Slashdot Mirror
George Takei Opposes Gay Sulu In 'Star Trek Beyond' (hollywoodreporter.com)
HughPickens.com writes: Seth Abramovitch reports in the Hollywood Reporter that actor and LGBT activist George Takei says Paramount's plans to have Sulu's character in the upcoming 'Star Trek Beyond' the first LGBTQ lead character in Star Trek history is out of step with what creator Gene Roddenberry would have wanted. [Roddenberry] "was a strong supporter of LGBT equality," says Takei, now 79. "But he said he has been pushing the envelope and walking a very tight rope -- and if he pushed too hard, the show would not be on the air." Takei says he'd much prefer that Sulu stay straight. "I'm delighted that there's a gay character," says Takei. "Unfortunately, it's a twisting of Gene's creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it's really unfortunate." The timeline logic of the new revelation is enough to befuddle even the most diehard of Trek enthusiasts, as the rebooted trilogy takes place before the action of the original series. In other words, assuming canon orthodoxy, this storyline suggest Sulu would have had to have first been gay and married, only to then go into the closet years later. Simon Pegg, who has co-written the latest Star Trek movie, as well as starring as Scotty, has responded to criticism by the actor George Takei at the film-makers' decision to make the character he used to play openly gay. "He's right, it is unfortunate, it's unfortunate that the screen version of the most inclusive, tolerant universe in science fiction hasn't featured an LGBT character until now. We could have introduced a new gay character, but he or she would have been primarily defined by their sexuality, seen as the 'gay character,' rather than simply for who they are, and isn't that tokenism?" says Pegg. "Our Trek is an alternate timeline with alternate details. Whatever magic ingredient determines our sexuality was different for Sulu in our timeline. I like this idea because it suggests that in a hypothetical multiverse, across an infinite matrix of alternate realities, we are all LGBT somewhere."
Its dead, Jim
Just like JJ Abrams, it's all about shoving things down people's throats, no pun intended
I suggest all fellow Star Trek fans boycott this production.... trash the muddies the name Star Trek, which is about science and exploration, not millennial "inclusive" bullshit.
Rather think that by the time of Star Trek in a Utopian society, they managed to get over this confused "sexual orientation" nonsense.
Not Simon Pegg's. George is the person that should define that character, alternate timeline notwithstanding. George IS Sulu.
Period.
I understand an applaud the intent behind this move, but honestly it's insulting to imply that George Takei, as a gay man, could not have portrayed a straight man. He's commented. He's shown his appreciation as it happens, and he has said that he does not think that Hikaru Sulu is gay.
That pretty much settles it for me. If George says it, that's the fact.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Disingenuous of Mr. Pegg to claim they're avoiding 'tokenism' here. Since most of the world knows George Takei is gay, this was the most cowardly option Hollywood could take if they 'had to' introduce a gay character. They want to hide behind the real actor's sexuality in justifying the character's new spin.
If they *really* wanted to avoid tokenism they could have chosen Scotty or Spock or Uhura or ... anyone else.
Introducing a new gay character just means there's a character who, among other traits, happens to be gay. Changing a character to make him gay means every single thing that character does or says will be defined by the fact that he's gay, and every other trait will be irrelevant.
Simon Pegg, who has co-written the latest Star Trek movie, as well as starring as Scotty, has responded to criticism by the actor George Takei at the film-makers' decision to make the character he used to play openly gay. "He's right, it is unfortunate, it's unfortunate that the screen version of the most inclusive, tolerant universe in science fiction hasn't featured an LGBT character until now. We could have introduced a new gay character, but he or she would have been primarily defined by their sexuality, seen as the 'gay character,' rather than simply for who they are, and isn't that tokenism?"
We could have introduced a new gay character, but instead we'll tell George Takei whether his character was gay or not, because we ought to know.
Guess we can call that straightsplaining
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's tokenism either way.
What's next?
Uhura wearing a hijab when she goes back to her quarters to be with her wife?
IRC, there was an episode planned for TNG that included a gay crew member or crew member couple, but it was scrapped by the studio. Does somebody remember the details offhand?
