Sulu revealed as gay in Star Trek Beyond

[Anakin McFly]

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/7/12120094/st ... y-john-cho

I never know how much I needed to see a mainstream gay Asian character until this happened.

But George Takei's disapproval taints that. I agree with some of what he says - instead of creating a new one they're retroactively rewriting a character previously considered straight, though alternate universe so idk. Plus if he was closeted all this while, it would suggest that even in the future people don't feel free enough to be openly gay, which is a huge step back.

Right now I'm primarily concerned about what this would mean for the movie's local release. Either they cut out all the scenes where gayness is shown or mentioned to keep this PG-13, which would suck, or they give it an NC-16 or R-18 rating for positive/neutral depictions of "the homosexual lifestyle", which would suck for Trekkies under 16, though kids are good at torrenting so I guess they'll get to save money. Maybe they'll do two releases as a compromise. Either way I'm really not looking forward to the homophobic outrage this is likely to generate here.

[Gendo]

Ha, I read this as "Sulla" at first.

[Anakin McFly]

pfft, if he were in Star Trek he would be Famous_Sulla.

There are so many people whining about how this is another "negative representation" of Asian men by Hollywood, or how again the Asian dude doesn't get the girl (because I guess Hollywood movies are oversaturated with Asian dudes getting the guy...) or says that it reinforces the idea that Asian males can't be "attractive and strong". I don't know what they're talking about. John Cho still looks really good to me.

But after reading more about Takei's fairly strong objection to this, I wish they wouldn't keep emphasizing how it's a 'tribute' to him or being done in his honour. He's obviously not feeling it, and I get the questionable nature of suggesting that a straight character played by a gay actor was closeted all along.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

pfft, if he were in Star Trek he would be Famous_Sulla.

There are so many people whining about how this is another "negative representation" of Asian men by Hollywood, or how again the Asian dude doesn't get the girl (because I guess Hollywood movies are oversaturated with Asian dudes getting the guy...) or says that it reinforces the idea that Asian males can't be "attractive and strong". I don't know what they're talking about. John Cho still looks really good to me.

But after reading more about Takei's fairly strong objection to this, I wish they wouldn't keep emphasizing how it's a 'tribute' to him or being done in his honour. He's obviously not feeling it, and I get the questionable nature of suggesting that a straight character played by a gay actor was closeted all along.

I don't know my Star Trek history. Is there any evidence in canon material that hints if not outright trlls us Sulu's sexuality?

I do agree in either case they need to stop with the "in honor of Takei" if he objects to it.

[Anakin McFly]

Sulu had a daughter, but there was no mention of a wife. In the reboot he's said to have a husband and a daughter, so that part will still work.

Simon Pegg responded to the criticism: http://www.indiewire.com/2016/07/star-t ... 201703885/

I agree with his reasoning - creating a whole new gay character would have smacked of tokenism and ended up defining them by their sexuality, vs taking an established character whom audiences already knew and loved, and revealing this additional aspect of his personal life. From that article I'm not sure if they're still saying its in honour of Takei, or if that's something that news outlets took and ran with.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

Sulu had a daughter, but there was no mention of a wife. In the reboot he's said to have a husband and a daughter, so that part will still work.

Simon Pegg responded to the criticism: http://www.indiewire.com/2016/07/star-t ... 201703885/

I agree with his reasoning - creating a whole new gay character would have smacked of tokenism and ended up defining them by their sexuality, vs taking an established character whom audiences already knew and loved, and revealing this additional aspect of his personal life. From that article I'm not sure if they're still saying its in honour of Takei, or if that's something that news outlets took and ran with.

I'm just saying maybe the daughter is adopted, & in the future perhaps homosexuality is so accepted that it doesn't need to be called to attention anymore. So it wouldn't be that he was closeted. Just that it was a non-issue in that period.

[Anakin McFly]

Yeah, his daughter could have been adopted, or it's also possible that by then they've figured out how to make biological children from two adults regardless of gender - IIRC we may already have the ability to do so in a decade or so.

The IMDb boards for Star Trek Beyond are a huge mess, though. I just dropped by, and people are still complaining that making the Asian guy gay was racist because it perpetuates the stereotype of Asian men as 'effeminate weaklings', which apparently all gay men are. I don't even know if they watched the same movie, because Sulu was nothing at all like an 'effeminate weakling'. He was exactly the same as he was in the previous two movies, and I don't recall anyone calling him effeminate then.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

Yeah - so I watched Beyond on the weekend (I really liked it) and all this jazz about Sulu's sexuality just seems misplaced.

