HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Well it's weird why most people here are reacting like people here are against gays (not weird at all though, since people without arguments have to pull the homophobe card), when it infact is the fact that it's that we don't think it should be Sulu, simply because it A: Changes someones character in a illogical way, B: is cheap. C: goes against the wishes of Takei and most likely Gene. I completely understand Takei too, instead that he will be remembered as that gay asian guy who had a well fleshed out character in Star Trek who had a good character development, he will be remembered as that gay guy who's character was also gay.

Original Sulu is still straight.

'Problem' solved.

 

[SPCTRE]

Spoiler

Apologies to the original artists here. I just found these on Google.

I am drowning in the warmest, fuzziest of feels right now

 

[Trekkin]

The sexual objectification wouldn't have worked so I don't think your question is really relevant. It just distracts from the actual question and I doubt you would ever claim that the Carol Marcus scene wasn't completely gratuitous and sexist fan service.

I like the movie. But it is kind notable that Kirk's ass and naked Khan were cut for time/relevance, yet Alice Eve's boobs were 'important' enough to stay.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I am drowning in the warmest, fuzziest of feels right now

"Let'e make sure history never forgets the name: Sombrero Enterprise!"

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I think that if one objects to what Pegg has done here, Duck Dynasty may be more suitable an entertainment than Star Trek.

That's what I suggested to somebody a short time ago in this thread.

I like the movie. But it is kind notable that Kirk's ass and naked Khan were cut for time/relevance, yet Alice Eve's boobs were 'important' enough to stay.

Being in skivvies and romancing a girl isn't being nearly nude?

 

[Trekkin]

You only see him from chest up in STID, and under a blanket in the first scene. And according to Pine, the decision to not show any more was a deliberate one.

Which is why the different standard being applied to the Caitians and Carol stands out. Compared to say, every character in the dorm room scene being half-naked in '09.

 

[BillJ]

Original Sulu is still straight.

'Problem' solved.

But there's no real need to differentiate the two, other than to keep fan boys from throwing internet temper tantrums.

 

[Devon]

https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei/posts/1622484171114363

George Takei has issued a statement on this matter. This seems a lot more diplomatic and pro-active.

Good morning from Montana! I’ve been here relaxing on vacation, but have noticed that many of you have been following the “gay Sulu” story and wanted to know why I’m being such a sourpuss. I’m writing to set the record “straight,” if you will.

When the news first broke, I gave a lengthy telephone interview, but the headlines have been misleading. Apparently, controversy makes for better sales! Let me be clear: I am not disappointed that there is a gay character in Star Trek. On the contrary, as I made clear, I am delighted that the Star Trek franchise has addressed this issue, which is truly one of diversity. It is thrilling to know that future generations will not see LGBTs go wholly unrepresented in the Trek universe.

On the specific question of Sulu being gay, when I was first approached with the concept, I responded that I hoped instead that Gene Roddenberry’s original characters and their backgrounds would be respected. How exciting it would be instead if a new hero might be created, whose story could be fleshed out from scratch, rather than reinvented. To me, this would have been even more impactful. While I understand that we are in an alternate timeline with the new Trek movies, for me it seemed less than necessary to tinker with an existing character in order to fulfill Gene’s hope of a truly diverse Trek universe. And while I am flattered that the character of Sulu apparently was selected as an homage to me, this was never about me or what I wanted. It was about being true to Gene’s vision and storytelling.

Gene had wanted long ago to include LGBT characters, and we spoke personally and specifically about the lack of them. Gene understandably felt constrained by the sensitivities of the time. Some fifty years ago, even TV’s first interracial kiss, between Kirk and Uhura, caused our ratings to plummet as the show was censored across much of the South for that scene. Gene made a conscious decision to make the main characters heterosexual, and worked within those parameters to tell incredible stories that still challenged many cultural values of the time. So the lack of gay characters was not some oversight by him; it was a conscious decision with which he grappled. I loved Gene as a friend, and I respected his decision and the context under which he created these stories. On this 50th year anniversary of Star Trek, my hope was to honor his foresight and bravery, as well as his ability to create discussion and diversity despite these constraints.

