later he knows who is on the station he wants to liquefy everybody in. I would take it as one of the main crew's family is proxy for the importance of the other families on the station. It was done off handily. It's not the first time we were introduced to Sulu's family. His daughter was in Generations with the original Cast and was kind of shoehorned in. I don't think I heard a peep about her when Generations came out. At best you can say her inclusion echoed the theme of time being a thief, but her inclusion felt forced to me. At best in Beyond you can take the shoehorning of that relationship reveal as hammering home not just Federation Officers was on the station but Families. People were upset 1. Sulu is the only Asian character,they picked him to be gay,It was simon pegs choice funny how he didn't make scotty gay since he wanted a gay character 2. Just cause George Takei is gay in real life doesn't mean his character has to be,he felt offended I got that George was upset because it went against Gene Roddenberry's vision for the character. That's more of an objection to the idea completely. I guess what I meant by portray/handle it was more of the execution not the idea itself.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Dec 7, 2018 20:54:53 GMT
Fleshing out a character always serves the overall story/plot, so that's important. But there's a big difference between saying facts about a character because you're really intent on fleshing out the character and simply making statements for agenda purposes and hiding it behind "fleshing out a character". Being part of the plot is not the same thing as being necessary to the plot, so I'll make that concession. I'm not asking relationships and sexual orientation to be necessary to the plot, I'm simply asking that they're part of the plot. That they fit into the overall story. That they don't simply come out of nowhere in order to tick a diversity checkbox. Adding sexual information about a character to flesh out their character is good. Adding sexual information about a character simply to make a statement is bad. BW's banter with Cap about dating actually fits in with the plot... since we assume that Cap was a virgin when he went into the ice and hasn't seem to have dated since coming back out... so this banter fits in with the story. And that's all I'm asking, that if they tackle the issue to make sure it flows with the story. It doesn't need to be an essential piece of the plot as long as it fits the plot. Am I making sense? And like I said, I'm not limiting this simply to LGBTQ characters. Had Thor engaged Loki in a discussion about how many women he's slept with and the conversation not had any relation to the story or plot that was happening, I would have been just as irritated. As an example: Hogarth (from DD and JJ) engaging in romantic relationships with women and making it part of the story? Awesome! Mr. Terrific (from Arrow) repeatedly mentioning that he's gay during random conversations? Irritating. Ah ok. I think we were just off on the nuance factor. I like how Captain Cold's sexuality was handled. Not a big deal. I stopped watching Arrow before Mr. Terrific became a thing. I believe his normal character was introduced in the last one I watched before he became Mr. Terrific. I still watch Flash, but Arrow got tedious. Oh I liked Captain Cold's handling. Low key but part of his character. No spotlight shone on his orientation. That's how it should be done IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 20:59:39 GMT
I'd be cool with it. I find it funny that people still think movies featuring minorities, women or gay people is some earth shattering thing. If people exist in real life why shouldn't they be featured in movies? BUT SUPER PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST IN REAL LIFE !!!!!!!!!!!!!4 YES WE DO!!!!!!!&!@!&!@&!@!&!@&1
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Dec 7, 2018 21:07:13 GMT
As long as they do better than how Star trek 3 did this go for it I don't understand why the way it was portrayed in Star Trek Beyond bothered people. If they showed him with a female and child in the same way I would see it in the same light. I also would just take it as the makers wanting to show you the stakes. Families were on board the station. That makes Kralls treachery worse. We find out later he knows who is on the station he wants to liquefy everybody in. I would take it as one of the main crew's family is proxy for the importance of the other families on the station. It was done off handily. It's not the first time we were introduced to Sulu's family. His daughter was in Generations with the original Cast and was kind of shoehorned in. I don't think I heard a peep about her when Generations came out. At best you can say her inclusion echoed the theme of time being a thief, but her inclusion felt forced to me. At best in Beyond you can take the shoehorning of that relationship reveal as hammering home not just Federation Officers was on the station but Families. Surprisingly it bothered me for one reason... the new Star Trek isn’t technically a reboot. It’s a new timeline but it’s still supposed to be the same characters from the original series. Spock going back in time changed everything so that implies that Sulu’s sexual orientation happened because of a series of events instead of him being born that way.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Dec 7, 2018 21:33:17 GMT
I don't understand why the way it was portrayed in Star Trek Beyond bothered people. If they showed him with a female and child in the same way I would see it in the same light. I also would just take it as the makers wanting to show you the stakes. Families were on board the station. That makes Kralls treachery worse. We find out later he knows who is on the station he wants to liquefy everybody in. I would take it as one of the main crew's family is proxy for the importance of the other families on the station. It was done off handily. It's not the first time we were introduced to Sulu's family. His daughter was in Generations with the original Cast and was kind of shoehorned in. I don't think I heard a peep about her when Generations came out. At best you can say her inclusion echoed the theme of time being a thief, but her inclusion felt forced to me. At best in Beyond you can take the shoehorning of that relationship reveal as hammering home not just Federation Officers was on the station but Families. Surprisingly it bothered me for one reason... the new Star Trek isn’t technically a reboot. It’s a new timeline but it’s still supposed to be the same characters from the original series. Spock going back in time changed everything so that implies that Sulu’s sexual orientation happened because of a series of events instead of him being born that way. I brought this up after a D&D night with friends. The best rationale we came up with was The Butterfly Effect. The first time incursion happened when Kirk was being born. This could set off a chain of events on the quantum level. Sexual Orientation is either in part or fully genetic. The ripple effect of particles, gravitational waves, etc of that massive scale could've changed which egg was released by Sulu's Mom's ovary or killed the lead sperm that won the race to the egg in the previous timeline. We are bombarded daily with radiation, most is absorbed by the atmosphere but not all. That was the best we got.
