Episode 1615 Talkback - Previews
Adam_Murdough
Posts: 506
It's Previews time! We go through the July catalog for items shipping to stores beginning in September. (1:37:58)
Listen here.
Listen here.
Comments
Apropos of the return of the prodigal, his chastisement--understated, and stronger for it--of @wildpigcomics for still having not read Cerebus is spot on. Dave Sim's cartooning ability (which must include his facility with lettering) is nearly unmatched. I would urge Chris to get on this, with one proviso...read Love & Rockets first (or concurrently, or--at the very least--after reading Cerebus).
Los Bros Hernandez--Jaime, Gilbert, along with Mario, at times--have crafted some of the most poignant, affecting, brilliant, and beautiful comics over their thirty-plus year careers. I didn't finally read L&R until the first giant omnibus came out, roughly ten years ago, collecting (to that point) Gilbert's Palomar stories. They. Are. Awesome. And, I would argue, the best way to introduce yourself to L&R. More soap operatic, telling the stories of myriad characters in the small, Mexican town of Palomar, Gilbert's early work in this series is more assured than his brother, Jaime's, whose earliest issues suffer a bit from strange anachronisms and a tendency to be wordy with his dialogue.
Which isn't to say the early Locas stories from Jaime are not enjoyable. He quickly finds his footing and launches into one of the most real friendships in all of comics, and, it could be argued, one of the best in all of literature. Hopey and Maggie fall in and out of love, struggle through hardships together, and apart, while continually moving forward, seeking answers about life and what it all means. (and if that sounds like hyperbole, there certainly is a pinch of that included, but, for the most part, I'd argue my description stands up)
The real strength of this series comes from its longevity. Jaime and Gilbert have taken each of their collections of characters and allowed them to grow old, to have families, to lose friends and loved ones, discover new friends, have adventures, feel pain and sorrow, and love and joy, and experience lives that feel genuine, feel real, feel lived in. And their age has not diluted their storytelling abilities on bit. One of the most heartfelt and heartbreaking moments came a few years ago, in Jaime's "Browntown," which was built on the stories that had come before. It was an amazing piece of comic storytelling and comic art, that could not have been done without the accumulation of stories, over the prior decades, that came before. It was an exclamation point, driven into readers' (or, at least, my own) heart(s), and it's one of those handful of
comicsstories that has stuck with me, since I read it.But it's not just their storytelling. Jaime & Gilbert are two of the best cartoonists working today, and two of the best ever, in my opinion. Their ability to evoke emotion and replicate body language utilizing an economy of line is beyond impressive. This, to me, is some of the most beautiful artwork I've seen in comics. Really incredible.
Now, I know it can be daunting to start a book that has this much history (see: Cerebus). But Fantagraphics has a page that can help you find where to start reading, here.
And the collections they've done for Gilbert & Jaime's work are great--a good size, with a healthy collection of stories, at a good price. Well worth picking up, here. Or on Amazon or at In Stock Trades. Or, if you want, see if your local library can request them for you through their Interlibrary Loan department, which allows libraries to borrow items from other libraries, across the country.
These are, seriously, some of the best comics ever made. Do yourself the favor of seeking them out and reading them. Now, I better get back to work.
-chris
All of this involving Sulu's sexuality is going to be revealed in Star Trek: Beyond, not in a future fourth movie. George Takei has also since clarified his original statement even further, that he is of course not against a character being gay. He simply wishes it wasn't Sulu, because Gene did not envision Sulu as such. Instead, Takei would have rather them created a new member of the crew to work with, as you could start fresh from there and be removed from any previous connotations or backstory for a character. I both agree and disagree with Takei's base point. On the one hand, making Sulu gay today changes how we look at George's performance as Sulu in the past, as even if these are two separate universes, the characters remain the same. But, as writer Keith DeCandidio points out, Sulu is literally the only member of the original bridge crew you COULD do this with: It really is an interesting conundrum. But, I am glad that when they introduce this as part of Sulu's character in Star Trek: Beyond, it will be done in passing; no big deal made of it in the film. It's just something we didn't know about him til that particular moment. And I understand why Simon Pegg and the other writers chose Sulu and not a new character, because it is a lot more impactful when it's a face you already know.
