Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

George Takei Opposes Gay Sulu In 'Star Trek Beyond' (hollywoodreporter.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the coming-soon-to-a-theater-near-you dept.

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."

18 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. No More reboots by rossdee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its dead, Jim

    1. Re:No More reboots by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. The temporal stuff was bad but for the most part the episodes, even the first ones, were good for what they were trying to represent.

      I know people whined about Hoshi, how she was a blithering idiot, but think about her position. She was asked to do something no one else had ever done (translate unknown languages on the fly), was reluctant to do so in the first place, in an unknown environment (in a spaceship) and had to deal with translation software which was shit (much like today's software).

      The balancing act that Archer played between the Vulcans and the Andorians once he caught on to the games being played (mostly by the Vulcans) was very good. He, like Hoshi, had to deal with the unknown, on very limited information, with two disparate races, one of which he didn't truly trust to begin with.

      Let us not forget how Enterprise was routinely overmatched by those it encountered in combat. No more tricks by Scotty to miraculously pull them out of the fire, no deux ex machina to save the day. They suffered, badly, and the scenes where this played out more or less conveyed their desperation at being bested.

      Nor were the transporters the miracle they are in later shows. These barely worked and when they did were much more slow and finicky to operate.

      And yes, some of the eventualities of the Star Trek universe such as how the Prime Directive came about might be considered forced, but the circumstances by which it came about was straight out of the original: meeting strange new worlds and civilizations and trying to understand them.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  2. This is sacrilege plain and simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is sacrilege plain and simple by bjwest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the reboot isn't about science and exploration at all. It's about blowing things up and flashy CGI and odd POV shots. Hell, the Enterprise has been destroyed in every reboot movie IIRC. That's how much I think of the reboot shit, it's not even worth remembering two days after watching. Hell, there's less dialog and story in a two hour ST movie now than there is in a ten minute short.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    2. Re:This is sacrilege plain and simple by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're trying to look at TOS through a lens that's about 50 years out of focus.

      If you're not capable of appreciating it in the context of the times in which it was produced, then kindly STFU.

      Thank you.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:This is sacrilege plain and simple by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm old enough to remember it, in the first re-runs at least. It was campy space opera with genuine moral dilemmas and thought provoking plots. Having a proud Russian speaking crew member hinted at a future without the Cold War era separatism. Spock's existence as a half-breed Vulcan, and Uhura's presence as a department leading critical helm officer, provided meaningful comments on the aggressive racism common in most of our societies. And I was too young at the time to understand how groundbreaking the black/white kiss in Plato's Stepchildren was.

      Star Trek, and Gene Roddenberry's work in general, held up fascinating mirrors to our society and challenged us to do better, and said "we _can_ be better than this". I genuinely wish "The Great Bird of the Galaxy" could have stayed around and productive, to explore the similar scale of problems today of fanatical terrorism and global ecological destruction.

    4. Re:This is sacrilege plain and simple by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and a political system that is so much in the background that no Federation Presidents got named until Season 4 of DS9

      That's because Star Trek focuses on some of the most privileged people in the Federation and their exploits; it's like looking at the royal court of Louis XIV and not seeing what's going on in the rest of France or Europe at the time.

      Roddenberry imagined a post-scarcity world with technocratic government, a benign defensive military, and a commitment to science and exploration. But he hadn't thought through what the politics or government of such a world would look like, how power would be distributed, and who would end up privileged and who would end up oppressed, he just assumed that his world would be magically egalitarian.

      That is, the lack of a portrayal of bureaucracy, power, inequality, and government in much of Star Trek is not due to their non-existence (which is logically impossible), but due to Roddenberry's failure to think things through and create a realistic portrayal of his imaginary society.

    5. Re:This is sacrilege plain and simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the people who are uppity are actually homophobic.

      George Takei is gay so doubt that's the reason he's objecting.

  3. Sulu is George's character by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Sulu is George's character by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      George is NOT Sulu. The creator of Star Trek created Sulu. Just because George played a great Sulu, he does not define the character. Strange how a homosexual character doesn't want his seemingly open homosexual character portrayed as such.

  4. It *is* tokenism that they chose Sulu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Pegg has it backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  6. Simon Pegg is being a bitch by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.'"
    1. Re:Simon Pegg is being a bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody's telling George Takei that his character is gay. They're telling him that John Cho's character is gay. Neither of these people have to be wrong.

  7. Oh, sure by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  8. Marketing kayfabe... by MetricT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect this is just manufactured controversy to generate a bit of buzz for Star Trek Beyond in 2 weeks.

  9. If they *really* want to reboot things... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. . . .
  10. Ya know... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.