Unlike a lot of Star Trek fans I don't think these movies suck. I agree that they are not from the Roddenberry interpretation, and I would prefer more talking and less action, but I still find them to be excellent action movies.
Maybe its not particularly reverential to the original stuff but I enjoy this new version. Darkness had its issues but what movie doesn't. This trailer makes the movie look fun.
Bring it on. Trailer didn't really offer much in any way. God or bad. But personally this new version of trek is easily my favorite. The second movie was plenty flawed but still enjoyable. I'm ready for more.
How many times is the Enterprise going to be destroyed before Federation insurance stops paying for it? Kirk's gotta slow down or Picard's first ship in this timeline will be the Enterprise Z.
I'm intrigued. I understand why fans may not like it but we know next to nothing about this movie. Let's see more before we completely bash it. I mean really. This and all of the hate about the upcoming show is why Star Trek fans can't have nice things.
I understand why fans may not like it but we know next to nothing about this movie. Let's see more before we completely bash it. I mean really. This and all of the hate about the upcoming show is why Star Trek fans can't have nice things.
Do you really see hate about this on here? I don't.
[after writing this I see it's on BleedingCool too but that's not where I got this from]
Simon Pegg and director Justin Lin have revealed that Sulu will be shown as being gay in the new movie. We'll see him with his husband and their daughter in a domestic scene in the movie. This is all being done, according to them, as an homage to Takei.
'I'm delighted that there's a gay character. Unfortunately, it's a twisting of Star Trek creator, Gene Roddenberry's creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it's really unfortunate.'
'I told him, 'Be imaginative and create a character who has a history of being gay, rather than Sulu, who had been straight all this time, suddenly being revealed as being closeted.'
I know that basic argument has been made by certain comics fans recently. Interesting to hear it from a member of the minority that these changes are supposed to support. I have to be honest and say that I agree with him as it's always been my view that creators should leave established characters alone and create new and diverse ones. It's interesting that Takei even spoke with Pegg, Lin, and Cho about not doing it yet they chose to ignore him:
"I thought after that conversation with Justin that was going to happen. Months later, when I got that email from Simon Pegg, I was kind of confused. He thinks I’m a great guy? Wonderful. But what was the point of that letter? I interpreted that as my words having been heard."
..makes you wonder how much of an homage it can really be when they're going against his wishes.
Surprised with Takei's perspective and I agree with him. Even though his response clearly isn't going to please the PC crowd, I suppose if anyone is allowed to have a differing opinion on this, then it is Takei. Shamefully, he'll probably receive threats from those professionally offended warriors for social justice, who will try to force him to apologize and embrace this change.
This is somewhat analogous to the trend in recent years of editorially altering the gender, race, affiliations, or sexuality of previously established comic creations - instead of just creating a new character to fill that role. It's essentially changing history to fit a predisposed narrative outcome.
Personally I haven't cared much about the new Star Trek franchise after JJ made Kirk a fan of the 250 year old "Sabatoge" from Beastie Boys. Great song, but please.
Truth be told, I really haven't been much of a fan since TNG ended.
I can see both sides of it, and the producers are really in a lose-lose situation. And this goes for the owners of any long-standing, beloved characters, including Marvel and DC. On the one hand, people want to see the characters they loved as kids be the characters they loved as kids in every aspect. And from Takei’s perspective, he was playing Sulu from a certain mindset and perspective, and I understand why he would want that mindset and perspective to be maintained going forward, and I’m not really surprised by his stance.
On the other hand, those characters were created in a different time when society’s views on what was acceptable in its entertainment were much more... limited in scope, and today’s owners want to better represent today’s society.
Where the lose-lose situation comes in is that if a new gay character is brought into the cast, that character will be viewed as the token gay character. The character will never hold the same place in history as the rest of the crew, will never be considered a core member of the franchise. The character will always be something of an outsider. But if you change one of the core characters from (presumably) straight to gay, it will be considered to be pandering and everything said in the two previous posts. If you simply do nothing, people ask, “What, are there no gay people in the future?” Lose or lose, pick your poison.
