You're actually restating George's point, that the time to make these choices is when the character is originally conceived, not a half-century after the fact.
HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
You're actually restating George's point, that the time to make these choices is when the character is originally conceived, not a half-century after the fact.
A
Amaris
Guest
Takei has no creative control in this regard. He can feel that way if he wants, but that doesn't change the decision, nor should it. It's not pandering to show representation and acknowledgment of people who have been marginalized up until recently. This isn't pandering, and it isn't titillation like the DS9 episodes, this is to show that being gay is perfectly normal in the 23rd century. Considering what recently happened to a large number of gay people in Orlando, this is most assuredly a welcome message they need to see.
What an absurd argument. If, however, that really is the case, should we still have Superman "slapping a Jap" like he was recommending 70 years ago?
In-universe, the Sulu of the Kelvin Timeline was conceived after the Kelvin incident, meaning the circumstances leading to his birth may have been different, leading to him being gay in this timeline.
From a writing standpoint, would you have been outraged at the change in characterization and personality of Spock from The Cage, WNMHGB, and even early episodes of TOS? These things shift from episode-to-episode, based on the needs of the script.
Which is non-sense. Should we also have Uhura go around stating that "she's frightened" because that was the way things were in the 1960's? Things change, get over it.
I doubt the goal is to "stop any homophobes from watching the movie". The goal is to (1) Honor the commitment to diversity that Trek is known for, (2) Acknowledge and show respect for gay fans and the gay community in general, and (3) Encourage tolerance in a new generation of Trek fans by establishing that one of their heroes just so happens to be gay.
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.
In some ways these new producers/writers are worse. I should have known when they unceremoniously discarded Carol Marcus, that I shouldn't expect too much from them. I really have to lower my expectations seemingly at least in the case of the movies. Hopefully the new series will be better for women and LGBT representation.
What, you mean the same way Harve Bennett did the same in TSFS?
A
Amaris
Guest
They just revealed that a major cast member, a central figure in the new films, is most certainly gay, openly so, and that it will be something considered a normal and routine part of life in the 23rd century. They just knocked the ball out of the park for LGBT representation. If anything, these films are very pro-woman, pro-LGBT representation.
Trying to pull the conversation back towards the positive, I'm wondering something: am I the only person out there who, in looking back in hindsight at Star Trek '09 and Star Trek into Darkness, isn't actually all that surprised by this creative decision?
You should read my previous posts. I suggested they should rather have made Kirk, McCoy or Scott bi or gay or even two of them and put them in a relationship together. When you jump in in a conversation, maybe start reading from the beginning. Then you would have known, who I was referring to with "another character". That is also true for those three who liked your comment.
This is a 20 page thread, and I can't keep up with every single response. Additionally, I was responding to that specific post, which mentioned nothing of Kirk, McCoy or Scotty. I'll thank you not to suggest how I go about reading & participating in this thread.
Let me correct an inaccuracy:
I was talking about weak, effeminate ASIAN men who have had those offensive stereotypes (primarily in American media) whether or not they identified as gay. (Future Asian American Studies grad student here). Of course, since Justin Lin is directing (who also worked with John Cho in his - Lin's - first film "Better Luck Tomorrow") we may see more focus on Sulu and a strong portrayal of a character who just happens to be part of the LGBT community.
Also, let me correct another inaccuracy on your part:
I've made no assumptions since I've stated, at least twice, that I'm looking forward to seeing how they handle the character; and I won't be able to make a full-on opinion until I have watched said upcoming film. For now, it's - the change - is just questionable since I have my own ideas of who the character is.
Last edited:
Exactly, Kirk wasn't the child victim of Kodos until the story was written, Spock didn't go nuts every 7 years, and the jilted love of Kirk's retirement could have been Carol or Gillian but it was Antonia. Modern writers layer their characters as the story progresses, they aren't set in stone from day one. Even Babylon 5, which had a story Bible, chopped and changed plot threads and character arcs as time went on. This is purely an example of that in action. If Spock can end up with Uhura, Sulu can end up with a dude.
Carol may or may not return to NuTrek as a love interest for Kirk or McCoy, and Sulu's husband might return in a more significant plot thread that doesn't smack of tokenism. ;-p. Baby steps.
I can understand why Takei is reticent; I expect he does not want the hate mail that might come if he's seen as the one projecting his deviant lifestyle onto such a beloved character and turning Sulu from the path of righteousness. For my part, this is less of an issue than ageing Chekhov and bundling Chapel off to the frontier.
LGBT wise it is an improvement over the last two movies, although I really wouldn't call Sulu a "central figure". I really doubt he will get much more than in the last two movies. But "very pro-woman representation"? Seriously? A movie franchise with a measly one female main character? Movies which had otherwise hardly any other speaking female roles and the few they had before, were either killed off (Gaila, Amanda, Winona) or now discarded like Carol. And I bet Jaylah will also get discarded for the movie after Beyond.
Takei doesn't own the character and Roddenberry's dead and was an admitted homophobe for most of his life, so how about no?
I don't get the frustration w Carol Marcus no longer part of crew in this and a few other threads. Her character was an add in physical personal representation of Kirk's decisions n the status of his life at that point. She was never seen on TOS nor mentioned. Just a character to help that particular movie.
STID intro her Kirk n her got to know each other some mutal attraction she left E for career/personal decision while E continued w 5 year mission
I wrote that comment only one page before the other one! And even in the comment you quoted, I did say nothing about a newly created character. I wrote "another character". You just falsely assumed for some reason, that I meant a new one. So you attacked me for an opinion, I never stated, because you didn't bother to read one previous page and made a false assumption of the comment you quoted. And when I point out your mistake, you just continue with being rude.
Yeah, movie makers these days have no respect.
At least Bennett brought Bibi Besch back in The Search for Spock.
Oh, wait. No he didn't.
Carol Marcus also didn't reappear in the next movie of the original cast.
Character backstories/bios are where recons most commonly occur and are always subject to change.
Despite any (erroneously) perceived degree of magnitude, in terms of writers' license, changing Sulu's orientation is no different from than changing James R. to James T.--or, as I mentioned much earlier in this thread chaining Sulu from walking calculator to driver. In the grand scheme, it's all the same.
And that's only if we assume he was previously established as strait, of which, as has been previously noted, any evidence is tentative at best.
Despite any (erroneously) perceived degree of magnitude, in terms of writers' license, changing Sulu's orientation is no different from than changing James R. to James T.--or, as I mentioned much earlier in this thread chaining Sulu from walking calculator to driver. In the grand scheme, it's all the same.
And that's only if we assume he was previously established as strait, of which, as has been previously noted, any evidence is tentative at best.
Maybe, maybe not. Lets wait and see.
You can't please everybody all of the time.
Whatever they end up doing with Jaylah's character, it's bound to upset a few.
Similar threads
