Star Trek Beyond (7/22/16)

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by monster

What are those things that's attacking the ship? They remind me of the ELS from Gundam 00 movie.

[Ithekro]

Either lot and lots of heavily shielded/armored drones or mass incersion pods for boarding the ship.

Because this version of the Enterprise is so huge these little craft are not as tiny as we would normally think.

But it looks like Enterprise will be destroyed (again) unless there is a twist we aren't seeing. The Enterprise going down tends to hurt a vit if you consider her to be part of the cast. Though there will be many people happy to be rid of this particular version of the ship.

Though this might be to clear the way for the CBS series in 2017. Though there is the option for a fourth New Star Trek film, at least with Chris Pine.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Though this might be to clear the way for the CBS series in 2017.

How? I thought the 2017 series would share continuity with the previous TV series and their related movies and not with this latest movie trilogy.

[Psyco Diver]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

.. is that the NX-01?

Thats what I'm thinking also

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by monster

How? I thought the 2017 series would share continuity with the previous TV series and their related movies and not with this latest movie trilogy.

I've not heard much about timelines and such for this yet. Only that the teaser has a similar style to the newer films ending credits.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I've not heard much about timelines and such for this yet. Only that the teaser has a similar style to the newer films ending credits.

The CBS announcement for the new TV series stated in the last paragraph that it is not related to Star Trek Beyond.

I take that to mean that they won't be in the same continuity, or even if they are in the same continuity, events in one should have no direct impact on the other.

[monster]

HP Enterprise worked on three conceptual technologies for Star Trek Beyond.

There's also an ad about something called The Machine, which is apparently what those three conceptual technologies are based on:

[YF19EX]

Very sad news today.
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/star-tr...181121087.html

[Ithekro]

Wow. That is sad, and so young.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Man, that is so sad. I can tell from his performances that I've seen that this guy has some real acting talent. Too bad this young talented lad left us before doing a truly great role worthy of his true potential like Ledger's The Joker (or is it just me being ignorant of his roles? I'm not sure).

[KiraYamatoFan]

Really sad news.

Honestly, I always enjoyed the way he gave life to his characters. When I think about Pavel Chekov from the Star Trek reboot or about the Clumsy Smurf, it won't be quite the same without him.

[MrTerrorist]

Well this is awkward.

Sulu in the new movie will be revealed to be gay as a tribute to Sulu's original actor, George Takei, who in real life is gay and a LGBT rights activist.
Except one person is against the change and it's Takei himself as he feels it's twisting Gene Roddenberry's vision of the character and his concerns to not change Sulu's sexuality and instead create an original character whose gay was ignored by both the director and screenwriter Simon Pegg.
But Simon respectfully disagree with Takei views and gives some good views on why he made Sulu gay.

[monster]

In my opinion, if the new Sulu and the old Sulu are meant to be different characters from the start, then Roddenberry's vision of the character should merely serve as an optional template to work with. In that case, new interpretations of the character are bound to be more free in what changes they make. But if they are supposed to be the same character, at least at the beginning, then Roddenberry's vision should hold more weight and there should be a clear line between what should and what should not be changed.

As far as the act of revealing established characters to be homosexuals, the only thing I don't like to see is the situation where a character who has had sexual attraction to the opposite sex becoming a homosexual in the same continuity with presumably no chance of ever becoming attracted to the opposite sex again. (Supposedly that's what happened with the character of Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.) If they insist on turning that kind of character into an LGBT character, they should at least choose bisexual in that case.

[Rising Dragon]

Simon Pegg basically claims that making a new gay character for Star Trek would be tokenism... even though randomly changing the sexuality of an existing character is also tokenism. "Diversity" or not there was no real justifiable reason to change the sexuality of the character, and frankly if you look at Marvel Comics (which is doing the same kind of thing with its trademark characters) this is not a wise move. Takei sees that and he has every right to be angry about it.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

After reading Pegg's and other casts' comments on Takei's reaction, I'm just gonna quote someone's comment about this debacle as I happen to mostly agree with it:

Originally Posted by a commenter on Screenrant

...if the SOLE purpose (let’s be honest, it isn’t the sole purpose) that they made Sulu gay was to pay tribute to someone, and that someone feels disrespected, then there is absolutely nothing more to say about that. It’s not a tribute — not anymore.

