HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler

[Franklin]

I doubt his sexuality was even given a second thought. He was there to push buttons and spout exposition. Takei wasn't given all that much to work with, frankly. He was used for some reaction shots once or twice,. That's about as deep as it got. I'm not even sure how you play gay or straight without a relationship in the story.

Some people are mixing up the following concepts:
1. Is there enough "onscreen" evidence to definitively prove Sulu was gay, straight, etc.?
4. Was the original Sulu straight, based on the totality of the evidence in front of us?
From a purely logical standpoint, old Sulu is straight and new Sulu is gay.

I have to agree with @Nerys Myk. I don't recall anything much in TOS or the movies that added much to Sulu's character development, let alone his sexually. Certainly not anything that is definitive one way or the other -- gay or straight.

The problem with accepting "old Sulu" being straight and "new Sulu" being gay is that it opens up the can of worms about why a person is gay in the first place. If one Sulu definitely is and one definitely isn't, then that can be used to say being gay is a lifestyle choice. That's a dangerous place to go. Though it's not conclusive, science tends to accept that being gay is "nature over nurture" and that it is likely physiological things (genes, heredity) which determine whether or not a person is gay.
So, if "new Sulu" is gay then by extrapolation, if "old Sulu" is exactly the same person, then it's very likely he's gay, too. Of course, that doesn't speak to either's sexual proclivities or behavior as a gay man. Those can be different.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Upenda and Itaka sound like terrible set ups to bad jokes.

Upenda my butt, and Itaka it in the butt.

I'm not the only person who saw that.

Those names had to be changed.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Can you please point out where I have been opposed to "any of the charcters being gay" ? Thank you.

Maybe I'm just reading between the lines. You seem quite desperate to find reasons Sulu can't be Gay and suggest characters with even more reasons not to be Gay as substitutes. Sounds odd to me. And I can't believe you wouldn't be just as addament if Chekov or McCoy had been chosen.

Anyway, I assume you're one of those who turn every criticism into the homophobe rant. Since I have never ever been opposed to anyone being gay and I have given suggestions from start to others who should have been

Have I called you a homophobe? I think you've used the word more than anyone in this thread! My argument for has been based on which character would work best (Sulu by a long shot) and why the hell not? Plus your Trek Fu is weak.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I have to agree with @Nerys Myk. I don't recall anything much in TOS or the movies that added much to Sulu's character development, let alone his sexually. Certainly not anything that is definitive one way or the other -- gay or straight.

The problem with accepting "old Sulu" being straight and "new Sulu" being gay is that it opens up the can of worms about why a person is gay in the first place. If one Sulu definitely is and one definitely isn't, then that can be used to say being gay is a lifestyle choice. That's a dangerous place to go. Though it's not conclusive, science tends to accept that being gay is "nature over nurture" and that it is likely physiological things (genes, heredity) which determine whether or not a person is gay.
So, if "new Sulu" is gay then by extrapolation, if "old Sulu" is exactly the same person, then it's very likely he's gay, too. Of course, that doesn't speak to either's sexual proclivities or behavior as a gay man. Those can be different.

I see no conflict here, especially since we are talking about two fictional characters in a sci-fi show.

This is not a treatise on the origins and science behind sexuality.

In fact, other than a two-second scene in "Beyond," we will likely never see a reference to Cho's Sulu being gay ever again, at least not in the current batch of movies.

If you really need to reconcile it, do so with Pegg's "we scrambled the eggs in all directions" quantum physics mumbo-jumbo.

These are two different characters in two different timelines/universes. There is no need to reconcile them, unless it gives you some personal comfort to do so.

Oddly, the more we debate this, the more Takei's position on this starts to make sense to me. Ha!

 

[Pauln6]

Spock was initially emotional and only after he was merged with the concept of Number one did he become the cold, logical character we have today. Did anybody at the time scream, Spock can't be unemotional, the canon info on screen clearly shows him smiling at a flower and shouting in a panic.