But just focusing on the character of Sulu, does it really change anything that’s been established in continuity? I was talking with my wife about this last night, and she’s a huge Trek fan—much more than I, and I had a Spock Halloween costume when I was a kid. We couldn’t come up with anything from the original series that established his sexual identity one way or the other. His Mirror Universe self was definitely straight, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Sulu’s only memorable moment in the whole series was his scene where he’s topless and flashing his fencing foil around. He didn’t really have much to do in those stories. We don’t know the movies as well, but we couldn’t think of anything there where it would make a difference either. But I’m sure people on both sides will get worked up anyway.
Continuity wise he was mentioned as being straight in a novel. It explains how he had a one night stand and that led to his daughter being born. Of course the books are not official cannon. Certainly Takei knew the character, and it's creator, very well and I take his view of the character as cannon.
The argument has also been made that this is a new timeline. The events of the relaunch have changed things and these are not the same characters. While I can agree with that to a point(Kirk born in space and not Iowa, etc) the core of these characters(their biological makeup for example) has not changed.
That being said I really don't care one way or the other as far as my enjoyment of Trek goes. The only thing that bothers me is that they are changing a character's biological makeup to pay homage to an actor who doesn't want them to do it in the first place.
Personally I haven't cared much about the new Star Trek franchise after JJ made Kirk a fan of the 250 year old "Sabatoge" from Beastie Boys. Great song, but please.
This has always been one of the silly things about Trek. TNG, Voyager, etc crews were always obsessed with things from our past. You rarely see them acting out a holo novel from the year 2000. It's always something from the 1800's. Or they're always having time travel adventures in the 1980's and 90's.
It's also kind of weird that Takei had discussions with the producers well in advance, who said they wanted to pay homage to Takei, but they are going to pay homage by not listening to his views on Sulu.
Makes sense.
I expect the producers will soon get their side heard and explain to all of us why Takei is wrong.
Changing the gender, sexuality, or history of established characters is always a creative shortcut, because you want to mitigate risks you would be taking by making an all-new new character and risking them not being accepted. So if you want your narrative to fly under the radar and be accepted or to at least be able to deflect any fans who are disappointed, you change something that's already been established. Mirror universe notwithstanding.
But, after wedging the Beastie Boys into the last 3 movies, I expect nothing less than creative shortcuts from this franchise.
This has always been one of the silly things about Trek. TNG, Voyager, etc crews were always obsessed with things from our past. You rarely see them acting out a holo novel from the year 2000. It's always something from the 1800's. Or they're always having time travel adventures in the 1980's and 90's.
Star Trek shows always had some of the highest budgets on television, so they had to save money somewhere, and that was their way of doing so. But it’s also why I prefer Babylon 5.
This has always been one of the silly things about Trek. TNG, Voyager, etc crews were always obsessed with things from our past. You rarely see them acting out a holo novel from the year 2000. It's always something from the 1800's. Or they're always having time travel adventures in the 1980's and 90's.
Star Trek shows always had some of the highest budgets on television, so they had to save money somewhere, and that was their way of doing so. But it’s also why I prefer Babylon 5.
I can see both sides of it, and the producers are really in a lose-lose situation. And this goes for the owners of any long-standing, beloved characters, including Marvel and DC. On the one hand, people want to see the characters they loved as kids be the characters they loved as kids in every aspect. And from Takei’s perspective, he was playing Sulu from a certain mindset and perspective, and I understand why he would want that mindset and perspective to be maintained going forward, and I’m not really surprised by his stance.
On the other hand, those characters were created in a different time when society’s views on what was acceptable in its entertainment were much more... limited in scope, and today’s owners want to be better represent today’s society.
Where the lose-lose situation comes in is that if a new gay character is brought into the cast, that character will be viewed as the token gay character. The character will never hold the same place in history as the rest of the crew, will never be considered a core member of the franchise. The character will always be something of an outsider. But if you change one of the core characters from (presumably) straight to gay, it will be considered to be pandering and everything said in the two previous posts. If you simply do nothing, people ask, “What, are there no gay people in the future?” Lose or lose, pick your poison.
But just focusing on the character of Sulu, does it really change anything that’s been established in continuity? I was talking with my wife about this last night, and she’s a huge Trek fan—much more than I, and I had a Spock Halloween costume when I was a kid. We couldn’t come up with anything from the original series that established his sexual identity one way or the other. His Mirror Universe self was definitely straight, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Sulu’s only memorable moment in the whole series was his scene where he’s topless and flashing his fencing foil around. He didn’t really have much to do in those stories. We don’t know the movies as well, but we couldn’t think of anything there where it would make a difference either. But I’m sure people on both sides will get worked up anyway.