There was like a 5 second scene where Sulu meets his daughter and husband while Kirk looks on and smiles .. if I had any complaint about the scene its that Kirk looking on benevolently and smiling made it look "approving" rather than just casually observing some mundane interaction - which is more like what felt they were aiming for.

and people are still complaining that making the Asian guy gay was racist because it perpetuates the stereotype of Asian men as 'effeminate weaklings', which apparently all gay men are. I don't even know if they watched the same movie, because Sulu was nothing at all like an 'effeminate weakling'. He was exactly the same as he was in the previous two movies, and I don't recall anyone calling him effeminate then.

Abso-fucking-lootly - Sulu is not feminine, he was just gay - he was played exactly the same way he's been played in every other movie, his sexuality was a throw away nod that I think attempted to make the point that sexuality, like interracial relationships or women in command, are mundane every day things that don't need a special narrative to justify their inclusion.. The cry that being gay plays into feminising Asian men is a slap in the face for gay men given being gay =/= being feminine and there was nothing in Sulu being gay that feminised him .. Then I guess there is a whole bag of wrong with people considering feminine men as being inferior ..but it also feels wrong to entertain that narrative given that's clearly not got anything to do with what was on screen anyways. And by this I can see why people would be offended by Asian men being stereotyped generally - whether that be by feminising them or being the ubiquitous geeky math genius friend or whateves .. but given none of that is relevant to Sulu in Star trek .. it seems pointless to bring up in the context of discussing Sulu being gay in star Trek.

To the objection that Sulu's character being rewritten, there were very few Characters in the original Star Trek that were actually explicitly sexualised, Kirk was obviously one and if they had suddenly written him as Gay .. that would I think generate legitimate concerns, but to just pick a character that has never had an on screen relationship .. or even that much of a explicit history and simply add to that that he is Gay doesn't seem anymore like a rewrite than finding out he is vegan - its not inconsistent with anything we already know about him .. so to that, I am unsure as to why George has been so vocal in objecting, but then I suspect that George is a bit of a nutter anyways and that probably goes further to explaining where he is coming from.
\

[Anakin McFly]

George Takei made a post on his Facebook to clarify his stance, saying that headlines were misleading (as they tend to be). I can't remember the link, but it's reposted here: https://www.rafu.com/2016/07/takei-clar ... -gay-sulu/

I like how the opening sequence of Beyond included an unnamed Asian guy making out with a woman - that was definitely intentional on their part. It's ironic that people are blaming Sulu being gay on Simon Pegg having some anti-Asian racist agenda, given that the director and John Cho are both Asian and are more than aware - Cho has spoken often on the topic - and concerned about the stereotypical portrayal of Asian men in Hollywood, especially in how they're rarely if ever given romantic/sexual relationships. Cho said the three of them discussed this at length to see how best to approach this with sensitivity to those and other concerns, and in the end were happy with what they ended up with. And I'm really happy with it too, and I can't see any justification for the continued complaints other than homophobia. Lots of posts about how as usual the Asian guy can't get the girl, when... dude, he actually got the guy, married him and had a daughter. That takes a lot more effort than getting some girl to sleep with you. Or people lamenting that with Sulu they finally had a "positive, hetero Asian male" character they could look up to, and then they had to go and turn him gay; as though Hollywood is saturated with positive gay Asian male characters, because I can't name even one. I never thought this day would come when I could see someone like me and my friends on the big screen, let alone in Star Trek. It's a huge step.

There's a lot to be said on how the persistent emasculation of Asian men in Western culture creates this backlash where they feel the need to overcompensate and prove their masculinity with misogyny and homophobia, so I don't want to dismiss that frustration. But of all the characters to find fault with, Sulu is such a great example of portraying Asian and/or gay male characters right, that their anger is completely misplaced.

