Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

But DS9 was the worst series, and the only good part of it was Dax.

I'm confused as to why Sulu's sexuality, or anyone's for that matter, is even being mentioned. Unless his sexuality is in some way an important plot point (which would be a very bad thing) who cares?

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Kirk should have been made gay.

Spock was all kinds of gay for Kirk in Into Darkness, Pegg should have had him come out in this nexxt one.

This. It would have added to all the weird interspecies bromance, especially if it remained unrequited.

Simon Pegg is wrong about tokenism. Changing an existing character to be 'the gay' is tokenism. A characters evolution is not decided by a desire for representation, it follows a path on screen. When they had HopeMan kill Zod in MoS they said it was the natural progression of that characters arc at that point. Which I suppose is an indication if how poorly they had written a beloved character. If they had got to the end and the character had delivered an inspiring moral lesson it would have felt forced- much like it will when Sulu queens it up.

They had brought in new characters for the movies- blonde bra wearing girl, grizzled RoboCop starfleet guy, Scotty's new alien sidekick. No reason they couldn't have made a believable character important to the plot and have him also be attracted to the same sex.

But Spock was the clear choice from his on screen portrayal and they blew it.

... This would be the same Spock they've shown having a relationship with Uhura yes ?

 Manchu wrote:
Sure, it is ridiculous - no real person is ever "hit with The Gay™" ... so to the extent that writers do this to fictional characters, it can undermine verisimilitude. In this case, I think it just emphasizes how hollow and fake Abrams Trek, or whatever you want to call it nowadays, has always been and will continue to be.

Bingo.

The question will be how they even get an opportunity to show it, in between all of the phaser fire and explosions.

Sulu isn't being "hit with The Gay".

There hasn't been anything in the previous films in the Abrams verse to indicate one sexual orientation or another. Assuming he is straight is just that, an assumption based on the hetero-normative approach to characterisation where straight is often regarded as the default when not given any information.

The fact that it isn't being mentioned until now (and apparently not in any super important way so it could just be a small comment, a picture in Sulu's quarters etc.) just highlights the fact that the Star Trek universe doesn't care about sexual orientation like ours currently does. Let's wait and see how they play it before leaping to any conclusions.

Ya know I suppose that part of the issues that I have in my mind all revolve around how are they gonna handle this....

I mean, is there gonna be a soft interlude scene, with a deep philosophical conversation between Sulu and Kirk, and Kirk simply asks, "how are things with you and [boyfriend's name] doing?"

I kind of think that part of many of our worries is that the film will have a scene where Sulu beams down to the bad guy camps and yells, "Guess what!? I'M GAY!!!! GAAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!" which would certainly be a terrible way for the film makers to reveal to viewers (because surely the crew knows, right?) the sexuality of a character.

Assuming they're not incompetent, it'd probably just be something like a photograph in his quarters, or he's on a video call with him and red alert sounds.

 Compel wrote:
Assuming they're not incompetent, it'd probably just be something like a photograph in his quarters, or he's on a video call with him and red alert sounds.

This is what I'm expecting. When does the film start? Might have them saying goodbye to each other as Sulu boards the Enterprise to begin their latest deployment.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Assuming they're not incompetent, it'd probably just be something like a photograph in his quarters, or he's on a video call with him and red alert sounds.

This is what I'm expecting. When does the film start? Might have them saying goodbye to each other as Sulu boards the Enterprise to begin their latest deployment.

That sounds tasteful, understated and therefore improbable.

To be true to the franchise, wouldn't he have to make out with a green guy in tight underwear only to be disturbed by the green guys roommate, the same roommate that then later makes out with a guy that is currently his frienemy, and then there will be another scene where a guy that turns out to be a stowaway strips down to his tight underwear while changing outfits and then remembers to tell Sulu to turn around after he is already almost naked?

 d-usa wrote:
To be true to the franchise, wouldn't he have to make out with a green guy in tight underwear only to be disturbed by the green guys roommate, the same roommate that then later makes out with a guy that is currently his frienemy, and then there will be another scene where a guy that turns out to be a stowaway strips down to his tight underwear while changing outfits and then remembers to tell Sulu to turn around after he is already almost naked?

You're trying to hard there!

You're better than that!

 Alpharius wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To be true to the franchise, wouldn't he have to make out with a green guy in tight underwear only to be disturbed by the green guys roommate, the same roommate that then later makes out with a guy that is currently his frienemy, and then there will be another scene where a guy that turns out to be a stowaway strips down to his tight underwear while changing outfits and then remembers to tell Sulu to turn around after he is already almost naked?

You're trying to hard there!

You're better than that!

I'm not really trying, and better than what? Better than pointing out that it is weird that a potential homosexual Sulu has to be handled and outed with kids gloves by comparing it to the history of the obvious sexuality of Star Trek characters in shows and movies from past to present?

The Abrams Universe has had no problems of any kind with resurrecting Kirk the heterosexual inter-species womanizer, throwing him in bed with one alien woman in underwear in one movie and having a woman in underwear for no reason whatsoever other than "Kirk and audience gets to see chick in underwear" in the other movie.