OK, poor example since the pilot wasn't widely distributed until merged with TOS but the principal is similar even before you take into account the fact that nuSulu's exposure to hormones in his mother's womb could have been affected by news of "that bad business with the Kelvin". Job done.

 

[mlk]

Maybe I'm just reading between the lines. You seem quite desperate to find reasons Sulu can't be Gay and suggest characters with even more reasons not to be Gay as substitutes. Sounds odd to me. And I can't believe you wouldn't be just as addament if Chekov or McCoy had been chosen.
Have I called you a homophobe? I think you've used the word more than anyone in this thread! My argument for has been based on which character would work best (Sulu by a long shot) and why the hell not? Plus your Trek Fu is weak.

Oh please, you're insinuating it "between the lines" as you like to say. Again, if you can't back it up that I'm opposed to people being gay on Star Trek you should seriously stfu about it because it's not just a serious accusation it can be insulting. I am against shitty retcons, not gay people.

 

[BillJ]

Oh please, you're insinuating it "between the lines" as you like to say. Again, if you can't back it up that I'm opposed to people being gay on Star Trek you should seriously stfu about it because it's not just a serious accusation it can be insulting. I am against shitty retcons, not gay people.

So, if they had made Kirk gay, you would've had no issue with it? Ignoring tons of backstory that runs counter to him being gay. Yet you have an issue with Sulu, which we know so very little about...

 

[Maurice]

Here's all it takes for Sulu to be gay in the alternate timeline: instead of sperm X impregnating his mother's egg, it was sperm Y. DONE.

 

[Cake]

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.

The whole movie is full of stereotypes. It is a completely over the top parody. That said, what you fail to mention is, that the gay characters are really likeable in the movie. Their behaviour isn't portrayed as being bad or wrong. They are the heroes in the story. Rescuing the whole planet!

And when it comes to the LGBT scene, opinions weren't so one sided like you try to make it seem. Yeah, some had your reaction. But a lot of others not. Here is a positive critique for example:

http://www.gaystation.info/tv/?/tv/video.html

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Two seconds of extremely circumstantial evidence from one of the most bizarre scenes I can recall in the entire franchise. Even the general action of the scene seems completely out of character to start with. Calling that 'evidence' is seriously stretching.

First off, it's not necessary to qualify circumstantial evidence as "extremely." It's simply not direct evidence, hence it's circumstantial.

Secondly, it's not direct evidence; it's circumstantial evidence. There's no stretching there: it's a very specific kind of evidence.

Third, what does whether it's bizarre or out of character have to do with whether it occurred on screen?

The point had to do with the totality of on-screen evidence and how minimal it is. It's very minimal and the best evidence is only circumstantial at that, not even direct at all, and from TAS to boot.

How is that unclear that point I was agreeing with is that the on-screen evidence is very minimal?

 

[M'Sharak]

Can you please point out where I have been opposed to "any of the charcters being gay" ? Thank you.

Anyway, I assume you're one of those who turn every criticism into the homophobe rant. Since I have never ever been opposed to anyone being gay and I have given suggestions from start to others who should have been gay.

Oh please, you're insinuating it "between the lines" as you like to say. Again, if you can't back it up that I'm opposed to people being gay on Star Trek you should seriously stfu about it because it's not just a serious accusation it can be insulting. I am against shitty retcons, not gay people.

mlk, you've been asked more than once to stop disrupting the thread by a) dragging the "homophobe" thing out ad infinitum and b) by making this all about you repeatedly challenging people to back up things they've not, in fact, ever said.

The continued disruption earns you a warning, and that comes with a direction to drop the matter now or risk further warnings. Any comments concerning this action are to be conducted via PM.

Feel free to join the discussion that's going on, but if you continue to pick fights, continue to hijack the thread, continue to make waves, your actions are likely to have consequences.

 

[Franklin]

I see no conflict here, especially since we are talking about two fictional characters in a sci-fi show.

This is not a treatise on the origins and science behind sexuality.

In fact, other than a two-second scene in "Beyond," we will likely never see a reference to Cho's Sulu being gay ever again, at least not in the current batch of movies.