The fact is that Simon Pegg and his team went to Mr. Takei for his blessing, advice, and decades of experience with the 'Sulu' character and also his close relationship with Gene Roddenberry. Since Mr. Takei is a vocal LGBTQ activist and has played Sulu since the 1960s, the producers and director probably assumed he would be on-board with their idea. And, since he's the original Sulu, he likely would also have insight as to what the creator of the character would've wanted. They essentially came to him for his blessing and when they received an answer they did not like, they did what they wanted to do anyway, then publicly framed Takei's displeasure as if he has a thing against gay representation on film, which he certainly does not.
Reminded me of the recent trend of editorially altering the gender, race, affiliations, or sexuality of previously established comic book creations - instead of just creating a new character to fill that role. A common practice that's become more prevalent in recent years. Not everyone sees it that way, but this horse was beaten beyond death already on these forums here.
Of course I said presumptuous. You surely know that while 'assume' and 'presume' both mean to take something for granted as true (among their many other definitions). There is a difference.
That difference is in the degree of certainty. To presume is to make an informed guess based on reasonable evidence, while to assume is to make a guess based on little or no evidence.
Not interested in rehashing the same arguments you made in the Star Trek Beyond thread Eric. I'll post a coda there after this, but suffice to say that for you 'Sulu' is gay, and to George Takei, he's not.
I agree, also, what room is there for new characters in a franchise where there is a primary ensemble cast of 7 characters, not to mention a new cinematic-level villain to introduce and feature. As it is in these movies people far down the ensemble bill, like a Sulu or Chekov, are often barely getting any story time as it is.
Introduce a new gay character, would there be much time for them? Would they have much to do in the movie other than show up and be gay? Think back over the last few films-- other than the villains, what parts are left except the occasional mentor relationship (like Pike), and the captains of other starships there to be fodder for the big bad. I mean, if the plan is to have this hypothetical new character be the only gay character, than they wouldn't be there to be the love interest for one of the main 7. So what supporting story beats are left? And how wouldn't it seem forced for some minor character, who is not a love interest character to one of the main 7, to sort of happen to get into the details of their love life? I feel like a scene like that, which would stretch into such territory, would be accused (maybe rightly) of some strained tokenism. Because, again, unless they are there to be hit on by Kirk, do we ever know the relationship status of supporting characters? Especially given, in the films, how few there are. I don't think Pike ever told us how his love life was going, you know what I mean? Imagine the scene from Wrath of Khan, but after Scotty is standing there, holding the engineer, and talking about how young he was, adding in an, "And now I have to call his boyfriend back on Earth and give him the news!" These are the sorts of things about the minor players that don't really come up in the scenes.
So if you are going to spend some of the (always very limited in a feature) screen time on the love life or home life of a character, it may as well be one of the 7. Because who else would we care about. And if some of those blank slate spaces are being filled in with details that will make for new connections or excitement for audience members seeking that representation in Star Trek, then I say go for it.
Heck, the thing that seems to also be getting lost in the shuffle, or getting very little attention-- that I personally find to be a hook in my entertainment, so I guess this is my representation bias-- is that we're back to having one of the main 7 actually having a functional marriage, and being a parent. (And hopefully not just to have a child that can be killed to create some melodrama, a la Kirk's son, who seemed to be conjured into existence just to be the victim). Unless I'm wrong, it is not just that Sulu will be married to a man, it is actually sort of punk rock in these kinds of genre movies for the characters to be married at all. Not to mention with a baby.
