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."

37 of 354 comments (clear)

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

    Its dead, Jim

    1. Re:No More reboots by pjbgravely · · Score: 2

      CBS recently killed Star Trek for good. Too bad the non Trek people don't know this. They will keep giving them money for an action adventure movies where they don't have to think.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    2. Re:No More reboots by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      Remember ST:Enterprise? A new TV series doesn't mean the franchise is still alive.

      Enterprise, despite its mistakes, actually had some pretty decent television.

      Sure the temporal war stuff was terrible, and the first season was a bit hammy, but the Xindi arc was up there with the Dominion war in terms of good longer-arc trek.

      I honestly suggest going and giving it another watch. Enterprise failed because after a 2 decades people where just trekked out.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    3. 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. first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just like JJ Abrams, it's all about shoving things down people's throats, no pun intended

  3. 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 Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Yes, I agree that a gay character is not being shockingly inclusive in the way Roddenberry liked to be. The grandparent was wrong both in asserting that a gay character is "millennial inclusive bullshit" and also in asserting that Roddenberry wouldn't have loved "millennial inclusive bullshit" (he would've).

      I think a certain segment of the population wouldn't like him if he was credited under his full name

      For the first couple seasons of DS9, he was credited as Siddig El Fadil. As far as I can recall, exactly nobody cared. A muslim character wouldn't seem to fit in Star Trek though because they don't portray any current human religions -- there was never a Christian character. Only alien religions are allowed, Earthlings may be spiritual and theistic but not religious.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    3. Re: This is sacrilege plain and simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dax was bisexual.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

  4. 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.

    2. Re:Sulu is George's character by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      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.

      The point is that Sulu *wasn't* portrayed as homosexual until now; quite the opposite, as Takei says, he was portrayed as heterosexual.

      I'm sure the move to make him gay was well intended, and even originally a tribute to Takei, but that's the problem. My first thought was, "Oh, they're making Sulu gay because Takei happened to be gay". It was just too obvious.

      This falls into the longstanding trap of equating the actor's sexuality with that of the character. No-one assumes that Anthony Hopkins is a flesh-eating serial killer even though he portrayed one on film. Granted, being able to be openly gay at all is an improvement on the Bad Old Days when it would have destroyed someone's career, but it's still artificially limiting to suggest that gay actor => gay character.

      Also, heterosexual characters often don't have a deal made of their sexuality if it's not part of the plot; the same should apply to those that aren't.

      I don't think that Takei has a monopoly on Sulu merely because he originally played him, but he was involved with Roddenberry, and is still strongly associated with the character. The fact is that they originally tried to get him involved- even if it's likely they expected his approval- so one can't complain that Takei doesn't have the right to speak here.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    3. Re:Sulu is George's character by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Not Simon Pegg's. George is the person that should define that character, alternate timeline notwithstanding. George IS Sulu.

      He's not George's character, he was a creation of Roddenberry and the writers on the original series, the animated series and the movies, and yes to some extent the actor who portrayed him.

      it's insulting to imply that George Takei, as a gay man, could not have portrayed a straight man.

      I don't see how that is implied anywhere. This is a different version of the character, who could have been bi for all we know even in the original series. Come on, the reboot has changed so much, like Spock and Uhura having a relationship, and Kirk being... well, I don't know what he is supposed to be.

      And Pegg is right, if they introduced a new character it wouldn't work. I always thought that the best way they could have introduced a gay character on say TNG would have been to just have one of the main characters show an interest in someone of the same gender. There are lots of opportunities - Data literally experimenting with his sexuality, a Trill host dying and changing gender and then having trouble abandoning past relationships like Ezri Dax did...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. 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.

    1. Re:It *is* tokenism that they chose Sulu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or Captain Kirk. And Mr Spock. Together at last...

  6. 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.

    1. Re:Pegg has it backwards by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

      Introducing a new gay character just means there's a character who, among other traits, happens to be gay.

