HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler

[CorporalClegg]

I'm still holding out hope that the platinum blonde sitting at one of the sci stations in ID turns out to be Rand.

As an aside to the "because Gene said so" argument, frankly, his treatment of GLW is reason enough for me to not take anything he ever said seriously.

 

[mos6507]

Clearly Gene had a long term plan for Chapel, and it would be nothing more than pandering to change it now.

Yes, Chapel became a full MD by TMP and then worked at Starbase HQ by Trek IV. "Gene's vision" has nothing to do with permanently limiting screen-time based on how much a given character featured in TOS. In fact, Chapel would have been a more appropriate love-interest for Spock than Uhura.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I was reacting to someone who mentioned the Berman years and compared the new movie makers with him. He did help create a bunch of good female characters. Under him we got the first female captain. That was progress back then. Of course not everything was golden under him though, too.

Wait. The first female captain was the unnamed Captain of the Saratoga in The Voyage Home, before Berman.

 

[Firebird]

There is a Political Correct Court of Trekbbs? I want to be on it! For the wigs, of course.

The wigs aren't the only bonus to Court membership!

 

[Amaris]

Yes, Chapel became a full MD by TMP and then worked at Starbase HQ by Trek IV. "Gene's vision" has nothing to do with permanently limiting screen-time based on how much a given character featured in TOS. In fact, Chapel would have been a more appropriate love-interest for Spock than Uhura.

Appropriate in what way?

 

[Shaw]

I love the unintentional implication that Sulu (either Sulu) is none of those things

We (that's 'non-heterosexual' people) "deserve" the exact same things as everyone else. Hence, 'equality.' And I don't recall anyone screeching about "creating unique etc etc'" characters whenever a straight Trek character got their first on-screen love interest.

'Picard didn't have a love interest in the first season of the show. Why should they change him to having an interest in women now. They should have just created a brand new blah blah blah...'​

This whole "don't change an old character, just introduce a new one" (not to mention "LGBT people 'getting' Sulu") reeks of the old fan chestnut "I don't want other people playing with my toys!!!'" The writers control what/who the characters are, and they can do so via retcons. That's all there is to it. If you want that power, best start praying that a job at Paramount falls in your lap.

I'm happy that you're happy that an essentially disposable character (and in nuTrek, Sulu is disposable) was altered to placate you. You deserve no more than you are willing to have and if you will settle with this, great.

Personally, I think changing straight characters to gay (or gay to straight), male characters to female (or female to male), and characters of color to white in order to pander is little more than an attempt to separate us from our hard earn money.

But if this is all it takes to make you happy, and an honest effort would be wasted on you, great! I don't care if you are willing to settle for less. But I do have friends that I would wish more for than the low standards you are evidently willing to accept.

Dare to dream a little bigger than hetero leftovers.

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.

And Scotty! Right?

Oh, wait... I forgot, Scotty is in a relationship with Keenser (which I guess doesn't count as gay because Keenser's gender hasn't been explicitly defined).

But why not Scotty? And I heard that Uhura and Spock might break up, so why not Spock or Uhura? Maybe McCoy's divorce was because he fell for another man?

Or why not Kirk? This is a guy obviously (in nuTrek) compensating for something.

And how do you define established heterosexual relationships if you are so dismissive of anyone pointing out Sulu's established character? Seems like you want it both ways to justify this.

Honestly, my biggest problem with this is that they assign this to Sulu because of George Takei. I have friends who are actors who wish to be who they are IRL and yet still be taken seriously when auditioning for whatever part they want to play. This could cause issues for actors getting roles if their off stage sexuality might overshadow their on stage characters.

 

[Amaris]

I'm happy that you're happy that an essentially disposable character (and in nuTrek, Sulu is disposable) was altered to placate you. You deserve no more than you are willing to have and if you will settle with this, great.

Personally, I think changing straight characters to gay (or gay to straight), male characters to female (or female to male), and characters of color to white in order to pander is little more than an attempt to separate us from our hard earn money.