TOS pushed back against racism and bigotry in a big way. TNG was still an excellent show, and those principles still underlie Trek, but it did not do that in the same way.
Real lawyers write in C++
Doesn't that also mean across an infinite matrix of alternate realities, we are all homophobic racist bigots somewhere?
Christopher Pike able to talk and laugh... no problem. Vulcan destroyed... no problem. Spock and Uhura making out in the turbo lift... No problem. But make Sulu gay? THIS SHALL NOT STAND!
#DeleteChrome
making sulu gay is a key plot device then and not to force an agenda?
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
But Kirk should be bi.
Where are the blacks? I wish Divine and Liberace were still alive. They and Ru Paul should be writing and starring in all the new Star Trek films. And what the hell, bring Jar Jar and Professor Dumbledore. Who else? Oh yeah, he's not gay, but we need Richard Simmons as the captain. And we need some cute gay chicks too. Ellen is too old. And then we send them where few have gone before, on a three hour tour... to Knott's Berry Farm.
There's a new Twilight Zone out, *To serve gays*
Everything must be gay now, and Jewish, from Miami Beach...
You know, this crap isn't about civil rights anymore. It's fucking sick! Shame on everybody!
This is why I don't like these new films. Can you please just tell a god damn story without having an agenda behind it? If you wanted someone gay in your story then you should have made it that way in the first place. I guess you had to wait until it was cool you pussies.
I suspect this is just manufactured controversy to generate a bit of buzz for Star Trek Beyond in 2 weeks.
If they can survive the mere existence of milo, they can handle that.
It's considered to be within the spectrum of normal human behaviour so that it doesn't even warrant attention. Perhaps 21st century ideas of "equality" are considered regressive in the 23th century, kind of like the 19th century pushing it's values onto us today?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Have Kirk be gay - all his womanizing just a symptom of self-denial. I'm sure Chris Pine would love that...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Maybe you are nobody with a relevant opinion compared to someone who actually knew Roddenberry.
So, let's make a tokenized character to change that!
No, precisely because society has moved on--this is not one of those "at the forefront moves. Oh, yea, and Star Trek writers didn't write token characters*. See, we didn't see Sulu as "the Asian character". We see Sulu as the helmsman. But obvious Simon Pegg acknowledges that he writes one dimensional characters, so to simply write a new character would be a token character. So, he has to usurp a current character. Is it little wonder he chose Sulu? He thought he'd get George Takei's backing.
Thankfully, Takei didn't take the bate. As I said, society has moved on. This is a "me too" move and it's not something that needs done to the lore of Star Trek. You want to introduce a gay character? Start by introducing an interesting character. And if we happen to notice that he/she's gay, well more power to us for noticing that subtle detail**. Nah, we're going to see Sulu in a gay orgy on the bridge, right? That's the sort of writing to expect given Pegg's attitude.
* Okay, not strictly true. Plenty of stories were morality play, so plenty of characters were very one dimensional. The main characters had a lot more depth to them. Perhaps people just never payed much attention to that***.
** I mean, how do we know Sulu is straight in the original timeline? Because he married and had a kid? Nah, we knew long before that because of how he flirted with women. Meanwhile, there's plenty of characters we don't really know their actual sexual orientation because it never really comes up.
*** A fun thing I always liked about the original series is Chekov's jokes about Russians inventing everything. He knows it's silly. He knows it makes him look green. He also knows it makes his captain cringe and groan, with honestly is worth a good chuckle and him having a misconception about him. Better than if Chekov were all puns. (And yea, that isn't to say Chekov isn't green and doesn't at time make silly mistakes or have silly misconceptions, but then we all do.)
Arrragghhhhh.... patriarchy!
Noooooo.... patronizing!
The tokenism argument doesn't make any sense to me. Let's look at TOS. Uhura wasn't in either of the pilot episodes. Was Uhura a token black character? Chekov wasn't introduced until season 2, and Russians certainly weren't viewed favorably in the West at that time. Was Chekov a token Russian? For that matter, was Sulu a token Asian? There certainly is latitude to introduce new characters in movies, such as was done very successfully with Saavik. Independent of whether Takei is right or wrong, the comment about tokenism makes no sense.