Star Trek: Generations had Sulu's daughter in the beginning. Granted, she could easily have been adopted or from a prior marriage.
It's funny, I was discussing something similar to this over this past weekend. I know entertainment tried to connect with each person...but does it go too far? I have zero issues with a gay character, but does one clearly needed to be pointed out? Does a straight character have to be clearly pointed out.
I had used Star Wars in the weekend discussion. I guess there is a movement to have a gay character in the universe. My position was its kind of pandering. For example, do we know Luke Skywalker is definitely straight in the movies? Was it ever questioned? Does it really matter? I just look at characters that never have their preference mentioned as asexual.
I can see both sides of it, and the producers are really in a lose-lose situation. And this goes for the owners of any long-standing, beloved characters, including Marvel and DC. On the one hand, people want to see the characters they loved as kids be the characters they loved as kids in every aspect. And from Takei’s perspective, he was playing Sulu from a certain mindset and perspective, and I understand why he would want that mindset and perspective to be maintained going forward, and I’m not really surprised by his stance.
On the other hand, those characters were created in a different time when society’s views on what was acceptable in its entertainment were much more... limited in scope, and today’s owners want to be better represent today’s society.
Where the lose-lose situation comes in is that if a new gay character is brought into the cast, that character will be viewed as the token gay character. The character will never hold the same place in history as the rest of the crew, will never be considered a core member of the franchise. The character will always be something of an outsider. But if you change one of the core characters from (presumably) straight to gay, it will be considered to be pandering and everything said in the two previous posts. If you simply do nothing, people ask, “What, are there no gay people in the future?” Lose or lose, pick your poison.
But just focusing on the character of Sulu, does it really change anything that’s been established in continuity? I was talking with my wife about this last night, and she’s a huge Trek fan—much more than I, and I had a Spock Halloween costume when I was a kid. We couldn’t come up with anything from the original series that established his sexual identity one way or the other. His Mirror Universe self was definitely straight, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Sulu’s only memorable moment in the whole series was his scene where he’s topless and flashing his fencing foil around. He didn’t really have much to do in those stories. We don’t know the movies as well, but we couldn’t think of anything there where it would make a difference either. But I’m sure people on both sides will get worked up anyway.
Star Trek: Generations had Sulu's daughter in the beginning. Granted, she could easily have been adopted or from a prior marriage.
It's funny, I was discussing something similar to this over this past weekend. I know entertainment tried to connect with each person...but does it go too far? I have zero issues with a gay character, but does one clearly needed to be pointed out? Does a straight character have to be clearly pointed out.
I had used Star Wars in the weekend discussion. I guess there is a movement to have a gay character in the universe. My position was its kind of pandering. For example, do we know Luke Skywalker is definitely straight in the movies? Was it ever questioned? Does it really matter? I just look at characters that never have their preference mentioned as asexual.
I have zero issues with a gay character, but does one clearly needed to be pointed out? Does a straight character have to be clearly pointed out.
I had used Star Wars in the weekend discussion. I guess there is a movement to have a gay character in the universe. My position was its kind of pandering. For example, do we know Luke Skywalker is definitely straight in the movies? Was it ever questioned? Does it really matter? I just look at characters that never have their preference mentioned as asexual.
Well, Luke clearly has the hots for Leia from the time he first lays eyes on her all through the first movie.
Here’s the thing: Most people automatically assume a character is straight unless explicitly told otherwise. It’s just human nature to do so. Not that people consciously think about it, and debate it in their minds, but if a character who has had nothing told about their sexual inclinations suddenly kisses another character of the same gender, it’s going to surprise the audience.
I have zero issues with a gay character, but does one clearly needed to be pointed out? Does a straight character have to be clearly pointed out.
I had used Star Wars in the weekend discussion. I guess there is a movement to have a gay character in the universe. My position was its kind of pandering. For example, do we know Luke Skywalker is definitely straight in the movies? Was it ever questioned? Does it really matter? I just look at characters that never have their preference mentioned as asexual.
Well, Luke clearly has the hots for Leia from the time he first lays eyes on her all through the first movie.