But if this is all it takes to make you happy, and an honest effort would be wasted on you, great! I don't care if you are willing to settle for less. But I do have friends that I would wish more for than the low standards you are evidently willing to accept.

Dare to dream a little bigger than hetero leftovers.


And Scotty! Right?

Oh, wait... I forgot, Scotty is in a relationship with Keenser (which I guess doesn't count as gay because Keenser's gender hasn't been explicitly defined).

But why not Scotty? And I heard that Uhura and Spock might break up, so why not Spock or Uhura? Maybe McCoy's divorce was because he fell for another man?

Or why not Kirk? This is a guy obviously (in nuTrek) compensating for something.

And how do you define established heterosexual relationships if you are so dismissive of anyone pointing out Sulu's established character? Seems like you want it both ways to justify this.

Honestly, my biggest problem with this is that they assign this to Sulu because of George Takei. I have friends who are actors who wish to be who they are IRL and yet still be taken seriously when auditioning for whatever part they want to play. This could cause issues for actors getting roles if their off stage sexuality might overshadow their on stage characters.

Nope.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Appropriate in what way?

Because the color of her ... shirt, J.

 

[Amaris]

Because the color of her ... shirt, J.

Clearly only those with the same shirt color should associate and co-habitate.

 

[mos6507]

Appropriate in what way?

Because Chapel was pining for Spock in TOS in Amok Time. There's far scanter evidence of any heat between Uhura and Spock. The point being that everyone has their own preferences for where to go with these characters. That's why fan-fiction exists (like, um, Kirk / Spock). There's no way for everyone to agree.

 

[Pauln6]

None of the the women need to be a love interest any more than Sulu does. It's fine that he gets a throw away scene as an homage but in a 2 hour movie with a principal love affair, how much more time do we want to spend on character coupling? A sideways glance and some uncomfortable body language like yeoman Colt would be fine if you really must go down that route.

They need to walk the line of honouring the original characters and updating them. It's why Sulu's piloting and fencing make it in while Chekov is bounced around. Being cute and Russian was enough in the sixties but the character needs more nowadays. It's why I lament the sexism. They really went out of their way to use Chekov but not the women - not even Number One or T'pau was deemed good enough.

 

[Amaris]

Because Chapel was pining for Spock in TOS in Amok Time. There's far scanter evidence of any heat between Uhura and Spock. The point being that everyone has their own preferences for where to go with these characters. That's why fan-fiction exists (like, um, Kirk / Spock). There's no way for everyone to agree.

You used the word "appropriate".

 

[Vasquez Rocks]

I love George, but he can be downright goofy with his overprotectiveness of the Sulu character. I'm reminded of his constant complaining of the "Don't call me tiny." line in The Search for Spock to Harve Bennett. Saying no one would find it funny because people don't think of Sulu as small in stature. Well, it ended up being one of his best and funniest moments in the film and tv series. We're talking about a character with not much character development to begin with. Also, Cho's Sulu is a different Sulu, but I could even see Prime Sulu being gay too. I'm happy that this new Star Trek is fleshing out the supporting cast members' characters in ways the Prime universe never did.

 

[uniderth]

Wasn't planning on getting into this discussion. But It's clear that making Sulu gay is not a tribute to Takei after all. If the man doesn't want Sulu to be gay then how is it honoring him by going against his wishes? If they truly wanted to pay tribute to Takei then they should introduce a different character as gay. Contrary to what Simon Pegg believes, introducing a new character who happens to be gay is not tokenism, if being gay in not their defining characteristic. Give the new character a backstory and some other defining characteristic and there is no tokenism. Even all of the hype about this issue just proves it is tokenism in the first place. LOOK HERE! WE HAVE THE GAY CHARACTER! Isn't that exactly what's going on? Sorry, but I've lost (even more) respect for Abram's Trek if they go forward with this as a tribute to Mr. Takei.

 

[Pauln6]

I'm still holding out hope that the platinum blonde sitting at one of the sci stations in ID turns out to be Rand.