But Star Trek has always pushed the boundaries and opened new opportunities for actors, including myself. I am eternally grateful to have been part of this incredible and continuing family. I wish John Cho well in the role I once played, and congratulate Simon Pegg on his daring and groundbreaking storytelling. While I would have gone with the development of a new character in this instance, I do fully understand and appreciate what they are doing—as ever, boldly going where no one has gone before. Star Trek will live long and prosper.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Well it's weird why most people here are reacting like people here are against gays (not weird at all though, since people without arguments have to pull the homophobe card), when it infact is the fact that it's that we don't think it should be Sulu, simply because it A: Changes someones character in a illogical way, B: is cheap. C: goes against the wishes of Takei and most likely Gene. I completely understand Takei too, instead that he will be remembered as that gay asian guy who had a well fleshed out character in Star Trek who had a good character development, he will be remembered as that gay guy who's character was also gay.

Just because your argument doesn't revolve around homophobia doesn't mean homophobia hasn't reared its ugly head multiple times in this topic and around the internet. If you can't make the effort to look back through the thread and find the homophobic comments (it's quite easy; I'll give you a hint, look for anti-gay flag officers ironically named "Bear" for the most virulent of many examples) that's not indicative of a failure on everyone else's part.

You need to stop holding yourself up as the King of Debate, because you've barely made any real arguments yourself, instead choosing to mostly whine about procedural bullshit and how everyone else conducts themselves.

This isn't Takei's character. This is John Cho's character, from an alternate timeline.

If Pegg and the other hacks really wanted to be "edgy" in 2016 when Gay characters are pretty much mainstream anyway and hardly breaks any new ground, and they are serious with the whole "it's a whole new universe crap" they should have simply turned Kirk gay. Way to beat a dead horse. It's great when you think about it. They pick the asian guy nobody cares about and even have the audacity to call it a "tribute to George Takei" even when Takei doesn't want it. A big Lol on that one.

- They weren't trying to be "edgy," they were trying to be inclusive and rectify a longstanding failure in the Trek franchise.
- Kirk's already had multiple established heterosexual relationships, one night stands, and interests in this timeline, gnu-Sulu (Gay Nu-Sulu) has not.
- Kirk would not be an ideal choice since he's an established player sleeping around constantly and not remaining monogamous, while they wanted someone who was more of a down-to-Earth family man. Sulu had no prior serious relationships established in this or the original universe, and had a daughter in the PrimeVerse, so he was an ideal choice.
- The "freak the hell out about Sulu being gay but suggest that Kirk should have been gay instead" brigade has got to be the most disingenuous argument in this whole thread, as if the internet wouldn't have frickin' exploded even more had it been Kirk instead.
- Obviously people care about Sulu or we wouldn't have this long ass thread, and hundreds of similar threads and articles around the internets.
- It was partially done as a tribute to George Takei, it just didn't quite work out since he didn't like it. That doesn't change the original intent, nor does it mean they are required to follow his instructions. It was a courtesy, not a contract. He doesn't own the character.

Once again you(and you're not alone) tries to make this some sort of anti gay issue. Again try to find some real arguments why dont you? I haven't seen anything here even remotely homophobic on this forum. It's not the fact that he is GAY. it's the fact it's a retcon from hell. It changes an EXTREMELY established character for absolutley no reason. I and the others here would have been as "upset" if Kirk would have been gay all along and they now changed him straight. Takei is even against it because it changes a really established character for no reason. If Sulu had at least had something written on him being homosexual so Takei and the rest could have hinted it. It's character retcon for no other reason then hype and publicity.

What's wrong with hyping and publicizing the introduction of a major gay character to Trek for the first time? What wrong with saying it was a shame that we had not taken this step earlier but we felt it was necessary to finally be inclusive and bring the franchise into the 21st century? Not that it's remotely comparable to this situation, but do you think the namesake of your username didn't hype and publicize his rallies in advance in order to bring more notice to his cause? Publicity and hype in service of doing the right thing is not something bad.

Your argument is delusional if you think Sulu in the PrimeVerse (which again, doesn't really matter) was EXTREMELY all-caps established as anything sexuality-wise, and even more so if you think anything has been established about Sulu's sexuality in this timeline before now.

