HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler

[Therin of Andor]

No you did not. You are not a critic

Ha! Sorry, I did see the movie. I am actually also a professional reviewer (of books), so I guess that makes me a critic. And I still think the scene was handled beautifully.

We did sign an embargo on reviews until 21st July, so I cannot describe it fully.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

You may just want to avoid Tumblr, then.

Oh, I'm aware of fan stuff. But canonically speaking, he's straight.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

It's cool and kind of questionable as a bisexual black man, me. It's cool because, hey, diversity. It's questionable because Asian men are usually feminized or shown to be weak (i.e. Harry Kim) and, in this case, making the character gay may not be so progressive for an Asian male character. (I mean no one questions Kirk or Riker being 'ladies men'...but I actually had someone say to me that having Sisko be a ladies man makes him 'hypersexualized.' Even though Sisko had some good-looking women by his side as well as a strong persona).

As brought out in the franchise earlier, Sulu was heterosexual in the 'other' universe. He had his daughter, Demora, and he also (or rather his mirror double) hit on Uhura hard.

It's interesting that Takei didn't care for the change, but I am interested on seeing where the new film takes it. Also, if John Cho was for it, I want to see if the change was worth it.

 

[Maurice]

I find it simultaneously hilarious and sad that so many people think in terms of either/or. Sexual preference, like so many things, is a spectrum, not a binary. Alfred Kinsey came up with his scale to reflect such a spectrum. Not everyone is pegged at either end of the scale, nor smack between the two poles. I've met plenty of basically straight people who've had the infrequent attraction or fling with someone of the same sex, and basically gay friends who've on some occasion had a tryst with someone of the opposite sex. I have friends who are bi, tri ("try anything"), etc. Sulu on TOS could have been a Kinsey 5. It's not necessarily one or the other.

 

[Michael]

What a great day for Star Trek fans! Finally they let a character self-identify as openly gay/bi/pan. And I think it's a great choice to have it be Sulu and not some random new background character.

I just wrote up a short opinion piece on why we should ignore Gene's wishes on this as well as embrace new interpretations of old characters.
http://trekcomic.com/2016/07/07/why-george-takei-is-wrong/

Yeah, a million times this! Thanks for putting it so eloquently.

It's questionable because Asian men are usually feminized or shown to be weak (i.e. Harry Kim)

Erm, what? Where do you see Kim “feminized or shown to be weak”?

As brought out in the franchise earlier, Sulu was heterosexual in the 'other' universe. He had his daughter, Demora, and he also (or rather his mirror double) hit on Uhura hard.

None of which suggests he can't be gay/bi/pan. I don't recall Sulu's sexuality ever being an issue.

I find it simultaneously hilarious and sad that so many people think in terms of either/or. Sexual preference, like so many things, is a spectrum, not a binary. Alfred Kinsey came up with scale to reflect such a spectrum. Not everyone is pegged at either end of the scale, nor smack between the two poles. I've met plenty of basically straight people who've had the infrequent attraction or fling with someone of the same sex, and basically gay friends who've on some occasion had a tryst with someone of the opposite sex. I have friends who are bi, tri ("try anything"), etc. Sulu on TOS could have been a Kinsey 5. It's not necessarily one or the other,

Yeah, that's my thinking as well.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Erm, what? Where do you see Kim “feminized or shown to be weak”?

I certainly don't see him as a strong character, and there were times when he was scared of women (i.e. Seven of Nine when she came on to him) and it was hinted that he had a 'thing' for Tom Paris; this isn't a novel idea.

None of which suggests he can't be gay/bi/pan. I don't recall Sulu's sexuality ever being an issue.

Hence the reason I said I want to see where the new movie takes it.

 

[Amaris]

I certainly don't see him as a strong character, and there were times when he was scared of women (i.e. Seven of Nine when she came on to him) and it was hinted that he had a 'thing' for Tom Paris; this isn't a novel idea.



