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.

So, read an article regarding the new Star Trek movie coming out, and some reactions and responses from George Takei.

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/07/07/george-takei-says-making-sulu-gay-doesnt-honor-roddenberrys-star-trek-vision/


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?

When I think Sulu, I think of Mr. Takei's portrayal. I also think his insight into how Asians and homosexuals are portrayed in popular media is worthwhile considering his experience and activism.

Pretending that a character is just a ... well costume that you can put on whoever and write them however is convenient, that is a very propritary attitude - but it doesn't have anything to do with why the character is memorable and enduringly interesting to so many.

 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?

I don't think so, either literally or figuratively. However, if you're casting/scripting a part previously played by someone else, presumably you're doing so because there is an appetite to see that part\story\IP, and so it would be foolish not to consider whether what you're doing fits with the nature of the character or not.

I would say there is more of a duty to be true to the character than to the actor - for example, I think Jodie Foster was right to pass on Hannibal for the (book) ending because it felt very, very much out of character for Clarice Starling... even if that's what Thomas Harris himself wrote. In this case, I think Harris himself wasn't true to the character. However, he owns it, and it's his right to make foolish choices.

I hope what I posted made sense because I am not 100% sure I did.

 Ouze wrote:

 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?

I don't think so, either literally or figuratively. However, if you're casting/scripting a part previously played by someone else, presumably you're doing so because there is an appetite to see that part\story\IP, and so it would be foolish not to consider whether what you're doing fits with the nature of the character or not.

I would say there is more of a duty to be true to the character than to the actor - for example, I think Jodie Foster was right to pass on Hannibal for the (book) ending because it felt very, very much out of character for Clarice Starling... even if that's what Thomas Harris himself wrote. In this case, I think Harris himself wasn't true to the character. However, he owns it, and it's his right to make foolish choices.

I hope what I posted made sense because I am not 100% sure I did.

I get what you're saying... and I think, based on the article that I posted, Takei is basing his argument in that Roddenberry wrote Sulu a particular way, and that particular way was straight. While I'm no mind reader, his comments that he feels honored, but disagrees with the choice, suggests to me that the current movie producers are making Sulu a homosexual in honor of Takei's contributions, not the character.

My thought is, "don't make Sulu gay. Make Sulu bi."

Then it becomes closer to a case of "the road not travelled" as opposed to more of a redefining of the character.

 Compel wrote:
My thought is, "don't make Sulu gay. Make Sulu bi."

Personally, I come down more on the side of "make Sulu awesome" regardless of what his sexual preferences are. Part of the whole point of Star Trek is that it shows a future where humanity has moved beyond defining someone by their race, gender, or sexual preference. What does it matter who Sulu likes to sleep with, as long as he can still be a sword waving badass?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
a future where humanity has moved beyond defining someone by their race, gender, or sexual preference

Good point, would anyone even be "gay" (or "straight") anymore? I mean, yes, people would still have sexual preferences. But rather than tying those preferences to some kind of sweeping politicized identity, wouldn't they just be more like, well I am attracted to Person A rather than I am only attracted to Category X?

Anyhow, the counterargument is Star Trek and other fictions should be at the service of the here and now rather than their own worlds because if you do not see yourself represented in Hollywood-manufactured products then you are oppressed.

This Sulu has been gay for two movies and no one really cared and even now it is more of just an acknowledgement than a major plot point. I suppose that sort of proves the point that people are still sensitive about homosexuality and treat it as "other" even if it was been this way for some time; at least making people acknowledge it has created a discussion.

He was gay in the other two movies? Or are you reading this change backwards?

 Manchu wrote:
He was gay in the other two movies? Or are you reading this change backwards?

According to the writers it has always been this way in this alternate universe, it just wasn't important. It wasn't like Sulu was straight in Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) then suddenly was hit with The Gay™ in this upcoming movie.

It is entirely possible for a fictional character to be "hit with The Gay™" - I guess we just give the writers the benefit of the doubt they hit Sulu with it before now. And I think this is getting to why Mr Takei objects.

 Manchu wrote:
It is entirely possible for a fictional character to be "hit with The Gay™" - I guess we just give the writers the benefit of the doubt they hit Sulu with it before now. And I think this is getting to why Mr Takei objects.

Can we really trade mark The Gay? I find that phrasing hilarious. "Oh X can't come into work today, he got hit with The Gay"

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.

So, earlier today I read Simon Pegg's "rebuttal" to George Takei's rebuttal, and while I may not entirely agree with either side, I think Simon's reasoning is still sound.

In short, he admits that, yes, making Sulu specifically gay was an homage to Takei. BUT, the writers felts that Roddenberry would have done that in the 60s, if the social and political climate had allowed. On top of all of this, Mr. Pegg is of the opinion that if they did take George's advice and "create a new, gay, character" that they would be falling prey to tokenism, which is something they are very much trying to avoid.