And you're at it again with the argument policing. That's not your job, and you're not good at it anyway. Stop it.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei/posts/1622484171114363

George Takei has issued a statement on this matter. This seems a lot more diplomatic and pro-active.

Good morning from Montana! I’ve been here relaxing on vacation, but have noticed that many of you have been following the “gay Sulu” story and wanted to know why I’m being such a sourpuss. I’m writing to set the record “straight,” if you will.

When the news first broke, I gave a lengthy telephone interview, but the headlines have been misleading. Apparently, controversy makes for better sales! Let me be clear: I am not disappointed that there is a gay character in Star Trek. On the contrary, as I made clear, I am delighted that the Star Trek franchise has addressed this issue, which is truly one of diversity. It is thrilling to know that future generations will not see LGBTs go wholly unrepresented in the Trek universe.

On the specific question of Sulu being gay, when I was first approached with the concept, I responded that I hoped instead that Gene Roddenberry’s original characters and their backgrounds would be respected. How exciting it would be instead if a new hero might be created, whose story could be fleshed out from scratch, rather than reinvented. To me, this would have been even more impactful. While I understand that we are in an alternate timeline with the new Trek movies, for me it seemed less than necessary to tinker with an existing character in order to fulfill Gene’s hope of a truly diverse Trek universe. And while I am flattered that the character of Sulu apparently was selected as an homage to me, this was never about me or what I wanted. It was about being true to Gene’s vision and storytelling.

Gene had wanted long ago to include LGBT characters, and we spoke personally and specifically about the lack of them. Gene understandably felt constrained by the sensitivities of the time. Some fifty years ago, even TV’s first interracial kiss, between Kirk and Uhura, caused our ratings to plummet as the show was censored across much of the South for that scene. Gene made a conscious decision to make the main characters heterosexual, and worked within those parameters to tell incredible stories that still challenged many cultural values of the time. So the lack of gay characters was not some oversight by him; it was a conscious decision with which he grappled. I loved Gene as a friend, and I respected his decision and the context under which he created these stories. On this 50th year anniversary of Star Trek, my hope was to honor his foresight and bravery, as well as his ability to create discussion and diversity despite these constraints.

But Star Trek has always pushed the boundaries and opened new opportunities for actors, including myself. I am eternally grateful to have been part of this incredible and continuing family. I wish John Cho well in the role I once played, and congratulate Simon Pegg on his daring and groundbreaking storytelling. While I would have gone with the development of a new character in this instance, I do fully understand and appreciate what they are doing—as ever, boldly going where no one has gone before. Star Trek will live long and prosper.

With respect to George, I still have to disagree with some of his points even in this more magnanimous response, though I'm thankful for him taking the time to try and calm things down.

Action/Adventure-driven ensemble films don't have the same amount of time to provide in-depth backstories for new characters as TV shows do, so any new character who they made it a point to establish as being gay is probably going to have that as his or her defining characteristic. George seems to be very much stuck in a TV actor mindset where a character is going to get dozens of small scenes across dozens of episodes, and perhaps even some episodes largely focused on that character specifically, to slowly establish a well-balanced background. Here you're one of many characters, a new one in fact, struggling for time against multiple established starring hero characters who are going to get much more of a focus, and there's three or four years between film installments before you're seen again.

If the new character's primary characteristic was that he was gay, the same people who are complaining about Sulu being gay would instead being crying "tokenism," just like they are with any thread on the board that mentions showing a background male character holding hands with another male character in the new series. They concern troll and pretend that they want better, but strangely the argument always seems to come down to objecting to any depiction of a gay character, no matter how big or small the role or how it's depicted. By using a character like Sulu who was already established as reliable and courageous under fire and command material, they avoid the tokenism charge. And Sulu in this timeline has the benefit of being a blank slate to work with sexuality and relationship-wise, while the Sulu in the PrimeVerse (not that it matters) barely had anything established about those aspects of his character either, other than having a daughter, which they reintroduced here.