Hence the reason I said I want to see where the new movie takes it.

I never saw Kim as weak, just boring. Very boring. :P

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I never saw Kim as weak, just boring. Very boring. :P

That too...lol

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It's questionable because Asian men are usually feminized or shown to be weak (i.e. Harry Kim) and, in this case, making the character gay may not be so progressive for an Asian male character.

We're talking about Sulu, the guy who orbital skydived onto an enemy platform and nearly singlehandedly took out the Romulans defending it with a sword? The Sulu who took command of the Enterprise and threatened Khan with orbital bombardment on the Klingon planet? In what way is there any concern about him being shown to be weak? And what does weakness have to do with femininity? And why are we instantly associating the character with pervasive negative stereotypes about gay men when we already have two movies of him not fulfilling those stereotypes? Do you think they're suddenly going to drastically alter the character into an offensive gay caricature out of the blue?

I won't get into Kim since that's another topic, but I don't agree with your characterization or conclusion there either.

As brought out in the franchise earlier, Sulu was heterosexual in the 'other' universe. He had his daughter, Demora, and he also (or rather his mirror double) hit on Uhura hard.

Gay people can have children too. Jesus. Sulu's heterosexuality was barely referenced in the Prime Universe, is not incompatible with the spectrum of sexual orientation, could have been before he openly acknowledged his sexuality, and ultimately doesn't matter when dealing with someone who was born into and raised in an alternate universe.

 

[Amaris]

We're talking about Sulu, the guy who orbital skydived onto an enemy platform and nearly singlehandedly took out the Romulans defending it with a sword? The Sulu who took command of the Enterprise and threatened Khan with orbital bombardment on the Klingon planet? In what way is there any concern about him being shown to be weak? And what does weakness have to do with femininity? And why are we instantly associating the character with pervasive negative stereotypes about gay men when we already have two movies of him not fulfilling those stereotypes? Do you think they're suddenly going to drastically alter the character into an offensive gay caricature?

I won't get into Kim since that's another topic, but I don't agree with your characterization or conclusion there either.


Gay people can have children too. Jesus. Sulu's heterosexuality was barely referenced in the Prime Universe, is not incompatible with the spectrum of sexual orientation, could have been before he openly acknowledged his sexuality, and ultimately doesn't matter when dealing with someone who was born into and raised in an alternate universe.

We can still agree that Kim was boring, though, right?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

As a former clarinet player myself back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, he even chose the most boring wind instrument.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

We're talking about Sulu, the guy who orbital skydived onto an enemy platform and nearly singlehandedly took out the Romulans defending it with a sword? The Sulu who took command of the Enterprise and threatened Khan with orbital bombardment on the Klingon planet? In what way is there any concern about him being shown to be weak? And what does weakness have to do with femininity? And why are we instantly associating the character with pervasive negative stereotypes about gay men when we already have two movies of him not fulfilling those stereotypes? Do you think they're suddenly going to drastically alter the character into an offensive gay caricature out of the blue?

I won't get into Kim since that's another topic, but I don't agree with your characterization or conclusion there either.

That's okay. We're not obligated to agree on opinions.

Gay people can have children too. Jesus. Sulu's heterosexuality was barely referenced in the Prime Universe, is not incompatible with the spectrum of sexual orientation, could have been before he openly acknowledged his sexuality, and ultimately doesn't matter when dealing with someone who was born into and raised in an alternate universe.

I don't know what Jesus has to do with it, but it's obvious that gay people have children. Again, I'm a bisexual man who would be tagged as 'gay' if I had a relationship with a young man I liked years back since people like to put labels on others, usually without permission.

As aforementioned, just because your all for the change doesn't mean everyone is. Granted some dislikes are due to a 'dislike' of LGBT progression, while others (like myself) just don't think it gels with the character; I would have liked to have seen it go another direction (e.g. Kirk reveals he's gay). Also as aforementioned, I said I will see how the film handles it before I make a personal decision on whether or not I like the change...since, again, I'm under no obligation to like or dislike the change.

