This very thread proves it's necessary.
HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
I've never thought less of someone for their race, so no.. that's silly. You have no control over your race, and besides.... without Asians we wouldn't have Moon Bloodgood whose half Korean. Her marriage though broke my heart.
Obviously it was pandering because of Nichols' choice to be black and Takei's choice to be Asian.
I've never thought less of someone for their race, so no.. that's silly. You have no control over your race, and besides.... without Asians we wouldn't have Moon Bloodgood whose half Korean. Her marriage though broke my heart.
I hope this isn't to imply that you've thought less of someone for their sexual orientation.
A
Amaris
Guest
No, it's not pandering, and it is necessary. For example, you seem to be under the impression that being gay is a lifestyle choice, when basic biology disagrees with you.
Bigots, even when trying to be subtle, always make themselves known.
I've never thought less of someone for their race, so no.. that's silly. You have no control over your race, and besides.... without Asians we wouldn't have Moon Bloodgood whose half Korean. Her marriage though broke my heart.
People have no control over their sexuality either, so your point has no point. And while we're on the subjecy, just to entertain the thought, what if sexuality is a choice? So what? Are you just looking for excuses to be a bigot?
Pandering to whom? Reality? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but gay people exist. Deal with it.
Takei doesn't own the character, nor is this even the same character as the one he played in TOS and their movies. This is a character who was born into and raised in an alternate universe. And the bigoted outrage on this issue is precisely why it was necessary to do this.
Also, Sulu is an established and respected character who was not previously shown to be involved in any relationship in the new films, did not have any significant reference to his sexuality in the Prime Universe (a few longing glances and expressions of lust hardly constitute proof of anything), and is an established family man in the Prime Universe, so he would be a good example to follow for challenging those bigots who seem shocked that gay people can have a family. The other characters (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura) were currently in or had established heterosexual relationship in this universe, leaving Sulu and Chekov. They chose Sulu. Doing it as a dedication to Takei probably factored into the decision (which is probably why they were so disappointed in his bizarre reaction), but it was not the sole reason for the decision by a longshot.
And I'm going to let the "lifestyle choice" crap slide this time in the hope that it was just ignorance, but careful with the intolerant comments.
It's interesting that you feel that this decision is pandering. How you would have preferred them to implement the introduction of a LGBT character that would not have been pandering?
Last edited:
When exactly did you decide to be straight?
There should be a story reason associated with any of this....
Like Riker and Troi.... obviously this tension was an important aspect of their relationship, and there is story payoff in it later on....
The one time there was a quasi-lesbian storyline they had justification because of the trill host thing....
This is just pandering to say "LOOK what we did!" It's like what SyFy channel started doing in SG Universe and such.... they will specifically write this in just to placate certain groups. That's not being creative.
If Takei insists Roddenberry would not approve of this, then don't do it....
Like Riker and Troi.... obviously this tension was an important aspect of their relationship, and there is story payoff in it later on....
The one time there was a quasi-lesbian storyline they had justification because of the trill host thing....
This is just pandering to say "LOOK what we did!" It's like what SyFy channel started doing in SG Universe and such.... they will specifically write this in just to placate certain groups. That's not being creative.
If Takei insists Roddenberry would not approve of this, then don't do it....
Roddenberry had his chance to include gay characters, didn't do it and now he's dead. His wishes are no longer part of the conversation.
Last edited:
It comes down to this: representation matters. That is not pandering to represent what humanity is actually like.
I don't have a problem with Sulu being gay, but I would have really preferred another character for it. Giving specifically Sulu likely just a little scene about it, is really a save choice. They take as little risk as possible, while at the same time praising themselves for being so progressive. They do so little, that I bet it will hardly stop any homophobes from watching the movie, because it will be just too insignificant in the greater scheme of things to stop them from watching a movie they otherwise are interested in.
In today's time when quite a few series have well developed LGBT characters, making your most minor main cast member gay and give him a little scene or maybe with some luck two, is the opposite of bold. It is just doing the minimum. I expect more from Star Trek.
Then you obviously haven't been watching Star Trek for the last thirty years. Sulu being gay is bold in comparison to what we got during the Berman years.
They wouldn't necessarily be part of the conversation even if he were alive.
So, creating a new LGBTQ character that can easily not be in the next movie and be forgotten is a less safe choice than making an established main character gay? How does that even make any sense?
Similar threads
