• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Litverse & Star Trek '09

(I don't know, is Sulu still alive too, I don't remember anything specific about his life span).

He's not definitively alive in the 24th century novels, but Day of Honor: Armageddon Sky featured an unidentified, elderly Starfleet legend who was very, very strongly implied to be Sulu.
 
(I don't know, is Sulu still alive too, I don't remember anything specific about his life span).

He's not definitively alive in the 24th century novels, but Day of Honor: Armageddon Sky featured an unidentified, elderly Starfleet legend who was very, very strongly implied to be Sulu.

Didn't Chakotay also say that his admission to Starfleet Acadamy was sponsored by a "Captain Sulu" (but without specifying any further)?
 
Didn't Chakotay also say that his admission to Starfleet Acadamy was sponsored by a "Captain Sulu" (but without specifying any further)?
Novel continuity has established that to be Demora, and that Chakotay when he referred to Captain Sulu as "he" because he was afraid his dad would think less of him taking advice from a woman.

Overdoing it a bit, IMO. They could have just made him Demora's son.
 
On screen it isn't perfectly clear. I imagine they wanted to make you think it was the original Sulu, because, well, you know. Oooh, Captain Sulu sponsored Chakotay, an original series tie in.

I mean, apparently the rest of the 1701 crew is apparently still alive, well except Captain Kirk. Why leave out Sulu?
 
On screen it isn't perfectly clear. I imagine they wanted to make you think it was the original Sulu, because, well, you know.

Why would you imagine that? A namesake surname in a story set a century later is presumably meant to refer to a descendant. Especially for Sulu, the one TOS lead character that was canonically established to have procreated.

I mean, even stipulating that Sulu could live that long, what are the odds that he's somehow still a captain nearly a century later? It just makes no sense.

Besides, that reference was in an episode written by Michael Piller while he was working closely with Jeri Taylor. And Taylor's novel called it Hiromi Sulu, Demora's son. It seems reasonable that that reflects the original intention.
 
Why would you imagine that? A namesake surname in a story set a century later is presumably meant to refer to a descendant. Especially for Sulu, the one TOS lead character that was canonically established to have procreated.

I mean, even stipulating that Sulu could live that long, what are the odds that he's somehow still a captain nearly a century later? It just makes no sense.

Besides, that reference was in an episode written by Michael Piller while he was working closely with Jeri Taylor. And Taylor's novel called it Hiromi Sulu, Demora's son. It seems reasonable that that reflects the original intention.

My comment was partly tongue in cheek. More avid Trekkies would probably assume it's a descendent. If the more casual fan thought it was THE Sulu they remembered from the original series, then whatever was probably the thought process. Maybe that's why they left it vague. Let people think what they want.
 
Which is something that should be challenged and questioned, not shrugged off and settled for. If more people learned to think critically, those things wouldn't have happened.
Haha, the human race will probably be long extinct before that happens.
 
Last edited:
...or, you know, we could just accept "Mary Sue" as the default, regardless of gender, despite the prevalence of male-default terminology in a wide variety of other contexts.

Except I think that would be hiding from the harsh reality that far too many people in fandom use it in a way that is very much gendered -- namely, to devalue female characters for having the same level of centrality and competence that they would have no problem with in male characters. Because of the way it's been co-opted to serve sexism, on top of the way it's been rendered useless as a term of criticism (if it ever really was one, since it started as a joke) by being used to mean "any character I dislike for any reason," I think the term should simply be retired.
 
Readers/viewers now seem to appreciate flawed characters they can relate to rather than perfect characters they can look up to (impossible ideals) these days. So today's "Mary Sue" or "Mr. Perfect" is yesterday's idol.
 
Thinking of that issue-I like Picard for example as an incorruptible paragon-someone who is in essence federation ideology and values distilled into one man. Picard is rational, diplomatic, compassionate, fair, perceptive, and reflective. He's everything the federation advertises to me and the ideal made of manifest of which it strives.

And I like the character for that reason.
 
Besides, Archer has enough historic accomplishments under his belt -- first Warp 5 captain, key figure in bringing the Federation into existence, a stint as the UFP president. Giving him record-setting longevity on top of all that is rather Mary Sue-ish.

Meh. John Adams was fluent in 5 languages, helped found a country and then became its second president. He lived to almost 91, which is more than 50% longer than an adult at the time would typically live.
 
Meh. John Adams was fluent in 5 languages, helped found a country and then became its second president. He lived to almost 91, which is more than 50% longer than an adult at the time would typically live.

There are plenty of things in real life that are too implausible for fiction. ;)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top