Pretty sure he would pick George over people that want to rewrite his characters to push an agenda rather than a story.
No amount of LGBT tie-ins can keep the spotlight from shining on what this movie appears to be: a Fast and the Furious knock-off. Who cares if Sulu is gay or not? The movie looks like shit that is completely out of touch with the Star Trek franchise, and there's no way I'm attending the theatrical release.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
this really does feel forced and pointless. Not the fact that they're making Sulu gay this go-around. The fact that they're playing it up as some sort of accomplishment. Battlestar Galactica and Caprica were probably the best example of how to do it right: characters (without background baggage) had their genders and sexual orientations set every which way with ABSOLUTELY NO COMMENTARY ABOUT IT, in universe or out. If the message is supposed to be "you are expected to love your brother human beings, no matter their stripes," that's what does it. Changing an established character's sexual orientation just because you can just doesn't do that.
Sulu is straight. Thank God.
And then you've solved the slashfic agenda, given your token gay characters, and left room for the future uhura/rand experimentation :)
I bet Kumar is laughing his ass off that Harold has to suck a dick.
...Ohhh, didn't anyone tell you? If you use the transporter more than three times you become gay.
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
We're talking about a couple of centuries in the future, right? Surely by then, it would be possible for a person to change their sexual orientation the way we change a shirt. So Sulu starts off gay, decides he doesn't like it, and takes some trivially easy treatment to become heterosexual.
Who knows, maybe he had to hide his new un-gayness from judgmental friends. Either way, he'd be in serious tribble.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I remember back in last 90s when slashdot was about technology and future technologies. Thanks for destroying this website. This is my last time visiting this page after almost 19 years. Bye bye
will be up wondering how many different universes i'm already dead and burning in hell in
Stick true to the story ...
What true story? Its an alternate universe. If any fan base could be assumed to accept and understand that in parallel universes things can be a "little" different you would think it would be the Star Trek fan base.
... but don't be so foolish to talk about Star Trek "canon orthodoxy". This sort of "difference" is entirely within "canon".
Make all the comments you want about political correctness, pandering, etc
Or they used to! What has this universe become? Gone to? Fallen to!? PC Principal said it best: the more pussy the better! STOP PC! It only makes it worse!
The original series movies were all based on the 'naval' mentality. That is part of what set the pacing for the older movies, even ones like 3/4 where it was a small part of the overall plot. The pacing was slow because naval battles were slow, tense, and puntuated by rapid attacks, regroups, and return strikes as the opportunities were presented. Later trek material, especially most of the TNG+ stuff was a lot less tense like that. Not to say they didn't build suspense, but it became more formulaic, outside of cloaking devices, rarely had enemy vessels going unnoticed, and in general felt more like the modern 'panopticon' connected world.
The later trek series took that even further and made space combat extremely arcadey, with absurd tricks often replacing the bluffing, shrewd strategies, and ingenious jerry riggings done in TOS era to get out of dangerous situations.
You are confusing actors with writers. Writers decide who a character is and what they are about. Actors implement the writer's vision, actors communicate that vision through their performance.
I daresay that was the first "reboot" and it set the bar for terrible.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Otherwise he wouldn't have had a spirit guide and a bunch of ancestral visions over the course of certain episodes.
I do agree however that they distinctly avoided human religions outside of stuff 'new agey' enough that most people wouldn't/didn't know enough to take offense at.
Who ya gonna call ? BallBusters
Would it be:
- Humphrey Bogart
- Elliot Gould
- Robert Mitchum
- Dick Powell
- James Garner
- Robert Montgomery
- James Caan
- George Montgomery
- I think there's another couple or three actors that also have played the Mr. Chandler's detective.
Not to take away Mr. Takei's performance as "Sulu" in ST:TOS, but it's a role and when another actor performs it they should be allowed to put their own spin on it. That goes for the writers, the director and the producers.
I guess you could argue that the creator has the final say, but apparently Mr. Takei approach Gene Roddenberry about making Sulu gay and he refused saying that he was pushing too many buttons already and didn't want the show to get cancelled.