Here’s the thing: Most people automatically assume a character is straight unless explicitly told otherwise. It’s just human nature to do so. Not that people consciously think about it, and debate it in their minds, but if a character who has had nothing told about their sexual inclinations suddenly kisses another character of the same gender, it’s going to surprise the audience.
I don't believe it's out of the norm for people to be confused and make out with their sister as a result. That's just a speculation on my part though.
I agree we can make our own assessment on the sexuality of asexual characters. Hell, some people decide what characters are even when their sexuality is defined. Look at the "Cap is gay" movement.
I agree we can make our own assessment on the sexuality of asexual characters. Hell, some people decide what characters are even when their sexuality is defined. Look at the "Cap is gay" movement.
Yes, people can read their own thoughts and desires into the depiction of a character. That’s a big part of why humans love stories. But that’s not really what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the unconscious default setting in our brains.
Let’s say none of this PR about Sulu being gay ever came out. No one going into the theater to watch Star Trek knows anything about this particular movie. And then there comes a scene where Sulu is in his quarters and gets a vid message from home, and it’s a guy and two kids saying, “Love you, miss you,” etc. Don’t you think that would get a much bigger shock reaction from the crowd than if it was a woman and two kids, even though, as we have already established, there is no reason to assume Sulu was heterosexual? It wouldn’t be because people thought about it and said, “Sulu has a daughter, so he must be straight,” it would be because unless given a reason to believe otherwise, most people will naturally, unconsciously assume the characters in their fiction are straight.
And that’s why, even though there has been nothing on screen to tell the audience whether Sulu is straight, gay, or otherwise, people are complaining that they are changing the sexual orientation of the character. Can you change the canon if the canon hasn’t been established?
The Takei argument holds some weight with me, but the character (what there was of him anyway) is no longer his. I don’t see Daniel Craig asking Sean Connery how he should handle his scenes as Bond.
I'm not arguing that Sulu should be gay, I’m fine either way. I’m just wondering why it’s that big of a deal if he is.
I expect there would be some serious push-back from making James Bond gay. Probably much more than making the character a woman, or a black man as has been petitioned.
There's never been any direct on-screen evidence suggesting that Sulu is gay. And many fans will remember that Sulu put the moves on Uhura. So not only is Sulu being gay never mentioned, it's not even hinted at. And then there's Sulu's daughter. Sure, gay people can adopt kids, and gays sometimes involve surrogates to have biological offspring. But the most typical and natural father-daughter relationship is that of a biological pairing (which would mean that Sulu would, at least, appear to be bisexual).
Conventional expectations are still such that we that when we speak of father and daughter the presumption is that the relationship is that of a heterosexual father and implied mother who produce the daughter. Cutting against the grain of this default expectation requires introducing more data. I recall Sulu's daughter was in the Generations movie, so this is fairly well established. There would need to be a more data to prove he isn't straight. I guess that is intention of the new filmmakers.
I'm not arguing that Sulu should be gay, I’m fine either way. I’m just wondering why it’s that big of a deal if he is.
I think it's mostly being mentioned because the actor that portrayed the character for so many decades has said he was NOT fine either way and is actually rather disappointed the producers rejected his plea to NOT make the character gay. They want to make a politically correct point in spite of the gay man they were claiming to honor. It's both amusing and sad in a way.
I think it's mostly being mentioned because the actor that portrayed the character for so many decades has said he was NOT fine either way and is actually rather disappointed the producers rejected his plea to NOT make the character gay. They want to make a politically correct point in spite of the gay man they were claiming to honor. It's both amusing and sad in a way.
Do you think the reaction would be different if Takei had said he had wanted Sulu to be gay all along? I think it might quiet some of the uproar, but honestly I think there are more people who are using Takei’s stance as justification for their own protestations than there are people who are protesting solely because of Takei’s stance.
I think it's mostly being mentioned because the actor that portrayed the character for so many decades has said he was NOT fine either way and is actually rather disappointed the producers rejected his plea to NOT make the character gay. They want to make a politically correct point in spite of the gay man they were claiming to honor. It's both amusing and sad in a way.
Do you think the reaction would be different if Takei had said he had wanted Sulu to be gay all along? I think it might quiet some of the uproar, but honestly I think there are more people who are using Takei’s stance as justification for their own protestations than there are people who are protesting solely because of Takei’s stance.