I'm dubious of George's frankly rose-colored take on Roddenberry's position on gays in Trek, since Roddenberry himself has made statements about how he used to discriminate against and insult gays as a cop and during the time of the original series, and he certainly could have introduced them into TNG if he wanted to while he was still heavily involved in the early seasons. While much more of a risk back then than it is now, even in 1987/88/89 there had already been several gay characters or same-sex situations established on TV by that point, and it would have been a perfect time to address issues like the AIDS crisis (then still thought of as a "gay disease") and LGBT rights. Roddenberry later acknowledged that he was wrong in his beliefs, but that didn't mean he was willing to put a gay character in either TOS, the movies, or TNG.

Plus, I've seen Roddenberry's "vision" for how to treat women in Trek, and frankly I'm not impressed, even though we still have a long way to go even now. But mostly, I'm just tired of hearing about Roddenberry's vision. The man's been dead a quarter century, half the length of the franchise itself. We don't have to be beholden to everyone's practically Biblical interpretation of his alleged vision, which oddly more often than not happens to conform to their own vision for what Trek should be. Funny how that works. He made an entertaining TV snd movie franchise that made some strides for inclusivity, and I'm thankful for that. But he's not the second coming of the lord our Goddenberry, Genus Christ.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Sadly there is room for a new main character unless they recast Chekov.

If the new character turns out to be white, straight male, it will be telling.

Unless they do what Brannon Braga did.

He fired the second tier recurring actors on Voyager to pay for more special effects.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If Pegg and the other hacks

So now Pegg's a hack? He has a fairly solid rep as a writer in TV and film, so try again. Including a gay character in a film doesn't make one a hack.

And just why is Chekov too young? Lol. But Chekov would have been just as silly as Sulu. Chekov is even more anonymus then Sulu is.

So it's anonymity that's the problem? Sulu and Chekov aren't important enough to be gay?

If they were serious with the whole edgy and breaking new grounds and the other cliched stuff, they could have picked Kirk.

Oh please, it's not about being edgy or even breaking new ground. That ground was broken years ago. Trek was so far behind the curve it was a joke. Its about catching up to the 21st Century. Ironic since Star Trek is supposed to be about the future.

You claim to be opposed to any of the charcters being gay, yet you're constantly throwing out suggestions. Pretty much anyone but Sulu. So which is it?
Looks like George isn't as opposed to it as originally reported. Oh well, there goes that argument.

 

[Guy Gardener]

It's about catching up to the 20th century.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's about catching up to the 20th century.

I was being generous.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

But there's no real need to differentiate the two, other than to keep fan boys from throwing internet temper tantrums.

There is no reason to 'combine' the two Sulus, either.

Abrams' team used a fairly clever trick to give themselves the ability to recreate Star Trek as they see fit, and good for them. They showed us the trick, they made it part of the plot of the movie, and they even had their characters explain the trick to us. The "new universe/timeline" concept is not a fanboy theory.

That said, Team Abrams gets to reap the benefits of this trick, by changing anything they want in their new timeline, but I do not see where this trick gives them the ability to rewrite what came before. In fact, I believe that this is one of the reasons that they did it this way in the first place, to say: "Don't worry, fearful Trekkies. Your original episodes and movies are safe."

Now that time has passed, and they have 'gotten away with it,' I think creatives and fans alike are willing to get a little loosey-goosey with how changes in the Kelvin timeline might affect the Prime Universe. But I don't buy it. That's double-dipping. That's having your cake and eating it, too.

They can get away with changes in the Kelvin timeline (and I like that New Sulu is gay), but they can't undo the past.

And while we have no confirmation that Prime Sulu was straight, we have more evidence that he was straight than we do that he was gay.

If fans want to decide that Prime Sulu was gay, as well, they have that right. These are all pretend people, anyway.

But in my book, it is pretty clear that Prime Sulu was straight and New Sulu is gay.

And I think that both of those things are pretty great.

 

[BillJ]

They can get away with changes in the Kelvin timeline (and I like that New Sulu is gay), but they can't undo the past.

Seems the only past they are undoing is Takei's memories on the subject. Which, for me, is a non-starter.

And while we have no confirmation that Prime Sulu was straight, we have more evidence that he was straight than we do that he was gay.

