HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler

[Amaris]

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!

I think part of George still feels this is the 1960s. The stigma of being gay is rapidly receding. This really is an honor, and a genuine tribute.

 

[Skywalker]

Uh... Captain America? He's definitely straight!

No fictional character is straight on the internet.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

I think part of George still feels this is the 1960s. The stigma of being gay is rapidly receding. This really is an honor, and a genuine tribute.

Yeah, it is. Nothing about Hikaru Sulu changes with this. We only know he's married to a man and has a daughter. We knew the latter but didn't know the former before. And that's big. It's not like Sulu's going to be in tight jeans and a sparkly shirt and gesturing like crazy and talking like Carson Kressley.
And Skywalker, I know. There's a rule that covers that.

 

[CorporalClegg]

According to IDW, she's a whitewashed Zahra, from Operation Annihilate

Yeah. I heard about that once. I hope it isn't true. I tried to find the actress on the IMDB page, but never could. I just figured she must be one of the faceless names along side "Enterprise Crew Member"

As far as comics, I never pay attention to those.

No fictional character is straight on the internet.

Arrow?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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?

I left off Scotty because of a rumor regarding his character development in the movie that I didn't want to get into.

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.

You could theoretically do all of those if you wanted to and were willing to show how it developed from their prior heterosexual relationships.

But then you have Sulu's character who has had no attachments shown in the prior two movies which makes him an ideal choice for further development, both as either a gay character or just in general.

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.

What both ways? The other characters have detailed established relationships in this universe, while Sulu has vague lustful googly eyes and remarks in a completely different universe. The two aren't comparable, but even so, I'd be fine with the others if they did the work to justify it. Sulu however is a tabula rasa as far as relationships go in this universe, so why not take the open option that's in need of greater characterization anyway?

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.

Except we're talking about John Cho, who is straight, playing a gay character. Alongside Zachary Quinto, who is gay, playing a straight character. Soooo, yeah, I don't see people playing outside their own sexuality going away anytime soon. This also seems like giving this minor secondary character change way more power and influence on Hollywood casting decision than it actually has.

And as many times as people want to say it, the decision wasn't made primarily because George Takei is gay. There were several reasons given by Pegg for why this was a development they wanted to do for the character in their own right absent of any connection to Takei.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Ohhhhhh myyyyyyyyyy.

I wouldn't call it a HUGE spoiler, it's just a character's sexuality, but I like it nonetheless. Very cool.

The right-wing Trekfans are angry about this, saying that 'Gene never said that Sulu was gay' or some such thing.

 

[BillJ]

LGBT wise it is an improvement over the last two movies...

Certainly you mean it is an improvement over the entirety of the franchise? Where there has been zero representation for fifty years.

 

[Guy Gardener]

here's why it's better to tweak Sulu than invent a new charater who just happens to be gay... They can't kill off Sulu at any point during the movie.

The self cleaning empty gesture.

"I don't know why all our gay characters seem to become suddenly dead almost immediately after coming out on screen? It's just one of those weird mysteries that we will never understand."

 

[Amaris]

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.

If that is indeed how it went, then it's his loss, unfortunately. The LGBT community has been reacting very positively to this announcement. Not just some ancillary character no one has ever met before, but Sulu, the helmsman of the USS Enterprise, in a franchise known worldwide. It's a great first step for better LGBT representation, and it's going to make some young people, who are still searching their feelings, grasp on to the notion that they will be welcome in the Star Trek universe.

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.

No, because it's easy to throw away those characters once you're done with them. You can do it one movie, and then never acknowledge their existence again. That is the heart of tokenism. By revealing that Sulu is gay, is married with a husband and daughter, you've established a strong character framework in someone whom we've all known about since the beginning. We get to see another side of his personality. It will be far more beneficial than introducing the gay redshirt who dies between films.

 

[M'Sharak]

Yeah. I heard about that once. I hope it isn't true. I tried to find the actress on the IMDB page, but never could. I just figured she must be one of the faceless names along side "Enterprise Crew Member"

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Jodi_Johnston
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5629348/reference

As far as comics, I never pay attention to those.

I don't either, as a rule, but chasing down Paul's "whitewashed Zahra" reference is what led me to her name.

 

[uniderth]

It will be far more beneficial than introducing the gay redshirt who dies between films.

I didn't say gay redshirt. I said new main character.

 

[m.lp.ql.m]

It's a great first step for better LGBT representation, and it's going to make some young people, who are still searching their feelings, grasp on to the notion that they will be welcome in the Star Trek universe.

OMFSM, if there had been a recurring, positive, gay character in TOS when I was growing up on the reruns, or even TNG, my life would be VERY different now. Without a doubt for the better.

 

[Firebird]

No fictional character is straight on the internet.

Rule 34 accepts all comers.

 

[Kemaiku]

Rule 34 accepts all comers.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If Takei insists Roddenberry would not approve of this, then don't do it....

I doubt George really knows what Gene would or wouldn't approve of. I'm not even sure if they were as close as George implies. But from what I do know of Gene, I've a feeling he'd probably approve, but not necessarily for the right reasons.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I didn't say gay redshirt. I said new main character.

So Ensign Poochey?

Then we could have the exact same fans complain that they crammed in a token gay crew member for the sake of being progressive taking time from the established crew.

 

[Amaris]

I didn't say gay redshirt. I said new main character.

It doesn't matter. By making them a new, out-of-the-blue character, their thoughts and feelings are irrelevant as soon as they have no need of that character, and then they're gone. Someone like Sulu, though? An integral part of the bridge crew? Known by fans new and old? Yeah, that's real representation.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I didn't say gay redshirt.

Oh, god no. Not with those shoes.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

Characters are constantly evolving, New stuff gets added. Old stuff gets discarded. Welcome to the world of long time fiction. You really think they should be preserved in amber?

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.

I don't think they were intended to be permanent additions. I don't see what role Jaylah would play on the ship going forward. She's not Starfleet. So why would she be on the ship?
When was Winona killed?

Gene's the one who gave Rand a more substantive position on the ship in her TMP cameo.

Transporter operator? Not really a step up. Hell, she wasn't even good at it! A man had to step in to try and save the day. At least as yeoman she was competent.

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.

She's an MD and gets bumped down as soon as McCoy shows up.

Because Chapel was pining for Spock in TOS in Amok Time.

Pining for a man. Now there is a positive role model!! To hell with a woman who can hold her own.

The right-wing Trekfans are angry about this, saying that 'Gene never said that Sulu was gay' or some such thing.

Sadly it's more than right-wing fans.

 

[Amaris]

"How about that?"
"Yeah, how'd you like to have her as your own personal yeoman?" - Berkeley and Enterprise security crewman, "The Man Trap"

God, Gene was a feminist revolutionary.