Unfortunately, Mr. Roddenberry is dead and the franchise has been moved onto others who have different ideas about the characters.
Personally, I think that's a good thing.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Is it going to turn out she has a penis? How will they retcon that time she boned Spock was it?
Yeah this could get really funny really fast.
I am really sad with all this shit though because Zachary Quinto really made an excellent passing of the torch for Spock in my opinion. It's sad they ruined every other part of the reboot in the process.
I only watch them to see stuff being blown up with lasers
Of course, you could point out a number of inconsistencies going back to the original series that are just as large.
Maybe this is a function of, let me think of a word for it, "fiction".
It's not real so we can try out different ideas.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
...Is that this is what Trek has become.
We're talking about the series where men and women were passionate about each other whether they were white, black or green.
We're talking about the series where long before the Internet in general represented as an Attack Helicopter, we had a non-binary gender right on prime time TV. (And naturally, non-binary genders dig Riker with a beard.)
We're talking about the series that, upon the whole, took every backward-facing societal convention it could get its hands on and threw it in our faces.
But this is what Trek has become. Lens flares and quick-but-safe pandering points.
And both times with Trill. In TNG Crusher decided she couldn't bring herself to love a Trill who'd changed from a male to female host. In DS9 Dax went from a male to female host and still hooked up with a previous symbiant currently in a female host.
They can do fuck all whatever they want with these movies at this point because THESE MOVIES ARE NOT STAR TREK.
It may have the name and a few actors that somewhat resemble the originals, but NOTHING about these movies is Star Trek and as far as I'm concerned, they do not exist within the Star Trek universe.
Didn't happen in this alternate timeline either. And resulted in Pike's death at the hands of Khan? A rather pussy Khan compared to the original.
...as to why the Captain's Log was always concave at one end.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
There's a whole galaxy, make Sulu into tentacled hermaphrodites from Alpha Reticuli.
Table-ized A.I.
This happened with Independence Day 2 as well.
"We have a gay couple in the film. We don't make a big deal out of it. You start small and then you get bigger and bigger and bigger, and one day you have a gay character as the lead and nobody will wonder at it no more."
-- Roland Emmerich, speaking of Independence Day 2.
So we have the director gently ushering society 'towards the light' -- some ideal that he has in mind. Great!
ID4 (the first film) had 2 writers: Dean Devlin, and Roland Emmerich (in that order). The second film has 4-5 writers, with Roland Emmerich credited as lead.
Roland, stick to your day job.
It all boils down to making money. If there is a gay in the movie more gays will go see it. If there are hax0rs then hax0rs will go see it. If there are negros more negros will go see it and ditto for all other races and groups. If they try real hard and kiss Chinese ass and pander hard enough then it will air in China. If there is at least one scene with a hot girl stripping for 5 seconds to make the previews more guys will go see it. If it is yet another goddamn sequel with the same fucking story retold again and a fucking again and again then I'm told someone somewhere is guaranteed to see it regardless of whether the new movie is total shit or totally redundant. If they load movies with commercials for real modern day companies they make more money and everyone still watches.
Artificial political BS having nothing to do with executing a believable plot translated into films are so transparent and so annoying people instantly recognize them for what they are. Going into it people are expecting up front to suffer through the token bullshit.
Basic problem is movies cost way too fucking much to make and filters on the front end of the process to get the kind of funding necessary to do shit in the first place dictate outcomes will be predictably shitty and full of political compromises. Modern movies are like your typical politician talking out both sides of their ass and it shows *badly*.
The next star wars will center around yet another goddamn mother fucking death star. The next star trek will feature the Enterprise getting blown to bits again.
Having an original idea and actually making a new movie that is in any way related to the original titles made long ago are all but impossible today going into it before any scene is ever shot and before any story is even written.
George Takei is a major jerk and I say this not because he is gay. He has had it out for this movie from day one. Which he only did for the attention. While Nimoy was alive no one gave a damn of his opinion related to these movies but now, without Nimoy, they are eager for someone from the original cast and golly gee it's George Takei.