 

[Amaris]

As a former clarinet player myself back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, he even chose the most boring wind instrument.

We trumpet players mocked you.

 

[sttngfan1701d]

This is absolutely hilarious. So they make Sulu gay in an obvious nod to Takei being out and proud. Except Takei himself doesn't like it because Sulu was never intended to be gay.

And now people are gnashing their teeth saying he's wrong to be taking that stance? That because Star Trek is supposed to be about an idealized future, OBVIOUSLY the gay actor should be happy that his character's sexuality be changed to reflect an ultra-PC society of 2016? Except he's not...*gasp!* Cue outrage.

Yes, it's not Takei's decision. But he did play the character for years, it's his character, so his opinion (which I agree with) should be given credence.

I texted my best friend, who is gay, when this news broke.

"Ridiculous. They're pandering." Was the reply. But I guess his opinion is unfortunate too? Why, OF COURSE! No one is allowed to say this is pandering and anyone who does is homophobic and/or stupid! Grrrrrrr!!!!!

For what it's worth, I'm disabled and use a wheelchair. But that doesn't mean I think their should be handicapped people shown working at Starfleet Headquarters just because the 23rd century is a brave, new, inclusive world. When filmmakers do this stuff, it's a stunt. It doesn't feel organic at all.

But no matter....what's done is done. No use complaining about it since it's part of the movie now. I just think it's hilarious since Takei himself disapproves.

 

[Amaris]

This is absolutely hilarious. So they make Sulu gay in an obvious nod to Takei being out and proud. Except Takei himself doesn't like it because Sulu was never intended to be gay.

And now people are gnashing their teeth saying he's wrong to be taking that stance? That because Star Trek is supposed to be about an idealized future, OBVIOUSLY the gay actor should be happy that his character's sexuality be changed to reflect an ultra-PC society of 2016? Except he's not...*gasp!* Cue outrage.

Yes, it's not Takei's decision. But he did play the character for years, it's his character, so his opinion (which I agree with) should be given credence.

I texted my best friend, who is gay, when this news broke.

"Ridiculous. They're pandering." Was the reply. But I guess his opinion is unfortunate too? Why, OF COURSE! No one is allowed to say this is pandering and anyone who does is homophobic and/or stupid! Grrrrrrr!!!!!

For what it's worth, I'm disabled and use a wheelchair. But that doesn't mean I think their should be handicapped people shown working at Starfleet Headquarters just because the 23rd century is a brave, new, inclusive world. When filmmakers do this stuff, it's a stunt. It doesn't feel organic at all.

But no matter....what's done is done. No use complaining about it since it's part of the movie now. I just think it's hilarious since Takei himself disapproves.

This post makes zero sense whatsoever, and seems to be mostly incoherent rambling.

 

[sttngfan1701d]

Incoherent rambling because I agree with Takei?

 

[Amaris]

Incoherent rambling because I agree with Takei?

No, because the sentences seemed to jump back and forth, and then de-evolved into the whole "no one is allowed to disagree" babbling that I see far too often to take at all seriously. Look, the point is that Takei doesn't have to agree for this to be a positive move. Hell, he may see the movie and change his mind, we don't know. No one is saying he can't disagree, but I certainly don't agree with his reasons. It doesn't matter what Gene wanted, because at the end of the day Gene wanted money and sex. His "vision" didn't begin to appear until much later, and by then he had bought into it lock, stock, and two smoking barrels, and he still managed to leave gay people out of the loop.

 

[Malaika]

I see people still make it a question of 'straight' or 'gay' when the more appropriate term, if we gotta use it, is bisexual. LGBT stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. but it seems to me that a lot of people ignore that 'B'
also, like someonelse pointed up, it would be more fitting to say 'pansexual' in a fictional reality like trek where people date people from other planets and of different species.