If you really need to reconcile it, do so with Pegg's "we scrambled the eggs in all directions" quantum physics mumbo-jumbo.

These are two different characters in two different timelines/universes. There is no need to reconcile them, unless it gives you some personal comfort to do so.

Oddly, the more we debate this, the more Takei's position on this starts to make sense to me. Ha!

I see what you're saying, but to be frank, I get incredible personal comfort from reconciling them.

And yes, it's apparently two seconds of the movie, matters not to anything, and it's even ambiguous at that. So, blame Pegg for "clarifying" it.

The problem is the importance and scope of the story is getting blown out of proportion. To that end, I regret the "two Sulus solution" in the real world because it lends credence (on the surface at least -- Quantum mumbo jumbo aside) to the idea that being gay is a choice, which is often the rationale for not granting gay people the same rights as non-gay people, and tends to go against the beliefs of most science. If this is the Sulu born before the Kelvin incident, then he's physiologically the same Sulu as Sulu in the Prime Universe. Of course, Pegg says that doesn't have to be now, at least I guess that's what he's saying. One Sulu must've carried the gene (or whatever) and the other didn't, I guess that's how he's rationalized it. He's essentially changed the Trek laws of physics once again. This time to placate Takei.

Anyway, this all went far deeper than Pegg probably ever intended. It's even got more legs and causing more buzz than blue warp nacelles did.

As a courtesy, he should've probably called Takei to see if he was OK with it before going ahead and "honoring" his character that way. Once again, we see what happens when we assume.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Pegg is just saying it to humor the fanboys who think Star Trek is real. In reality it doesn't matter because its just a story. TOS Sulu was straight, New Sulu is gay. Both are Sulu, the only difference is that one was created in the 1960s and the other was created in the 2010s. At this point it's really odd that Star Trek hasn't had a gay character. Creating a new character poses problems to the narrative flow of the story because you have to introduce them into the story and create a storyline. It makes more sense to take a previously established character and have them be gay. You don't have to introduce Sulu again, he's already there. Toss in a photo or line of dialogue about a husband and kid and it's done.

That said, I hope that Trek in the future has more gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual characters. It's absurd to ignore part of the human race to pander to backwards thinking people who think diversity and equality to be fads that are going to blow over one day.

 

[BillJ]

As a courtesy, he should've probably called Takei to see if he was OK with it before going ahead and "honoring" his character that way.

I disagree. What I would have done differently, was have George find out when everyone else did.

 

[Skywalker]

Yeah, they informed Takei as a courtesy to him. They didn't have to tell him anything.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Oh please, you're insinuating it "between the lines" as you like to say. Again, if you can't back it up that I'm opposed to people being gay on Star Trek you should seriously stfu about it because it's not just a serious accusation it can be insulting. I am against shitty retcons, not gay people.

What's shitty about? I've seen a lot worse in Star Trek. It's really no different than finding out Kirk has a son, Spock has brother, McCoy has a wife or Uhura speaks Swahili. It's an added texture to the character. And as I've said more than once it works better with Sulu than any of the other main characters. If you wanna go all Canonista, Sulu is the best choice.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The time is out of sync?

Prime Generations is 2293, and this is Kelvin Beyond 2261?

Which would put Demora from Generations in her 40s, but the the wiki link I am looking at is claiming that Chekov was born a decade later too. Although as far as genetically identical people from different timelines, having radically different birthdates, maybe in the future women freeze their eggs when they are young and vital and it's not such a big deal like it is now?

Did they ever explain why they set the movies in the 50s and not the 60s?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Did they ever explain why they set the movies in the 50s and not the 60s?

So they could do an academy story using all the characters.

 

[Shaw]

No they don't...

Six or seven more edits and this might be worth a responce... keep working on it, you'll get there!

 

[Makarov]

Sure they could've just left him out of the loop entirely, in the process being slightly more inconsiderate than the heads up without listening to his input. But yeah no one's obligated to be nice in business, but it would've been a good idea if expecting him to be happy about it.