The Abrams Universe has had no problems of any kind with taking the sexual and romantic tension present between Spock and Uhura that was present in the original series, and turning it into a full on interracial inter-species heterosexual relationship in the movie.

The Original Series had one of the first televised interracial kisses, although in the story it was against both of their wills.

TNG had Riker as the resident womanizer to replace that role of Kirk from TOS.

Deep Space Nine had violent and aggressive interspecies sex between Worf and Dax.

Voyager had 7 of 9 because reasons.

Sex has always been a part of Star Trek. Relationships have always been a part of Star Trek. Boundaries have always been pushed on Star Trek.

Would I be surprised if the Abramsverse Star Trek handles the reveal of a gay character with the same lack of "in your face, he's gay" approach as How To Train Your Dragon 2? Not at all, and that is likely what will happen.

I just find it weird that people are hoping that the one gay character comes out in such a subtle way that it almost makes a mockery of the boundary pushing in your face sexuality of the Star Trek Universe from TOS to the present.

 d-usa wrote:

I just find it weird that people are hoping that the one gay character comes out in such a subtle way that it almost makes a mockery of the boundary pushing in your face sexuality of the Star Trek Universe from TOS to the present.

Its not much of a boundary any more though is it? Gay characters are most definitely mainstream these days.

 d-usa wrote:

Would I be surprised if the Abramsverse Star Trek handles the reveal of a gay character with the same lack of "in your face, he's gay" approach as How To Train Your Dragon 2? Not at all, and that is likely what will happen.

Have to say, that comment really made me laugh

He's still trying too hard!!!

 Crazyterran wrote:
But DS9 was the worst series, and the only good part of it was Dax.

In a thread about retro-fitted tokenist gay characters on Star Trek, this is the comment that crosses the line. DS9 is the best of the various TV series, and literally the only one that can be reasonably watched again today.

 feeder wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
But DS9 was the worst series, and the only good part of it was Dax.

In a thread about retro-fitted tokenist gay characters on Star Trek, this is the comment that crosses the line. DS9 is the best of the various TV series, and literally the only one that can be reasonably watched again today.

Then again DS9 had some real howlers in the first season. Still, with a handful of exceptions, I really liked Voyager more. So there.

Thought bits of Voyager were great (the opening sequence for one!)

The Doc was the stand-out character for me, but generally didn't think the show had as many interesting characters as DS9 (you couldn't list them all!) or the weight of the storyline overall. It also benefited from the lack of Janeway and her inconsistent moralising over that fething prime directive

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I guess what this thread is about is, do actors have some sort of ownership over a part, after they've left the role? In the article, Mr. Takei comes out against the new film's direction, citing that he doesn't think Roddenberry would have wanted it that way, which may be a reasonable argument.

While I think it's nice that the current filmmakers contacted George regarding Sulu, should his input really matter? Does he still have any kind of "ownership" over the role?

No. He has no say.

He might be right that Gene would not have approved this move.

Gene's dead. Gene's family doesn't own the rights anymore. Paramount Pictures, on behalf of CBS, owns the rights to Star Trek movies and TV series.

Just like George Lucas can bitch all he wants about Star Wars: The Force Awakens, it's the same thing. Tough gak. Disney owns Star Wars now. Slap some mouse ears on that Death Star and feth off, George.

I don't think anyone disputes the ownership status of the IP, at least vis-a-vis George Takei. But then again, how many of us really connect to Star Trek as a "property," just as some sort of commerical and/or legal object? For me, Star Trek is about values, stories, and characters - yes including the portrayals. Mssrs. Roddenberry and Takei actually created the character Hikaru Sulu, while Mssrs. Abrams, Lin, and Pegg are riding on their coattails. This really gets to the heart (or rather the empty space where a heart should be) of the reboot con: it's the promise of more of what you love, but they really can't deliver. So it becomes a bait and switch: "well this is our interpretation." OK but who cares. To me, Abrams Trek amounts to very expensive, extremely low quality fan fiction.

 Manchu wrote:
To me, Abrams Trek amounts to very expensive, extremely low quality fan fiction.

To me, the original Rodden-Trek movies, other than Wrath of Khan, can't hold a candle to the rebooted Star Trek.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) Snore fest. It's 2001 a Space Odyssey, but with worse music.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) Best EVAH!
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) Reverend Jim, the Klingon. Meh movie is generous.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) "What if Star Trek Characters were here today?" Fan Fiction written by a 9 year old boy that has whale sheets
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) "What does God need with a starship and a mind-controlling half-Vulcan?" Nothing. Stupid movie.
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) "An action movie starring 60 year olds that aren't Stallone, Schwartzinegger, and Dolph Lundron? Riveting". Plenty of slapstick. Like Benny Hill in Space.

The Next Generation films
Star Trek Generations (1994) "fething die, Kirk!" OK, movie.
Star Trek: First Contact (1996) "Another funny, time-traveling Trek." Meh. Piccard had some emotional scenes that didn't suck, though. Also, I'm DTF that borg queen.
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) The boring away mission one.
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) The time Spartacus took over the Romulan Empire in a coup d'etat and Piccard got to drive a dune buggy. Meh.

