Or it's like a discussion about how actors perceive their characters and the way that affects audience response, and nothing like a discussion of slavery at all. Why not just go full Godwin's?

I guess someone better tell the Maori that they've been going against their natural inclinations for centuries.

And I guess we find models, like Victoria's Secret's own Kylie Biscotti and Erin Heatherton, so attractive because eating disorders are indications of extremely good health, right?

Well, I guess you are an objective authority for some reason I can't quite glean.

Oh man, you better tell the beauty industry that there's a war on. I'm pretty sure they haven't noticed because they're too busy rolling around in their swimming pools filled with billions of dollars.

Yeah, most women can make themselves 5'10 if they just try hard enough! Come on, shortstack, have a little willpower!

The Amanda Seyfried interview where she went to a bar and then picked at her own sad little baggie of nuts and seeds was actually so refreshing, because she was like "This is awful, but I'm in a movie so this is what I have to eat."

I think they felt more freedom with Kirk because he's been so Flanderized in the popular imagination, especially in essentially being seen as Shatner rather than a distinct character. Also they just wanted a modern anti-hero/bad boy lead because I guess conscientious heroes are boring.

If you don't care, why are you still pushing this? The entire reason I've kept bringing it up is because, rather than admitting that you either worded things poorly or forgot the canonical basis of a Spock/Uhura attraction, - because after all, you have seen it several times - you kept going "Yeah, I know, it's…

We don't only see Spock "on the job" - or rather, "on the job" is kind of a false distinction when he's "on the job" 24/7. The show was quite clear that they weren't together because the show was quite clear in episodes like The Naked Time and This Side of Paradise that Spock couldn't sustain or even start a romantic…

Matters of canon were kind of crucial to both the issue at hand and the hypothetical example. Rather than it being a matter of "Well the show never said they WEREN'T together" as in your comparison (because the show was actually quite clear that they weren't together), the argument for Spock/Uhura was that there were…

I guess you could make that argument, but he was certainly a significantly different kind of dickbag than the new Kirk is. There's that episode Shore Leave where Kirk talks about being a nerd back at the Academy and gets haunted by the bully who made fun of him. New Kirk is a lot more like the bully than he is like…

The justification for Spock/Uhura was actually a number of scenes in the early episodes where they seem pretty into each other, both the one linked below and this scene where Uhura flirts with Spock through song and Spock seems pretty into her.

I might intend a birthday party to be a nice gesture, but if someone tells me they hate parties and don't want one and then I throw one for them anyway, they're justified in not thinking it's particularly nice of me.

Yeah, I object more to Kirk being a dickbag in the new series than I do to Sulu being gay.

It's a little late now, but I think they should have had an original character navigator in the first one, rather than casting a literal teenager. Chekov didn't even join the show until the second season, so they could have saved him for the sequel, and they could have done whatever they wanted with the navigator…

I think remakes can be good and interesting. They just often aren't, for reasons that generally have little to do with not mirroring the original creator's vision. Like adding in Norman Bates masturbating didn't ruin Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho; it already sucked.

I'm pretty ambivalent myself. I just don't think "the creator's vision" is much of an argument in cases where the original creator has no input in the new production. Even in cases when the original creator is actually alive, if something's being updated for a new time, it's going to differ from the creator's original…

In this particular case, the creator is long dead and doesn't really get a say anyway. The people actually creating the new Star Trek are the ones behind this decision, and neither of them are particularly young.

I think it being an homage to Takei is part of what he has an issue with - it's essentially suggesting that the character he played must be gay because the actor is, as though gay men can't play straight characters.