Not sure, but with Pegg, Lin, Cho, and Quinto, all going on record to say they were disappointed in Takei not agreeing with their 'gay-Sulu' vision it's reignited the debate over changing character histories to fulfill gender, racial, or sexuality tokenism and it's a debate I'm certain is far from settled.
I think it's mostly being mentioned because the actor that portrayed the character for so many decades has said he was NOT fine either way and is actually rather disappointed the producers rejected his plea to NOT make the character gay. They want to make a politically correct point in spite of the gay man they were claiming to honor. It's both amusing and sad in a way.
Do you think the reaction would be different if Takei had said he had wanted Sulu to be gay all along? I think it might quiet some of the uproar, but honestly I think there are more people who are using Takei’s stance as justification for their own protestations than there are people who are protesting solely because of Takei’s stance.
Not sure, but with Pegg, Lin, Cho, and Quinto, all going on record to say they were disappointed in Takei not agreeing with their 'gay-Sulu' vision it's reignited the debate over changing character histories to fulfill gender, racial, or sexuality tokenism and it's a debate I'm certain is far from settled.
Not to walk on your side of the street, but if it was done as a homage to Takei & he prefers the character remains as he was previously (or at least perceived) is it now a pandering move?
To some extent, I feel like "quota" personnel has gone the other way in the new millennium. I always thought having diversity merely for the sake of meeting a quota was implied to be a bad thing. Now it seems to be called for to show diversity.
As an investigator, I'll admit watching how narratives change is fascinating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRVD32rnzOw
Comments
My way of saying I'm on board.
I loooove Zachary Quinto.
Simon Pegg and director Justin Lin have revealed that Sulu will be shown as being gay in the new movie. We'll see him with his husband and their daughter in a domestic scene in the movie. This is all being done, according to them, as an homage to Takei.
However, Takei isn't thrilled about it. He told The Hollywood Reporter: I know that basic argument has been made by certain comics fans recently. Interesting to hear it from a member of the minority that these changes are supposed to support. I have to be honest and say that I agree with him as it's always been my view that creators should leave established characters alone and create new and diverse ones. It's interesting that Takei even spoke with Pegg, Lin, and Cho about not doing it yet they chose to ignore him: ..makes you wonder how much of an homage it can really be when they're going against his wishes.
Surprised with Takei's perspective and I agree with him. Even though his response clearly isn't going to please the PC crowd, I suppose if anyone is allowed to have a differing opinion on this, then it is Takei. Shamefully, he'll probably receive threats from those professionally offended warriors for social justice, who will try to force him to apologize and embrace this change.
This is somewhat analogous to the trend in recent years of editorially altering the gender, race, affiliations, or sexuality of previously established comic creations - instead of just creating a new character to fill that role. It's essentially changing history to fit a predisposed narrative outcome.
Personally I haven't cared much about the new Star Trek franchise after JJ made Kirk a fan of the 250 year old "Sabatoge" from Beastie Boys. Great song, but please.
Truth be told, I really haven't been much of a fan since TNG ended.
On the other hand, those characters were created in a different time when society’s views on what was acceptable in its entertainment were much more... limited in scope, and today’s owners want to better represent today’s society.
Where the lose-lose situation comes in is that if a new gay character is brought into the cast, that character will be viewed as the token gay character. The character will never hold the same place in history as the rest of the crew, will never be considered a core member of the franchise. The character will always be something of an outsider. But if you change one of the core characters from (presumably) straight to gay, it will be considered to be pandering and everything said in the two previous posts. If you simply do nothing, people ask, “What, are there no gay people in the future?” Lose or lose, pick your poison.
But just focusing on the character of Sulu, does it really change anything that’s been established in continuity? I was talking with my wife about this last night, and she’s a huge Trek fan—much more than I, and I had a Spock Halloween costume when I was a kid. We couldn’t come up with anything from the original series that established his sexual identity one way or the other. His Mirror Universe self was definitely straight, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Sulu’s only memorable moment in the whole series was his scene where he’s topless and flashing his fencing foil around. He didn’t really have much to do in those stories. We don’t know the movies as well, but we couldn’t think of anything there where it would make a difference either. But I’m sure people on both sides will get worked up anyway.