Star Trek II is not merely a good Star Trek movie or a good sci fi movie; it is a good movie period end of, like Empire Strikes Back for Star Wars. I certainly don't expect any Star Trek movie to ever be as good as that, just as I don't expect any Star Wars film to be as good as ESB. These GREAT films are not the correct measuring stick. And yet Abrams et alia came to the exact opposite conclusion. Into Darkness is merely a bad film, like its predecessor, considered on its own merits. But thanks to aping Wrath of Khan, it comes off as an absolutely terrible film. Setting aside Star Trek II, the next best "original series" film is Star Trek VI - and neither the 2009 film nor Into Darkness come near to being as well thought out, tense, emotionally compelling, or plain enjoyable as Undiscovered Country. Whether the new films are better, just as films, than the likes of Search for Spock or ... shudder ... Insurrection is like asking which can of spoiled sardines smells the worst.

I'd rather see another ambitious failure like TMP than more of the cynical, low-aiming mediocrity that makes Abrams such a 'safe' director.

I totes agree that Wrath of Khan was a great movie in it's own right, regardless of Trek or otherwise.

Yes, there were lots of stinkers in there.

I can't say that I enjoyed Undiscovered Country, but that's OK. We can like different things.

I am really enjoying the Abram's Trek films. They aren't great films, in the grand history of films. However, I find them to be tense and enjoyable SciFi movies.

As kronk pointed out, TMP has often been criticized as cynical. And I don't think the problem is Abrams; Beyond looks as bad/worse, to the point that I'm not going to even see it (and I like Star Trek, generally, enough to have seen both of Nemesis and Into Darkness twice in the cinema). We can still do Star Trek of course - and here I think Mr. Takei was somewhat on the right track - but it's time for new characters. And I think Star Trek needs to be, well, more like Star Trek. There is all kinds of room for gay characters in Star Trek (as Silent Puffin? implied, it wouldn't even be "a thing" at this point) - but making existing character gay in your fan fiction canon is just silly ... especially considering the last movie you did is a love story between Kirk and Spock. At least make one (or both) of them the gay one(s).

Slightly off topic, but I hope the new Star Trek TV Series rumor is true that each season will follow a new crew in a different timeline, and I hope they use different ship names. Like the USS Texas, the USS Eagle 5, etc.

 Manchu wrote:
Star Trek II is not merely a good Star Trek movie or a good sci fi movie; it is a good movie period end of, like Empire Strikes Back for Star Wars. I certainly don't expect any Star Trek movie to ever be as good as that, just as I don't expect any Star Wars film to be as good as ESB. These GREAT films are not the correct measuring stick. And yet Abrams et alia came to the exact opposite conclusion. Into Darkness is merely a bad film, like its predecessor, considered on its own merits. But thanks to aping Wrath of Khan, it comes off as an absolutely terrible film. Setting aside Star Trek II, the next best "original series" film is Star Trek VI - and neither the 2009 film nor Into Darkness come near to being as well thought out, tense, emotionally compelling, or plain enjoyable as Undiscovered Country. Whether the new films are better, just as films, than the likes of Search for Spock or ... shudder ... Insurrection is like asking which can of spoiled sardines smells the worst.

Agree completely.

For me, I would say II and VI are the most worthwhile watching of the originals (IV is not without its charms, but has dated quite badly) and VIII of the Next Generation ones (just an awesome movie period). The "evens good, odds bad" thing applied right up to X which I thought fell a bit short.

The new films are fun, exciting but not really Star Trek. They've taken the ships, the uniforms, the names, but completely missed the soul of what the show was meant to be about. Now I know there are endless, long running arguments about this on movie and ST fan sites, but for me it just came down to Abrams et. al making a choice; whether they wanted to continue to release films which captured the spirit of the other series and films to modest income, or to make into something that would appeal to everyone and a big box office draw, at the expense of the core characteristics of the show. They chose the latter.

What is interesting is that Abrams seemed to do the opposite with Star Wars and managed to do so well in capturing the character of the original films. And also will be interesting to see what happens with the new series, where presumably they won't have the budget to have things exploding or being vapourised every 4 seconds.

Like most Star Trek movies, I expect the Ships Only edit will be the only way to enjoy a second, third or fourth rewatch.

Pacific - excellent point that Force Awakens feels a lot more like Star Wars than either Abrams Trek film feels like Star Trek - I agree, that demonstrates that the creators of the latest films simply had/have no faith in Star Trek being relevant, at least not at the desired (financial) level. I don't think that the Secret Ingredient that makes something Trekkish is really all that elusive ... the characters simply need to exhibit some modicum of reflection at a scale larger than the immediate action of the scene and that's utterly missing from the 2009 film and Into Darkness. Those movies seem almost intentionally, self-referentially vacuous (see, e.g., interactions between Prime Spock and Abrams Spock).