Here’s an alternate scenario: they make Sulu gay to pay tribute to Star Trek’s vision of inclusiveness. Then Takei’s statements would not mean much.

As it stands, if the person you are honoring, himself turns around and thinks that it was discourteous, no one ELSE has the right to turn around and say “No, f*ck you, you WILL accept this tribute and you WILL feel honored."

[DerGilga]

To be fair, how it will be handled in the movie and social/news media's reaction to it are two different things. If they show in a natural way how tolerant the StarTrek future is, I will be happy. If they use it to make some kind of sjw nonsense.....
Here a funny clip to show what I mean and watch it until the end to understand what I mean by natural.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/e3h6es6zh1c

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Rising Dragon]

There's still no reason for it. Why does Sulu's sexuality matter? It doesn't. It's just a change to appease people who probably wouldn't watch the movie anyway, much like many of the changes in Marvel Comics are to appease people who won't read the comics anyway. It's a stupid move and Takei and everyone else knows it.

[DerGilga]

Originally Posted by Rising Dragon

Why does Sulu's sexuality matter? It doesn't.

Yup, it doesn't. The 'reveal' could be nothing more than Sulu saying that he hopes to be on earth soon to visit his boyfriends birthday. Or it could be some sjw nonsense.....
But without seeing said 'reveal' there is no way of knowing.

[Archon_Wing]

Fuck tokenism. It's condescending as shit to be like "hey, we have someone as a gay person. We're tolerant, that's why we're pointing it out." If this is supposedly a Takei reference, then yes, I'd think it's insulting and if he does, then yes more so. Earnest representation is what we need. We should celebrate people for being like, I dunno, being people.

This isn't new to Star Trek either. It's had a history of pretending to be tolerant by casting someone different... and drawing attention to it on being diverse. Anyone remember Chakotay aka Mr. Tree from Voyager? Yah, he's a Native American, and let's make sure everyone knows he is by smashing all the stereotypes about them and putting him there which wouldn't be bad if he had no personality and made a mockery of it. No wonder why the actor didn't give a shit.

Did you know they also wanted to make Geordi from TNG gay, just because. Blind, black, and gay! Social Justice Trifecta! We're tolerant! Of course, the series spent no end mocking him for it including a pointless fucking scene where an alien takes away his visor and mocks his blindness.

Or what about Janeway? It was sort of nice and edgy to have a female Captain, except when the show would tell you "Yes, she's a woman, and she's certainly right"

What about Harry Kim? The servile, forever ensign, emasculated Asian? I have to apologize to Okada, since not even her worst male characters would get that kind of treatment.

It's funny there's so many alien races that are written into boxes, but they seem to love to do that with humans being sterotypes.

I mean fuck, Trek's not always like that. Ds9 was a good example of not using all these shitty sterotypes. Yea, Captain Sisko was black, and the first Black captain that was a lead, but that was never an issue. They did bring up a lot of his family history, but that's because he was a person, not because he's here to satisfy your literary affirmative action. Can you imagine if he walked around wearing flashing jewelry while wearing a "ancient" Earth basketball jersey? Well, that wouldn't even be half as insulting as some of the shit I've described above.

Fuck your pseudo attempts of Social Justice. Fuck your contrivances. Fuck your couch. Find something else to screw up.

Alright, Archon out. Sorry about that.

[quigonkenny]

I believe Harry Kim actually did end up getting with Seven of Nine, if I remember correctly, so there's that. Voyager was so long ago and so forgettable that I can't remember for sure.

Sisko was definitely the best of the next gen captains. Such a subtle badass. And yes, a complete person of a character. Part because Avery Brooks is a hell of an actor, but also because DS9 had the best writing.