|
|
havenless
Sophomore
@havenless
Posts: 717
Likes: 312
|
Post by havenless on Dec 7, 2018 21:52:55 GMT
It doesn’t really matter one way or the other. A lot of the “be inclusive” stuff isn’t actually looking for inclusion, but technicalities. “There’s a Mexican dude back in the corner in that one shot at 45 minutes and 38 seconds, we’re being represented!”
When the LGBT character leads the film and the plot is about specifically being gender/orientation fluid, then it doesn’t really matter anyway. And that isn’t going to happen in a 200m$ Movie anytime soon.
Remember “Black Panther, first black superhero”? What about Rhodey? “He doesn’t count, he was just a background guy. Main character!” What about Blade? “He doesn’t count, not mainstream enough, no one saw it!” What about Halle Berry Catwiman? “You can’t even compare them!” It’ll just be the same as that.
|
|
|
Post by thenewnexus on Dec 7, 2018 21:56:43 GMT
BUT SUPER PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST IN REAL LIFE !!!!!!!!!!!!!4 YES WE DO!!!!!!!&!@!&!@&!@!&!@&1Did u become a force user in the afterlife?
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Dec 7, 2018 21:59:40 GMT
Surprisingly it bothered me for one reason... the new Star Trek isn’t technically a reboot. It’s a new timeline but it’s still supposed to be the same characters from the original series. Spock going back in time changed everything so that implies that Sulu’s sexual orientation happened because of a series of events instead of him being born that way. I brought this up after a D&D night with friends. The best rationale we came up with was The Butterfly Effect. The first time incursion happened when Kirk was being born. This could set off a chain of events on the quantum level. Sexual Orientation is either in part or fully genetic. The ripple effect of particles, gravitational waves, etc of that massive scale could've changed which egg was released by Sulu's Mom's ovary or killed the lead sperm that won the race to the egg in the previous timeline. We are bombarded daily with radiation, most is absorbed by the atmosphere but not all. That was the best we got. That’s definitely the best response I’ve heard in regards to that. Sulu’s parents could’ve banged one out like six minutes later than the previous timeline and had a different Sulu. But that would also mean that this Sulu isn’t even the same guy, which would kind of suck.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 8, 2018 2:00:04 GMT
The only term dumber than 'social justice warrior' is 'virtue signaling.' Conservatives simply cannot understand why someone would have an opinion on a social topic that does not agree with their own, therefore anyone who speaks on said topic or depicts it as part of everyday life (which it is) is a 'social justice warrior' who must be 'virtue signaling' for attention. It's a ridiculous mindset. “Social Justice Warrior” is a term that was originally created by liberals to describe themselves (which is pretty funny, right off the bat) ... as they embarked on a righteous crusade to rid the world of “unfairness”. It only became a derogatory term after enough people caught wind of their antics and started ridiculing them. “Virtue Signaling” use to be predominant among those insufferable religious types who thought that they were uniquely qualified to tell us how to live our lives. That role has largely been taken over by liberals these days, who feel it is their prerogative to tell everyone how to think, speak, eat, drink, shit, fuck, etc. The reason that virtue signaling has become a derogatory term is because in both instances the self-proclaimed stalwarts of virtue are often full of crap ... from the pious pinhead who preaches against infidelity and gets caught with a hooker, to the global warming alarmist who bemoans our carbon footprints yet jets all over the world on expensive vacations. SJWs and virtue signalers are real, they think they are better than everyone else, they are blind to their own hypocrisy, and they deserve our scorn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2018 2:58:28 GMT
YES WE DO!!!!!!!&!@!&!@&!@!&!@&1 Did u become a force user in the afterlife? I have become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Dec 8, 2018 3:20:21 GMT
Did u become a force user in the afterlife? I have become more powerful than you can possibly imagine! Something I've always wanted to know. When Mon Calamari are frightened do they squirt ink as a left over evolutionary defense mechanism?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2018 18:41:02 GMT
I have become more powerful than you can possibly imagine! Something I've always wanted to know. When Mon Calamari are frightened do they squirt ink as a left over evolutionary defense mechanism? YES!
|
|