The argument has also been made that this is a new timeline. The events of the relaunch have changed things and these are not the same characters. While I can agree with that to a point(Kirk born in space and not Iowa, etc) the core of these characters(their biological makeup for example) has not changed.
That being said I really don't care one way or the other as far as my enjoyment of Trek goes. The only thing that bothers me is that they are changing a character's biological makeup to pay homage to an actor who doesn't want them to do it in the first place.
Makes sense.
I expect the producers will soon get their side heard and explain to all of us why Takei is wrong.
Changing the gender, sexuality, or history of established characters is always a creative shortcut, because you want to mitigate risks you would be taking by making an all-new new character and risking them not being accepted. So if you want your narrative to fly under the radar and be accepted or to at least be able to deflect any fans who are disappointed, you change something that's already been established. Mirror universe notwithstanding.
But, after wedging the Beastie Boys into the last 3 movies, I expect nothing less than creative shortcuts from this franchise.
It's funny, I was discussing something similar to this over this past weekend. I know entertainment tried to connect with each person...but does it go too far? I have zero issues with a gay character, but does one clearly needed to be pointed out? Does a straight character have to be clearly pointed out.
I had used Star Wars in the weekend discussion. I guess there is a movement to have a gay character in the universe. My position was its kind of pandering. For example, do we know Luke Skywalker is definitely straight in the movies? Was it ever questioned? Does it really matter? I just look at characters that never have their preference mentioned as asexual.
M
Here’s the thing: Most people automatically assume a character is straight unless explicitly told otherwise. It’s just human nature to do so. Not that people consciously think about it, and debate it in their minds, but if a character who has had nothing told about their sexual inclinations suddenly kisses another character of the same gender, it’s going to surprise the audience.
I agree we can make our own assessment on the sexuality of asexual characters. Hell, some people decide what characters are even when their sexuality is defined. Look at the "Cap is gay" movement.
M
Let’s say none of this PR about Sulu being gay ever came out. No one going into the theater to watch Star Trek knows anything about this particular movie. And then there comes a scene where Sulu is in his quarters and gets a vid message from home, and it’s a guy and two kids saying, “Love you, miss you,” etc. Don’t you think that would get a much bigger shock reaction from the crowd than if it was a woman and two kids, even though, as we have already established, there is no reason to assume Sulu was heterosexual? It wouldn’t be because people thought about it and said, “Sulu has a daughter, so he must be straight,” it would be because unless given a reason to believe otherwise, most people will naturally, unconsciously assume the characters in their fiction are straight.
And that’s why, even though there has been nothing on screen to tell the audience whether Sulu is straight, gay, or otherwise, people are complaining that they are changing the sexual orientation of the character. Can you change the canon if the canon hasn’t been established?
The Takei argument holds some weight with me, but the character (what there was of him anyway) is no longer his. I don’t see Daniel Craig asking Sean Connery how he should handle his scenes as Bond.
I'm not arguing that Sulu should be gay, I’m fine either way. I’m just wondering why it’s that big of a deal if he is.
There's never been any direct on-screen evidence suggesting that Sulu is gay. And many fans will remember that Sulu put the moves on Uhura. So not only is Sulu being gay never mentioned, it's not even hinted at. And then there's Sulu's daughter. Sure, gay people can adopt kids, and gays sometimes involve surrogates to have biological offspring. But the most typical and natural father-daughter relationship is that of a biological pairing (which would mean that Sulu would, at least, appear to be bisexual).
Conventional expectations are still such that we that when we speak of father and daughter the presumption is that the relationship is that of a heterosexual father and implied mother who produce the daughter. Cutting against the grain of this default expectation requires introducing more data. I recall Sulu's daughter was in the Generations movie, so this is fairly well established. There would need to be a more data to prove he isn't straight. I guess that is intention of the new filmmakers. I think it's mostly being mentioned because the actor that portrayed the character for so many decades has said he was NOT fine either way and is actually rather disappointed the producers rejected his plea to NOT make the character gay. They want to make a politically correct point in spite of the gay man they were claiming to honor. It's both amusing and sad in a way.
Interesting topic.
To some extent, I feel like "quota" personnel has gone the other way in the new millennium. I always thought having diversity merely for the sake of meeting a quota was implied to be a bad thing. Now it seems to be called for to show diversity.
As an investigator, I'll admit watching how narratives change is fascinating.
M
I'm a cynic. I admit it.