      Not true. He acknowledges either consciously or subconsciously that he is just making a shitty movie without a likable plot or narrative of any kind because he inherited the Star Trek franchise and can capitalize on it - with that in mind it is known he cannot make a gay character who has any trait other than being gay because he is just a political activist without any other skillset, not even the writing aptitude a kindergartner might use to advance the story of the Star Trek universe.

  7. 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.

  8. Re:Gay crew members scrapped in TNG... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2

    The entire concept of the Trill was intended to bring that into attention. A race where the "intellect" could inhabit either sex. They even, in the first story in which the Trill appeared, introduced the conflict in which Doctor Crusher had fallen in love with a Trill intellect when it was expressed in a body with one sex, but could not reconcile when it was in a body of the opposite sex. A perfectly reasonable response by a human being who has their own sexuality in full grip, but it did pose an interesting question for the viewer.

    I don't think that's precisely what you're referring to, however.

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  9. 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
    1. Re:Oh, sure by JBMcB · · Score: 2

      Christopher Pike able to talk and laugh... no problem.

      As the timeline has been altered, the circumstances leading to his alternate-timeline incapacitation have changed.

       

      Vulcan destroyed... no problem.

      As the timeline has been altered, circumstances have led to the destruction of Vulcan.

      Spock and Uhura making out in the turbo lift... No problem.

      As the timeline has been altered, the circumstances leading Spock to be more strictly logical have been altered, and he secretly leans more towards his human, emotional side.

      But make Sulu gay? THIS SHALL NOT STAND!

      So, *circumstances* lead someone to be gay? It's not an inherent trait? See how that can be an issue?

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  10. tokenism mr pegg? by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 2

    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!
  11. 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.

  12. 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. . . .
    1. Re:If they *really* want to reboot things... by umafuckit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why stop at Kirk? Have all of them be gay. If the plot is good it doesn't matter.If the plot is good.

      --
      soylentnews.org
  13. Tokenism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  14. Fast and the Furious in Space by TooManyNames · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  15. 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.

    1. Re:Ya know... by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 2

      [SPOILERS FOR BSG]

      I haven't seen Caprica, but BSG is not a good example of how to portray queer characters.

      • Cain and her Six: A sadly perfect example of the "bury your gays" trope. They even took it one step further because both of them were *already dead* when you found out they were queer. That ruins any credit they would have earned for showing the Pegasus crew being accepting of their relationship. Also, you find out in Razor, and that wasn't even technically part of the series.
      • Cain's Six And Baltar: After Razor, you have to retroactively consider that Cain's Six was bi. Or just PTSD'd to all hell from repeated gang rapes, enough to sleep for Baltar for... solace? And, of course, she dies immediately afterwards.
      • Baltar, Caprica Six, and D'Anna: This is overwhelmingly portrayed as the heterosexual male fantasy of doing two chicks at the same time. There's a token line from D'Anna about loving them both, but it's mostly portrayed as a love triangle of two women fighting over Baltar.
      • Gaeta and Hoshi: If you're thinking, "Huh, Gaeta and Hoshi are gay?", that's exactly the point. The only indication of either of them being queer is a webisode that takes place during season 4. It isn't touched on either before or after the webisode in the main series. Admittedly, they do a good job of showing their relationship (and Gaeta's bisexuality) as no big deal.

      To recap, that's two dead lesbians, a few poorly portrayed examples of bisexual women, and the only queer men confined to a webisode that barely anyone has seen. Contrast this with how BSG subverts tropes and portrays strong women. From the moment Chief casually addresses Boomer as "Sir" in the miniseries, you know something is different. Women can be the President of the Colonies, Admiral of the fleet, or the most badass Viper jock around. That's what makes it so disappointing that BSG couldn't find the time to display a single healthy queer character or relationship in the televised series.

  16. Harold! by synaptic · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bet Kumar is laughing his ass off that Harold has to suck a dick.

  17. Good Observation by mykepredko · · Score: 2

    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
  18. That answers that question... by ihtoit · · Score: 2

    ...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