He could have been a little nicer about it. And personally I don't want any gay characters in Star Trek. But even I can see they were doing it to be nice. He could have kept his big mouth shut or said something nice. They worked really hard on this movie. They did it to be nice to him and that is how he responds. Personally when the time comes I would make another difference in the Kelvin Universe that Chekov gets command of the Excelsior after I tell Takei to go back under the rock he has been under. Chekov was a better character anyway.
And I like these movies and I have seen everything Star Trek that has come out. Dear God Star Trek movies that aren't slow. It makes sense for their to be a lot of excitement in the frontier of space. And they appeal to a far wider audience - they can't make movies just for fans. These are fun and exciting and people do enjoy watching them.
"Even though he is asian, we all know asians are pretty much white. All whites hate black people and homosexuals. Therefore George is a racist cracker who hates homosexuals."
This is your typical line of reasoning espoused by the media in 2016. This is the reason the USA is divided and turned against itself.
Christopher Pike able to talk and laugh... no problem. Vulcan destroyed... no problem. Spock and Uhura making out in the turbo lift... No problem. But make Sulu gay? THIS SHALL NOT STAND!
We have had arguments about each and every thing you have listed right here on slashdot.
Nice to see someone who speaks up when choices are made that are just plain out of context. I think of the show Glee which was very popular when it focused on the real theme of the show. Then it began to focus much more on subject matter that really went overboard in a high school musical show. But it seems Hollywood get's its obsessions with these things. Like all Black shows, gay, lesbian relationships, all woman, racially diverse. It's like someone sit's around and says, "we got to have a gay guy in this movie". Otherwise we may offend someone. But like George says, that offends the very character that was originally developed. Why ruin the story line the be politically correct?
I like his stuff but it's so far from Trek that Jackie Chan may as well be doing it.
Then again I think the same about Abrams and his magic belt movie with a Trek name on it.
Steer a course for Rigel six, and remove the butt-plug from Uranus Sulu. Fucking queer star trek.
Gollum steals the ring back from Frodo the hard way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlvsHObV8hs
I am offended. Its LGBTQ2. Your incorrect acronym is hateful and not inclusive enough.
Im against discrimination, but modern political correctness is just reached insane levels.
Today’s binary sexuality is a cultural artifact. People are really on a spectrum. “Most people” are straight because they’re somewhere closer to the middle and therefore trainable to be straight. The people who are so gay or so straight innately that they can’t be trained are relatively rare (in the 10% range on either end).
Jack Harkness is more along the lines of what I’d expect in the distant future, where sexual roles and orientations are more fluid. In the future, people will think it’s really quaint how we used to have these boxes we were supposed to put ourselves in. Such limited thinking.
(BTW, one thing that bothered me (and apparetly also John Barrowman) about the last season of Torchwood is that Jack was only ever in sex scenes with men. If he’s supposed to be omnisexual, why not mix it up? That bartender he hooked up with was pretty good looking, but I wasn’t enthralled by that Italian guy. Having him also hook up with a woman would have been really hot.)
50-years from now the Enterprise will be a Klingon vessel and Kirk will be a queer half-black midget.
The fan-made movies referred to as Star Trek: Phase 2 did a much better job of capturing the original series. And they did _fantastic_ task of exploring social issues that would have been unthinkable for Gene Roddenberry. The response of Captain Kirk to an openly gay crew member in their "Blood and Fire" episode was priceless. These fan made episodes are much better than the last few movies. And they pay loving homage to the original seies' work, with cameos by actors involving their older selves such as Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nicholls, and the unforgettable scene of George Takei as a screaming leather clad barbarian swordsman.
The fans who made these episodes captured the conflict between low budget, limited time, wonderful young actors learning their craft, and the high ideals that Gene Roddenberry and his entire cast and crew brought to the series. _These_ stories are why Star Trek was great.
To hell with George Takei and his fellow uncloseted queers.
There's only one place where society would prefer they be: IN THE GODDAMNED CLOSET.
I have two objections with the summary:
1. There is an openly gay character in Star Trek. In Phase Two Kirk's nephew is openly gay. I know, I know, Phase Two isn't strictly canon, but in the expanded universe of Trek the LGBT... angle has been covered before. And it should probably be again. This just isn't the first time.