We really have no evidence at all either way, which is why I think they made the decision they did. While I can respect people wanting to split the difference between the two universes. It doesn't work for me. So for my money, based on what we see on screen, it is easy for me to see both Sulu's as gay.

 

[Amaris]

Seems the only past they are undoing is Takei's memories on the subject. Which, for me, is a non-starter.



We really have no evidence at all either way, which is why I think they made the decision they did. While I can respect people wanting to split the difference between the two universes. It doesn't work for me. So for my money, based on what we see on screen, it is easy for me to see both Sulu's as gay.

Yep. According to Simon Pegg, and Roberto Orci, the moment Nero showed up there were ripples in spacetime going forward and backward.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

You claim to be opposed to any of the charcters being gay, yet you're constantly throwing out suggestions. Pretty much anyone but Sulu. So which is it?

It's all about wearing people down at every turn by opposing whatever choice is made no matter what it is or how it's done.

If the role is large, oppose it as pushing an agenda.
If the role is small, oppose it as not doing enough and say they should save it for a bigger character.
If an established character is announced to be gay, oppose it for violating canon or someone's vision.
If a new character is announced to be gay, say that it's tokenism.
Or oppose it because it's in the Abramsverse (sorry, Kelvinverse) and everything about that sucks.
Or oppose it because the makers are hacks.
Or oppose it because a lot of Trekkies are unfortunately allergic to change of any kind.

The goal is to just keep the opposition going until everyone is fed up with talking about it and you've soured the whole idea, so maybe next time producers or writers decide that they don't want to deal with all the drama and just don't bother with a gay character (or all-female Ghostbusters, or black Johnny Storm, or a female Starbuck, or a Latino Spider-Man).

 

[Michael]

As we are speaking about gay characters in Star Trek. 12 years ago they made in Germany a Star Trek parody called (T)Raumschiff Surprise, in which all Enterprise characters were gay. It is still one of the most successful German movies of all times. More than 9 million people saw it in the cinemas. It is currently on place 19 in regards to the most watched movies in Germany between 1966 and today. Beating for example all the Star Wars movies. None of the real Star Trek movies made it into the top 100 by the way. The last two Star Trek movies didn't even get close to 2 million viewers.

So at least in Germany gay Kirk, Spock, McCoy have easily beaten their straight counterparts in the cinemas.

Excuse me, but you've failed to mention that “(T)Raumschiff Surprise” uses some of the worst prejudices and stereotypes about gay people for its so-called “humor”. The movie was heavily criticized by the LGBTQ scene for perpetuating the stereotype of gay men not being masculine or “real men”. To use this excuse of a movie as evidence for a more progessive portrayal of gay people in Germany is laughable. I'm ashamed to say this is one of the most successful movies in Germany.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

We really have no evidence at all either way, which is why I think they made the decision they did. While I can respect people wanting to split the difference between the two universes. It doesn't work for me. So for my money, based on what we see on screen, it is easy for me to see both Sulu's as gay.

Disagree on the evidence.

We have no onscreen evidence in either direction, so that does not help us either way.

But why would you choose to only focus on onscreen evidence? (Unless of course, you are leaning toward wanting the Prime Sulu to be gay, which I suspect you are.)

Behind the scenes, we have:

The apparent intent of the creator of the series that Sulu -- a character he created -- was straight. (And no evidence to the contrary.)

The evidence of the actor himself, who breathed life into the character and played him for decades, insisting that Sulu was straight. (And this actor is a gay man and one of our generations biggest gay rights activists, no less!) His insistence is so strong that he is disappointed that this played out the way it did. Because he knows that the original Sulu was straight.

The reality of the times in which the original series was set, as has been discussed ad nauseum here and elsewhere, makes it very unlikely that we were supposed to see Sulu as a gay character.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope. But proof by a proponderance of the evidence? Easily.

And since this feels more like a civil matter to me than a criminal one, I think we are done here.

Now, if people are leaning toward wanting things to be a certain way, they can certainly choose to disregard any of the evidence that doesn't fit their personal theory. But they are disregarding evidence, nonetheless.

I am not wedded to things being any other way than they appear. Having no desired outcome, I see Prime Sulu as straight and New Sulu as gay. I have no emotions attached to any of this. Emotions cloud judgment.