The Beyond IMDb boards are a mess right now. It's remarkable how they're decrying this movie as liberal PC bullshit just because of those five seconds (and I guess the whole anti-war, pro-diversity, strength in unity message, but Trek has always been that way), or saying it was the worst movie ever and Hollywood needs to stop trying to shove their SJW agenda down the audience's throat with this and the 'anti-male' Ghostbusters. Someone actually made a post about how Asian men have tiny penises. Plus the obligatory thread asking if this means one of the crew will become transgender, which was full of transphobic insults and mockery. Barely anyone there is talking about the movie.It's like the Passion of the Christ boards, but worse.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

George Takei made a post on his Facebook to clarify his stance, saying that headlines were misleading (as they tend to be)

I dunno if young George cleared ..that up at all really .. I mean, from what I can tell he is saying something to the effect of, there was interest in including a LGBT character in the original series but times being what they were, it would have killed the show so, all characters were byh default presented as straight hence - straight is fundamental to who the characters are ...

Which makes no sense at all - being straight was simply a compromise from the start. These are different times and now there is no need to simply assume every character is straight as a default. Now we find out that Sulu is gay, there is absolutely no reason why Sulu being gay as opposed to by default straight makes a lick of difference to anything in his bio .. and there is no reason not to have an gay character whether that be ground up or simply revealing something about the original character that we didn't know about.

It doesn't conflict with Roddenberry's vision, and in very many ways it adds to it ... Most of the diversity on the show was handled matter of factly and the reason being is that most of what was for then controversial is seen to be common place in Roddenberry's take on the future .. Sulu was Asian. Japanese in a not so long after the war way, they don't make a big deal of him being Japanese - he just was .. Chekov is Russian .. Kirk made out with a black women .. all of these things would have been a big deal when they appeared on the show but none of these things were a big deal in the context of the show.

So - casually finding out that one of the main characters is gay and that this doesn't effect any story line whatsoever - it just is - is exactly what Roddenberry was going for the whole time.

But of all the characters to find fault with, Sulu is such a great example of portraying Asian and/or gay male characters right, that their anger is completely misplaced

Exactly - we finally have a gay character where being gay is incidental to the character rather than a plot point ...

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

George Takei made a post on his Facebook to clarify his stance, saying that headlines were misleading (as they tend to be)

I dunno if young George cleared ..that up at all really .. I mean, from what I can tell he is saying something to the effect of, there was interest in including a LGBT character in the original series but times being what they were, it would have killed the show so, all characters were byh default presented as straight hence - straight is fundamental to who the characters are ...

Which makes no sense at all - being straight was simply a compromise from the start. These are different times and now there is no need to simply assume every character is straight as a default. Now we find out that Sulu is gay, there is absolutely no reason why Sulu being gay as opposed to by default straight makes a lick of difference to anything in his bio .. and there is no reason not to have an gay character whether that be ground up or simply revealing something about the original character that we didn't know about.

It doesn't conflict with Roddenberry's vision, and in very many ways it adds to it ... Most of the diversity on the show was handled matter of factly and the reason being is that most of what was for then controversial is seen to be common place in Roddenberry's take on the future .. Sulu was Asian. Japanese in a not so long after the war way, they don't make a big deal of him being Japanese - he just was .. Chekov is Russian .. Kirk made out with a black women .. all of these things would have been a big deal when they appeared on the show but none of these things were a big deal in the context of the show.

So - casually finding out that one of the main characters is gay and that this doesn't effect any story line whatsoever - it just is - is exactly what Roddenberry was going for the whole time.

But of all the characters to find fault with, Sulu is such a great example of portraying Asian and/or gay male characters right, that their anger is completely misplaced

Exactly - we finally have a gay character where being gay is incidental to the character rather than a plot point ...

The headlines read "Ermagerd, OG Sulu disapproves of New Gay Coke Sulu!". What Takei meant is that he feels a different parh than the one they took would have been more impactful, though I'n not sure I agree or that the path he is recommenfing wouldn't make the wrong impact.

[Anakin McFly]

Which makes no sense at all - being straight was simply a compromise from the start.

I think it's his way of saying that Roddenberry did intentionally specify that these characters were straight, vs how some are suggesting that he left it open for interpretation. It's similar to how Spock (or at least the First Officer) was originally supposed to be a woman, but studios wouldn't let him so he had to change it, and the end result is the character we have - being male is now part of who Spock is, even though that too was a compromise. Changing that would thus mean changing the character. It's probably personal for Takei. His life would have been very different (easier?) if he were straight, and he'd probably be a different person, so he instinctively might balk at this idea that Sulu can still be the exact same guy even if he's gay. But ideally that's how it would be by the 23rd century.

I agree that creating a new gay character wouldn't work the same way because they'd just be known as the new gay character.