2. I thought Mr Sulu from the original series was gay. Sort of by omission. I think Sulu is the only character in the main cast not to fall for a member of the opposite gender. I thought that was Gene's way of acknowleding Sulu/George was gay without coming right out and saying it. Sulu gets along well with women, he doesn't date girls, he's buff... Seems like he fits the sterotype, without beating the audience over the head with it.
I realize in one of the movies Sulu has a family (daughter or granddaughter?) but that happened after Gene died so I figured he just wasn't around to tell people: "Nope, Sulu is gay, guys."
How about peggs character be gay, since pegg is gay.
Why do producers feel the need of involving sexuality in every creation, even in Star Trek? I don't care about the characters' sexuality conflicts and issues, Trek is neither soap opera, nor porn.
Except this reinforces a false narrative that sexual orientation is a choice, when it's really not. The point of divergence for the new Trek verse is after Sulu was born, and he was almost fully grown. That's not how the "magic ingredient" that determines our sexuality works.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
ST TNG did not shy away from this topic but presented it in the context of a genderless culture.
What are the goals of this move?
1) Trying to get free press and buzz for their action packed CGI movie with no plot
2) Being opportunistic by trying (and failing) to exploit the current "make all things gay" momentum and stuffing gay down everyones throat, just like the "Give Anna & Else a Girlfriend" and forcing something that doesn't fit into the timeline, plot, or story.
3) Trying to make something that appeals to the masses instead of making something clever, well thought out, and high quality.
This is not Trek.
This is not Gene's vision.
This is simply rebooting and hi-jacking to try and make a buck by people who have no business producing content for the Trek.
Gene would explored the topic at a non-hostile level in the context of another civilization just like we see in TNG's "The Outcast" episode. He would not have been one to overly push a social agenda. Just like in TOS Uhura did not sport an afro and spoke with a midwestern accent. This is how Gene played it, subtle. Challenging your to think of what could be possible in the future or in the context of another civilization. It was clever. It was not overt or in your face.
To slightly change Pegg's quote:
"Our Trek is an alternate timeline with alternate details and poorly thought out stories. We know Sulu in real life is LGBT so we are trying to exploit that in our timeline to make a buck and get publicity. I like this idea because it suggests that in a hypothetical multiverse, across an infinite matrix of alternate realities filled with lame Star Trek reboots just like this one."
Count me out on this one. I am glad we had this conversation ahead of time so I can ignore this movie.
Um.....Paramount......Guys?
How are they planning on reconciling this with Star Trek: Generations in which Captain Kirk was introduced to Sulu's Daughter on the Enterprise B? Even says:" When did Sulu find time for a Family?"
I watch these movies because I like science fiction / action / adventure movies.
I could not care less about the sexuality of the characters. But for me, what this means in practice is, I don't care for that side of the character to be developed on screen, at all - I don't need or want to see that. I want to see pew pew alien battles in space, with roaring exciting set-pieces, and that's it.
I like this idea because it suggests that in a hypothetical multiverse, across an infinite matrix of alternate realities, we are all LGBT somewhere."
So, what he is saying is that sexual preference is not something one is born with? Until now, thought has been in alternate universes, differences between who we are and who we would be elsewhere was based on circumstances. If we are born gay or straight, then if in an alternate universe we have a different sexual preference, we wouldn't be we, would we?
We could have introduced a new gay character, but he or she would have been primarily defined by their sexuality, seen as the 'gay character,' rather than simply for who they are, and isn't that tokenism?"
By their own admission, they can't introduce a credible gay character would be defined by something other than their sexuality, so instead they change an existing character to be gay, is the epitome of tokenism. Not only is it tokenism, it is insulting. As anybody who is LGBT would tell you, their sexuality isn't a choice. Evidently it is for the writers of Star Trek and it can be changed at will. Instead of a victory of the LGBT community in having a a main stream movie with a viable identity beyond their sexuality, they will have a token gay by taking an established character and making him gay.
In short, regardless of the success of the movie, this will be remembered as the movie where Sulu is defined primarily by his sexuality. The very thing they said they were trying to avoid. Then again, maybe it isn't tokenism and simply hypocrisy.