As an aside to the "because Gene said so" argument, frankly, his treatment of GLW is reason enough for me to not take anything he ever said seriously.

According to IDW, she's a whitewashed Zahra, from Operation Annihilate albeit now a security officer rather than a yeoman. Rand has appeared in the comics too, briefly. I think they toy with the idea of using her every time a draft script comes up but struggle to think of a way to get her into her underwear, so they dismiss the idea.

It's also possible that the blonde woman is Rand as she married the north African Zahra and took her name so we already had a gay character and Sulu can stay straight after all.

 

[Amaris]

Wasn't planning on getting into this discussion. But It's clear that making Sulu gay is not a tribute to Takei after all. If the man doesn't want Sulu to be gay then how is it honoring him by going against his wishes? If they truly wanted to pay tribute to Takei then they should introduce a different character as gay. Contrary to what Simon Pegg believes, introducing a new character who happens to be gay is not tokenism, if being gay in not their defining characteristic. Give the new character a backstory and some other defining characteristic and there is no tokenism. Sorry, but I've lost (even more) respect for Abram's Trek if they go forward with this as a tribute to Mr. Takei.

They didn't expect him to throw a snit, which isn't their fault. The thing is, the general consensus is that this is a great move for the LGBT community. As a member of that community, I agree.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

George is upset, but I think he isn't right. Sulu is a freakin' badass! I mean, 2009 and STID.... do you really want to get into a fight with Sulu? I wouldn't! And he's openly gay and not campy!

 

[Maurice]

"Visibility at any cost." — Harvey Fierstein

No, it's not ideal, it's a secondary character, but, c'mon it's something when for 50 years we've had a whole lotta nuthin'. Sure, we'd like a three course meal, but an appetizer beats starving. It's a foot in the door. That's important.

 

[JKM]

They didn't expect him to throw a snit, which isn't their fault. The thing is, the general consensus is that this is a great move for the LGBT community. As a member of that community, I agree.

According to the Interview of Takei online this isn't true. See Here. He was felt out about it a year ago by Cho:

Takei first learned of Sulu's recent same-sex leanings last year, when Cho called him to reveal the big news. Takei tried to convince him to make a new character gay instead. "I told him, 'Be imaginative and create a character who has a history of being gay, rather than Sulu, who had been straight all this time, suddenly being revealed as being closeted.'"

Not long after Cho's bombshell call came another, this one from Lin, again informing that Sulu was indeed to be gay in Star Trek Beyond. Takei remained steadfastly opposed to the decision.


"I said, 'This movie is going to be coming out on the 50th anniversary of Star Trek, the 50th anniversary of paying tribute to Gene Roddenberry, the man whose vision it was carried us through half a century. Honor him and create a new character. I urged them. He left me feeling that that was going to happen," Takei says.


After that, all was quiet from Beyond until a few months ago, when Takei received an email from Pegg "praising me for my advocacy for the LGBT movement and for my pride in Star Trek," he says. "And I thought to myself, 'How wonderful! It’s a fan letter from Simon Pegg. Justin had talked to him!'" Takei was certain the creative team had rethought their decision to make Sulu gay.


That is until one month ago, when he received an email from Cho informing him that the actor was about to embark on an international media tour for Beyond. Cho said it was bound to come out that his character was gay, and "what should he do?" A disappointed Takei told Cho to go about his promotional duties, but that he was "not going to change" his mind on the matter.

Seems kinda weird they dedicate it to him after he was against it.

 

[uniderth]

They didn't expect him to throw a snit, which isn't their fault. The thing is, the general consensus is that this is a great move for the LGBT community. As a member of that community, I agree.

But wouldn't introducing a new character also have been just as great a move? If they announced a new character instead of amending Sulu, would there be any less perceived greatness to that action? I don't think so. I think any gay main character would have been received with equal jubilation. So going forward as if this move is honoring Mr. Takei, is thoughtless and careless.

No problem if they want to make Sulu gay; but it is not honoring the actor who formerly portrayed the character. I hope they acknowledge that, but I haven't been keeping up on the news so maybe they have already.