And, to be clear, I am not saying any of this to suggest that Takei is not entitled to his own opinions on this, or that he shouldn't express them. Especially as, I can imagine, Takei probably rightly believes the inspiration for this idea-- why they picked Sulu-- was meant to be a tribute to him, and to connect to his own biography, and activism. It does feel like they are doing something that consciously blurs the line between Sulu the character, and the history of the actor who is known for that character. So, it is complicated. And it probably made it more complicated that the writers actually talked to Takei about it, as if the writing for this new version of Sulu needs his blessing. I don't think it does, any more than Nimoy and Nichols would have needed to be consulted, or their blessings sought, on the Spock/Uhura relationship in the first Star Trek reboot. They are no longer the actors playing these characters, so they do not need to be a part of story or character interpretation ideas that will be carried out and represented by other actors. These roles are no longer theirs. But, having sought his approval or blessing, it seems like the writers made this sort of something Takei felt he was being called on to comment upon.
I just can see, from a story point of view, some reasons why fast tracking a new, gay character, especially if they were supposed to matter, into such a crowded cast of characters would not be the way to go.
PS- "Had the yeoman" is my new favorite euphemism. It should be code for something that the ship's doctor has to give you some shots for.
That's also the takeaway I got from this whole mishegoss. A few straight filmmakers wanted to do something great for the gay community, but then their gay Trek godfather said it was actually a mistake, and now suddenly everyone's feathers are flustered :joy: Oh well. I'm a gay Trekkie, and while I mostly agree with Takei on this, I also admit it'll be cool to see a somewhat-major legacy member of the Enterprise crew casually represented as gay. From what I hear, we will see that John Cho's Sulu does indeed have a daughter in this continuity, whom he is raising with his husband.
That being said? My own opinion about sexual orientation in the future is that homo- and bisexuality will become much more commonplace and accepted - certainly much more than they're shown to be in most future fictions, let alone in Star Trek. (Though I do give big props to ST:TNG for having the balls to do a story in which Riker falls in love with an alien from an androgynous species.) The idea that out of ALL the crewmembers of ALL the different Star Trek series, that there would be only ONE character who MAYBE wasn't heterosexual?... that's just silly to me.
This feels a little tactless to say, given the horrible circumstances of this absence for the next movie, so to be clear, I am just talking structurally about the character as a character, ignoring for the moment why there is this absence, but I think most stories can get by without Chekov, or a particular lead character in that spot.
I expect they would either recast Chekov because 'there should be a Chekov' in Star Trek. Or else respectfully leave that character out. Because, honestly (and, of course, I am up for being corrected on this by those who know and love ST better than I do) even growing up watching original Trek re-runs and all the films, what Chekov is there to do was never super clear. He is bridge crew, of course, there are plenty of things he does. But I would guess that it sometimes takes some stretching in a script to make sure that Chekov has his moment, you know what I mean? He is not part of the main leadership, he is rarely the away crew, I don't think he flies the ship, right, because that is Sulu, I think. He doesn't talk to the aliens. He doesn't fix the ship when it is broken, or make it do some new incredible trick. And he is not the doctor who can declare death.
I mean, he fires the photon torpedoes. And I can see why, over the course of seasons of a TV show (and I don't think he was in all of them, right?), when recurring characters, even ones without a lot to do, become familiar, we want them there. And the real estate of a series of network TV can also make time for supporting characters to get a spotlight. But film scripts usually just don't have that space. I think you could have, and feature, 6 main characters, and have other crew in the Chekov chair, characters who we don't expect to do much in the course of the feature, but could perhaps be ones we get to know and grow across comics or novels set in this era, sure.
Again, this feels a little gross to point out, given Yelchin's death. I am not saying this is some great opportunity. Because, it goes without saying, I wish he was alive, and in more of these movies.
More that, structurally, a feature-length script with 7 leads is a lot of characters to have to get around to featuring. Especially when one of those characters doesn't have a crew job that intuitively features him beyond firing those torpedoes.
Sulu being gay or not is hardly the most shocking deviation from the original material.
As for the Modern Masters: Mike Ploog book, yes @Adam_Murdough, there is some mention of Return to Oz, as well as some of his storyboards for the movie. You might also be intersted in the concept art and storyboards he did for Lord of the Rings (the Bakshi cartoon), Little Shop of Horrors (the Rick Moranis remake), and Dark Crystal—among other things in the book.
Chris, the issue of Back Issue you reffered to is #89.