That doesn't contradict anything because it means Sulu can be attracted to women in tos but have a same-sex significant other in new trek. And Chekov apparently has a preference for alien gals (if that still and a spoiler from the fan event is any hint LOL).


that said, I respect Takei's feelings about it and I try to understand where he's coming from. Hollywood has a history for thinking that because an actor is gay, then he can only play gay characters (e.g., I read that crap about Quinto) so this might be the source of his knee jerk reaction about it and make him see everything from that perspective (thus he considers it more progressive that a gay actor plays a straight character) (even if, again, it's not HIS Sulu that was made gay. It's the one played by a straight guy in the same franchise where a gay actor plays the love interest of a woman). Let's not make him the bad guy for that, even if I myself disagree with what he said. But no one has the right to tell him that his feelings are invalid or that just because a person is a member of the LGBT community, they must 'thank' every writer that includes gay characters.
I also feel like if this was truly made to pay homage to him, then perhaps Pegg&co should have asked him first, LOL
I mean, if it's just something they wanted to do in the story and they believed in, they really don't have to ask for the original actors' permission (the fact that Nimoy for example approved S/U was a plus, but I don't think anyone asked for his input), but if they start to promote it as a homage for Takei, specifically, that is going to be a bit comical if the guy doesn't appreciate the 'gift' ^^

eta: didn't JJ also imply at one point that they had an idea about the sexuality of one character and his personal story that they couldn't include in stid? I wonder if this subplot for Sulu was in the works for a while, then.
In the realm of 'why not', maybe instead of Sulu they could have chosen Scotty.

 

[Shaw]

My question is... Why Sulu?

Honestly, the LGBT community deserves their own unique, fully fleshed out, compelling characters. But if J.J. Abrams, Justin Lin and Simon Pegg lack the creativity to do that and believe that the orientation of the actors should influence the orientation of the characters... leave Sulu straight and make Spock gay. That is, after all, the orientation of the current actors... which is just as valid as using the orientation of the original actors.

And how many people would like to see Spock pining for Kirk? Spock's relationship with Uhura in the last few movies could have been Spock attempting to suppress his orientation in the same way he attempts to suppress his emotions.

Lets also look at the real life ramifications of this for the LGBT acting community. Does this say that if you cast a non-straight actor for a role that the orientation of that character will be in question (even with evidence to the contrary) going into the future? If you want to worry about bigots, watch the availability of parts for open actors dry up because their orientation might have future implications on the parts they get.


That's my two cents on the issue... pile on the hate!

 

[Amaris]

My question is... Why Sulu?

Honestly, the LGBT community deserves their own unique, fully fleshed out, compelling characters. But if J.J. Abrams, Justin Lin and Simon Pegg lack the creativity to do that and believe that the orientation of the actors should influence the orientation of the characters... leave Sulu straight and make Spock gay. That is, after all, the orientation of the current actors... which is just as valid as using the orientation of the original actors.

And how many people would like to see Spock pining for Kirk? Spock's relationship with Uhura in the last few movies could have been Spock attempting to suppress his orientation in the same way he attempts to suppress his emotions.

Lets also look at the real life ramifications of this for the LGBT acting community. Does this say that if you cast a non-straight actor for a role that the orientation of that character will be in question (even with evidence to the contrary) going into the future? If you want to worry about bigots, watch the availability of parts for open actors dry up because their orientation might have future implications on the parts they get.


That's my two cents on the issue... pile on the hate!

*prepares fire*
*gets giant pot*
*boils tar*
*spackles driveway*

What? Oh.

A new character would be easily dismissed. Make a one-off I'M GAY character and no one has to acknowledge that gay people exist in the 23rd century. Make it a core cast member? Now you've got to face up to it. As for choosing Sulu, it was done in honor of George Takei's classic role as Sulu, and from his real life coming out in 2005. I like the idea, John Cho loves the idea, and so I say roll with it.