They'd rather use an alternate timeline to show the possibility that, in an alternate world anyone could be gay. In this one, it's Sulu. They are showing an already known entity in this established character, and altering this one thing (I've noticed in comments sections that Sulu has a child in the Original timeline, and apparently this is going to also be the case in the alternate one as well... but I guess we'll see) about the character.

Pegg's rebuttal was all kinds of awesome. You can disagree with that artistic reasoning, but you have to admit it was very solid.

Not a Trek fan personally, but I do enjoy the spirit of the universe. Amidst all the gore and horror I normally enjoy, its nice to see utopian scifi.

Also, big fan of Takei as person, and huge fan of Pegg's work, and he absolutely killed it there.

 whembly wrote:
Pegg's rebuttal was all kinds of awesome. You can disagree with that artistic reasoning, but you have to admit it was very solid.

You're right on that... Thinking on it more, I think where I disagree with both Pegg and Takei is when they say things like "Gene would have done it X way." I mean, Gene Roddenberry has been gone for how many years? Who really knows exactly what he would have done, had he been around making films today?

When you remember that the Kirk/Uhuru kiss was the first interracial kiss on US TV, it tells you two things; how repressed Americas still was in the mid 1960s, and how Roddenberry was pushing that boundary.

I wonder if any of the other original cast members, and other associates of Roddenberry, have any insight into his thinking of the time.

Perhaps it's true that he wanted to make a gay character and felt it was a step too far.

Whatever Simon Pegg says, the new film could have made Sulu straight and introduced another character who was gay. If you're going to have a character be gay because you want a gay character, it can be seen as tokenism whether it's a new character or a revised old one, or it can be seen as inclusiveness and reflecting modern society.

Kirk should have been made gay.

It would be tokenism in it's truest form in respect for the Trek universe. Ever since The Next Generation, it's been clear that humankind (in general) just plain doesn't care who you sleep with. They are past that long ago, what with the possibility for inter-species sex being perfectly ok.

Noone on that ship cares who the helmsman sleeps with. Pretty soon it will be ok for an enlisted man to have angry, bruising sex with a hot klingon woman- or a gorramn freaking shapeshifter! Just being plain old gay for another human would be a boring everyday thing.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Pretty soon it will be ok for an enlisted man to have angry, bruising sex with a hot klingon woman

Go on...

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Pretty soon it will be ok for an enlisted man to have angry, bruising sex with a hot klingon woman

Go on...

If Quark can pull it off then so can a Red Shirt

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Pretty soon it will be ok for an enlisted man to have angry, bruising sex with a hot klingon woman

Go on...

If Quark can pull it off then so can a Red Shirt

Thats the one I was remembering, though I think Harry Kim got some, too, when they encountered the klingon ship on Voyager.

Dax and Worf got married, didn't they?

 jreilly89 wrote:


Can we really trade mark The Gay? I find that phrasing hilarious. "Oh X can't come into work today, he got hit with The Gay"

Well, there's this.

Psychiatry has not always been kind to people whose sexuality veers from the societal norm. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness in many countries as late as the mid-20th century—if it was not classified as an outright crime. Even Sweden, that Scandinavian bastion of openness and equality, identified being gay as a disorder as late as 1979.

That year, a group of Swedes took advantage of the legal framework that made being gay an illness and called in sick to work, claiming their homosexuality as the reason. One woman, from the southern province of Smålandeven, managed to get Social Security benefits for calling in gay.

In the future you will be able to have imaginary virtual sex with a solid hologram of an intelligent waveform.

I agree with George Takei about how they should have left Sulu alone. Making the character gay at this point is very cynical on the part of Paramount. If they wanted to do this, they should have done it from the beginning. Doing it now smacks of insincerity and looks like a blatant attempt to pander to the LGBT community and get them to come to the theaters to drive up lagging box office receipts.

 AegisGrimm wrote:


Thats the one I was remembering, though I think Harry Kim got some, too, when they encountered the klingon ship on Voyager.

Harry Kim actually ran away, but Neelix was ready and able

This is like the most "Star Trek" thing... innit?

You have actors from 2 different timestreams arguing over what's canon...

"When did Sulu find the time to have a family"

Well in the JJverse I guess his daughter won't be helmsman of the enterprise B.

Making Sulu gay feels forced. Star trek has always been very much about people being attracted to people, not being labelled as one thing or another. I mean Dax hooked up with men, women, Klingon's and after a body swap a genetically engineered super human.

As other have said in a world when you can get drunk and hook up with a green skinned alien who cares if you have a man crush on that guy from engineering.
Do we even know for sure Orion slave girls don't have man bits as well? Maybe that's why their so much fun.