But with the new guidelines those cannot be made anymore so tough shit, weirdo trekkie. :)
So when will Spock be revealed as gay? After all, Zachary Quinto is.
1. George Takei has reportedly said that he asked Simon Pegg and Justin Lin not to turn Sulu into a gay character while the film was in production. John Cho has been quoted as saying this was intended as a tribute to Takei, even though Takei asked the writer who came up with it and director not to do it.
2. Simon Pegg is saying that he knows what Gene Roddenberry intended better than Takei, despite being born after TOS was made and having never met Roddenberry.
They have changed so much in the Star Trek reboot just to change things that the change itself doesn't surprise or bother me. But they should admit that JJ Trek is their thing and they can do what they want and stop the disingenuous "we're just doing what Roddenberry would have done if he could have gotten away with it in the 60s" schtick.
And admit it is tokenism.
Is this really needed? In Game of Thrones, there is plenty of homosexuality and it makes sense as it drives the drama behind some of the character decisions and choices in the story. To just have a gay lead character for the sake of contriving an interesting character profile shows a lack of creativity. Pegg has the entire universe at your disposal to create an amazing story arch, but choose to focus on the fact that he likes other men. In the most inclusive, tolerant universe in science fiction sexuality should not be treated like a big thing. You don't celebrate heterosexuality, you shouldn't celebrate homosexuality. The only reason we do is because of the "courage" of over coming a social stigmata, which if that "oppression" is removed then we are left with just biological functions and preferences in dopamine stimulation.
Two films ago, they destroyed Vulcan, a planet that existed in TOS.
I have zero problems with gay characters in Star Trek. In fact, in Star Trek First Contact Lt. Hawk was a written as a gay character and touted as the first gay character in Star Trek.
I do however have a problem with what's being done to already established characters. Sulu is now gay. Iron Man is a black, female, college student. Thor is now a woman. Captain Marvel is now a woman. You want a gay character? Make a new one. Want a female superhero? Make a new one. Stop rewriting what has already been established because a few people complain they can't identify with what's already there.
I can't identify with gangsta rap. But God help me if I ever ask them to change it so that I can identify and relate to it.
I'm pretty sure the Enterprise being able to travel underwater in Into Darkness is more of a "a twisting of Gene's creation".
ralphbarbagallo.com
Surprise surprise, someone with actually objectivity and emotional clarity who realizes that shoehorning gays/lesbians into everything to appease social justice warriors, is not only degrading a work but also by itself insulting to any LGBT member and gays/lesbians with a self-awareness and presence of brain.
If you are going to do gay characters:
1. Don't turn existing characters gay. Add a new character.
2. Don't add gay characters for the sake of appeasing the LGBT and social justice. Add them out of interest. By which i mean, write them with the philosophy that you are making an interesting character where the story doesn't revolve around their sexuality, but it is treated as merely one of the traits on a naturally written character where it has subtle and natural flow and emergence for the readers.
Not the shit like EA Bioware does where applying sexuality is forced to pretentious levels where gay characters feel like a parody of themselves.
Textbox rejects string '1234'
Requiem for the American Dream
"It's a different timeline" - So Sulu is now gay because Nero went back in time. That's lame, Pegg.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
"in a hypothetical multiverse, across an infinite matrix of alternate realities, we are all LGBT somewhere" No. There are an infinite number of values between 1 and 2, but none of them equal 3.
It's just full of irony on so many levels:
(a) A bunch of straight people override the views of the one known gay actor from TOS to demonstrate...their tolerance and inclusiveness?
(b) They gay actor who famously portrayed a straight character, thus demonstrating his actual equality as an actor is overridden by the "tolerant" who thereby imply the gay actor should have been playing a gay guy all along.
(c) The excuse offered by the hip young crowd is: this is an alternate universe where different life events caused people to end up different... apparently making the argument that LGBT is in fact just a behavior/upbringing/environment thing and not a biological/genetic fact as advocated have long insisted.
(d) An existing non-gay character is made gay, rather than a new one introduced, further making a zero-sum-game gay-as-allocated-token play, and furthering the idea that LGBT is a permanent special category that requires special status/representation.
