On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:04 PM, David Lynch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm pretty much in a similar place with it. On top of it not being Gene's > franchise anymore, it's not like rampant heterosexuality was one of Sulu's > defining characteristics the way it was with Kirk and later Riker and the > world has changed to the point where I'm sure that any writer who was as > devoted to diversity as Roddenberry was would have some character who is > not straight and/or not binary-gendered. It's a big blind spot that Trek > has had and the go-to excuse that it wouldn't fly commercially hasn't been > true since before Enterprise was on the air. > I think Simon Pegg had the best response (below). Especially as he notes that showing a legacy character as LGBT keeps the audience thinking about the character and introducing a new character who happens to be LGBT becomes the defining trait for that character and is, in effect, tokenism. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/08/simon-pegg-defends-gay-sulu-after-george-takei-criticism -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
