From 1966 - 1986, the prevailing wisdom was that Sulu, like George Takei, is Japanese. Who was born in San Francisco. Which we learned in Star Trek IV - after which they visited Chinatown. Where he was supposed to run into an ancestor, establishing that his family lived in the primarily Chinese part of town.
John Cho is Korean.
So...since the can't settle on it, Sulu is Asian.
Last edited:
That was what Roddenberry said about naming him "Sulu," after a body of water instead of a real surname with a definite heritage, that the intention was that he was multi-ethnic.
Of course, if his patrilineal line was in San Francisco for something like eight generations or more, he could have all kinds of people in his family tree. Gabe Lorca could be a distant cousin.
Of course, if his patrilineal line was in San Francisco for something like eight generations or more, he could have all kinds of people in his family tree. Gabe Lorca could be a distant cousin.
I would kill Voyager and have the Star Trek: Excelsior be the signature show for the UPN network.
Such a familiar setting and ship is likely to pull audiences in who where 1) unsure about the unknown faces, 2) confusing DS9 with the new show due to interchangeable uniforms 3) able to have guest stars from TOS who where at the time more familiar to average folks than TNG cast has become now.
I also disagree with you about Takei. He just needs the scripts and supporting cast to be good as well.
The problem with this scenario is that a Sulu show would suffer from the exact same thing that VOY did: UPN's total lack of interest in making anything other than an episodic show where nothing ever changes, characters don't grow or evolve, and the ship gets pummeled every episode but is shown to be pristine and perfect by the start of the next. And really, other than Borg episodes, how would a Sulu show be any different than what we got with VOY? The show could have taken place in the Alpha Quadrant for all that matter.
No. On balance, Takei did a passable job on TOS. Some interesting line readings that added a different facet to the crew, some line readings that sounded so wooden I could hardly believe that the director couldn't find a better take somewhere. Of the five second-tier recurring characters, I'd take NN's Uhura as a clear first in line to have a spin-off, and Chapel and Sulu likely tied for last.
Last edited:
He was miscast as Spike but not because of his age. Spike is often portrayed as boyish, he's playful, full of energy, casual etc. but then immediately switches to being a serious badass when necessary. Keanu Reeves is in his 60s and can still play characters like that, John Cho couldn't do it in his 40s, he's better suited for grounded and dependable characters. He's a good actor but Spike was the wrong part for him.
Unknown faces didn't hurt TNG or DS9 so why would they suddenly worry about it in 1994?
Seriously, at least as far as TNG was concerned. DS9 experienced a ratings decline, but TNG was solid, peak post-TOS Trek, ratings wise.
That had to do with the setting and "Not being a starship" than the actors or unfamiliar characters. If the stories appealed to the general audience the ratings would have stayed healthy. Don't forget also, TNG had less competition and was Star Trek return to live action TV in 18 years. That's what made people stick it out through a dodgy startup.
Star Trek was always populated with unknowns. Most shows are. DS9 got better numbers when Worf joined, but that also came with the Defiant and space battles. That's what audiences seemed to have wanted over a station.
If you mean "new faces" character-wise, that's a non-starter concern. Do people really want the same characters in every series?
Those ideas assigning blame don't survive contact with reality.
DS9's ratings did not in fact "get better" when Worf joined, if by "get better" it is meant to stay better in aggregate, reverse the downward spiral, and not continue down along it. Nor did the Defiant and space battles help. Furthermore, VOY and ENT continued the downward trend as well, despite being set on starships.
This data has been widely known for years now. See e.g. this chart posted by @Firebird in a thread you were participating in, even, at the immediately preceding post.
S1 vs. S2 vs. S3 (comparing seasons)
I disagree. I think Star Trek was going strong right up through Voyager's end in 2001. Back then, everyone was still buzzing about Star Trek like crazy. I dunno. Were they? Apart from 7 of 9, was Voyager really setting the world on fire? I seem to remember it was faltering in the ratings but...
www.trekbbs.com
Why in fact this decline occurred is doubtless due to many variables, still open to debate and discussion. "Franchise fatigue" has often been blamed, but even this view is lacking in facts. My opinion is that the Berman era became too formulaic and that it spent too much time navel-gazing. But that's beside the point that post-TNG, the trend was ever down, down, down.
Because the Sulu Show did not happen we cannot really know how it would have done in the ratings compared to the bland Voyager (who’s ratings where better than DS9’s overall).
I suspect the TOS/Movies setting and some familiar faces might have pulled in people who would not have watched Voyager, at least at the start. As long as the scripts were good, episodic episodes or not, then the audience are likely to have stayed.
I suspect the TOS/Movies setting and some familiar faces might have pulled in people who would not have watched Voyager, at least at the start. As long as the scripts were good, episodic episodes or not, then the audience are likely to have stayed.
There might have been a uniform redesign.
That claim is not supported by the facts either. See the chart. VOY had worse ratings overall than DS9 did.
S1 vs. S2 vs. S3 (comparing seasons)
I disagree. I think Star Trek was going strong right up through Voyager's end in 2001. Back then, everyone was still buzzing about Star Trek like crazy. I dunno. Were they? Apart from 7 of 9, was Voyager really setting the world on fire? I seem to remember it was faltering in the ratings but...
If there is a God in Heaven, there would be.
The bottom line on the ratings is that TNG is the only Trek series to ever be a consistent success in its initial run with a general viewing audience. Something about it connected with the viewing public in a way that the other shows did not. I think today we often forget how successful TNG was and how much of a gulf there was overall between the shows. TNG was regularly pulling numbers that rivaled Monday Night Football.
Personally, I think Paramount made a big mistake shifting TNG to the big screen. First Contact was its only real big success in that venue, and none of the other shows were able to duplicate its ratings on the small screen. The folks at Paramount seemed to think that because TNG was a hit, anything with "Star Trek" attached to it would automatically be a hit as well. If nothing else, TFF should have shown them that was not the case.
Personally, I think Paramount made a big mistake shifting TNG to the big screen. First Contact was its only real big success in that venue, and none of the other shows were able to duplicate its ratings on the small screen. The folks at Paramount seemed to think that because TNG was a hit, anything with "Star Trek" attached to it would automatically be a hit as well. If nothing else, TFF should have shown them that was not the case.
Please explain how UPN would have made a better show with Sulu than they did with Janeway. Because I’m pretty sure it would have been the same show just with a different crew and ship, just like ENT was like VOY but with a different crew and ship. Like what @CorporalCaptain said, the problem was UPN being formulaic. Sulu and the TOS movie aesthetic would not have changed a thing in that regard.
Last edited:
Why spend the money to redesign, when they had monster maroons in stock? Just like Voyager used DS9 jumpsuits as a cost-saving measure.
After a few seasons, I mean. Perhaps add more type-of-mission/ship-specific variants.
Voyager's ratings were not better than DS9's.