(e)A point is made that a beloved character is SUPRISE! GAY! - thus implying the audience was for a long time bigoted and needed to be fooled and also that being gay is something special and novel. Of course, this is contrary to the argument gays have always made that being gay should not be seen as unusual at all.
Oh, the irony that drips when when the uber-tolerant of hollywood are on parade using their "art" to push an a agenda, which they do on odd numbered days. on even numbered days they insist their use of drugs/guns/violence/sex/etc have NO IMPACT on the culture...
Shit.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
How would you feel if your character was forced to be something they are not?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't want to watch anything with gay characters.
I find it repulsive and I don't watch what I find repulsive.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
You misread me. Stay true to the story means follow what the story is telling you to do. Forcing ideas into a story that do not belong there ends up distorting the story. Putting people in the moment is seriously important. This is little more than 'did they just... gaaawd >eyerollhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?... I *fully* expect to see reviews of the next st movie to be things like 'so much potential but falls flat'.
The indicator needle bent when it hit the peg at the end of the gauge labelled "dumber than a garden squirrel"
Sorry to have to break the news to you, but human beings come in two biological flavors: Male and Female. Your parents had the duty to explain all this to you. That's what the species needs for continued existence. Do you really need the "birds and bees" talk? There are a tiny number of people born with various birth defects, but that does not make them an additional gender, just as a person born with a deformed leg does not suddenly define a new type of non-bipedal humanoid. There are a tiny number of people who wish for another option or wish they were of the opposite gender, but that does not make their delusions any more real than those who wish to identify as martians or unicorns. Teenage girls who are skinny but insist that they are fat and starve themselves have nothing on the people who think there are 30+ genders. Normal people do not have to live in the delusion and are cruel if they choose to feed and support these fantasies.
There's an unlimited range of mental disorder and delusion, but there's only two genders, and yeah, it's a binary thing no matter how feverish and delusional one is. Oh, and I do NOT hate anybody. "Hate" is just the label applied to people pointing out that the emperor is naked, in order to try to get others not to listen to somebody pointing out objective physical reality. Facts are not burdened by hatred, and fools may be tolerated, but there is no requirement to embrace or celebrate foolishness.
One of the problems with people who are young-and-dumb is that they always think they have discovered something new when they become aware of sex. There's nothing new about sex. There's not even anything new about public acceptance of things like homosexuality, cross-dressing, pedophelia, bestiality, or any other sexual thing. Various societies tolerated these things thousands of years ago. Western civilization rejected them all over the centuries as part of moving forward into the future and becoming more-advanced. We are currently watching the modern social liberal turn the calendar back, not just to 1300 years ago like the radical muslims but all the way back to the year zero AD and standards the ancient Romans and Greeks would recognize. So much for modernity (sigh)
If Gene wanted Sulu to prefer penises, he would have given him a vagina.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
If a gay character is known as "the gay character" then that means that he is such a shallow and poorly-developed character that his sexuality is the most interesting thing about him. This is simply virtue signalling and "Me too! I'm so brave!"
To me, they're saying "A gay man cannot get ahead unless he takes the name and identity of an established straight man" and that does not send a good message. Leave the sexuality-twisting to the slash fic writers.
He hates SciFi and excels at its parodies.
He slammed SW prequels and yet helps make the SW, The New Excrement.
He has his own, personal LSDQED agenda.
He is from the UK - why not stick with your Dr. Who and leave us alone???
He obviously is not a ST nor GR fan.
What does this have to do with hobbits?
So, suddenly, because Spock came back in time and changed history, Sulu instead of being married with kids, is instead gay? What changes did Spock cause that led to the character changing their sexual preference so profoundly? How did this huge change come about when Spock didn't even happen to be in the area where Sulu lived?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Who said time line change? I said alternate universe. Or in the phrasing of the original series a "mirror" universe, or in actual theoretical physics a "parallel" universe where massive differences can originate from a single quantum event.
Neither the universe that Spock originated from nor the universe he influenced history in are necessarily the universe of the original series. Do I really need to mention the "Mirror, Mirror" episode of the original series to demonstrate how there is no "cannon" violation?