Star Trek Beyond

From what I understand, altering Sulu was supposed to be a homage to George Takei himself (though the man himself disagreed with it because it would not be truly respectful to the character as originally created by Gene Roddenberry). Also, I wouldn't say that making Sulu gay was a "requirement" - I would think that the point was to demonstrate how it wasn't a requirement. Besides, it is possible to have more than one gay character exist within a universe, especially one as expansive and varied as that of the Star Trek franchise.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I disagree I'm afraid. It seems to me that it was a requirement as Simon Pegg saw it (presumably others too) – to have a gay character in there at last, so that that part of society was represented. It just seems a mistake to have gone to the trouble of changing an existing character when a new one was about to be created — these arguments happen all the time and are never satisfyingly explained or resolved.

To be fair, it's not like you've given a satisfying explanation for why you consider changing Sulu to be a mistake, especially in light of the introduction of an all-new gay character in Star Trek Discovery. Like I said earlier, it's not like you can only have one gay character at a time.

I think it's more that satisfactory and more than fair. I agree with George Takei's response to the idea as it was pitched to him. He indicated that it would have been better to create a new character who happened to be gay rather than change Sulu, an established character.

I recall that Pegg may have even said that they wanted to change Sulu because it would be easier for people to identify with an established character, something like that, on top of the 'tribute' to Takei, which the actor rejects.

Thinking about it again I object to the clumsiness of the whole process, the ill-considered blundering nature of it.

This is one of the worst sci fi movies i ever saw and certainly one of the weakest if not the weakest of them all, like a child has written thr story, it has no star trek soul.....

Really? Beyond is probably the best of the new series.


If you think it's the weakest sci-fi movie you've ever seen you should really watch more.
The Happening, RoboCop 3, Mac And Me, Superman 4, Santa Claus Conquers The Martians, Chappie.... the list could go on.
Alien Hunter is possibly the most boring and uneventful sci-fi movie ever made.


Also, check out all the Mockbusters and sound-alike-titles made by The Asylum for some really bad sci-fi.

__________________

sorry to disturb u with my comment but i really was embarrassed when i was watching the movie in cinemas, it felt weak and plot wise really thin, star trek 2009 and into darkness are much much better than this.

The hell you say. It's probably the best of the new Trek movies - certainly has more of the Star Trek soul than an empty rehash like Into Darkness. Plus I agree with Rodent, if this really is one of the worst sci-fi movies you've ever seen then you're getting off easy.

well man, from my experience in the viewing i felt it was thin very thin plot wise, it should have been bigger on scale or i don't know how to explain it, it just didn t feel on par with 2009 and into darkness

I'd make the case that its strength comes from its lack of emphasis on plot, whereas the other two suffer because they focus too much on delivering a twisty plot (especially Into Darkness, which I sort of liked when I first watched it but couldn't stand a second time around). I can handle a thin plot or a lack of scale if the rest of the film can compensate appropriately, and I felt that Beyond did that.

Elba wasn't a twisty plot?

Not as much as White Khan.

LOL gotta give you that one
I liked Beyond, just not as much as the previous 2

sounds like a Michael Jackson movie Cmg..........Lam'ron would laugh..........................


executive produced by Q-Nitty............Cisco Rosado............