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.

Because whilst people may not care centuries from now, people care today. People enjoy seeing characters in films that they can connect with, that they feel can represent them. In a setting such as Star Trek, there is no excuse to not feature gay or bi or trans characters whilst still featuring straight characters as it is established that in that future, people don't mind who you love.

In a setting where sexuality is no longer faced with discrimination why were there no openly gay or bi characters whilst there were many openly straight characters? How does that make narrative sense?

 SickSix wrote:
I am just against change of existing IP for PC sake.

It's an alternative timeline with more action and less of a Star Trek feeling and your problem is that a character will be gay? Where was the same outrage when Khan changed from mexican Übermensch to british Übermensch just one movie ago? Change happens all the time, retconing happens all the time. Changing one character's sexuality is no different (except people get to complain about about SJW and PC culture :/). Somehow people mange to find ways to justify Scarlett Johansson in GitS. So why not this change? Why is canon so important when the original character was white, male, or heterosexual? And why is such a tiny change that probably won't affect the movie in any significant way so destructive?

Make new characters if you want to push some social agenda. Don't bastardize something that already exists and we love.

You know that's not happening, all the old movie and the series with heterosexual Sulu are still there for you to enjoy. The new Battlestar Galactics also changed a lot from the old series and people got over it quite quickly (its overall rating on IMDB is even 1.7 points higher than the old series). If they changed nothing you would just get the old stuff with more lens flares and better looking CGI space battles. Is that really all you want from new addition to the universe? Isn't the old stuff still there to enjoy if you don't like the new additions?

By the way: What change in an existing IP would be acceptable, where do you draw the line? An alternative timeline that changes the whole series is okay but changing the sexual preferences of one character is going to far?

 SickSix wrote:
I am just against change of existing IP for PC sake.

...

What about if it is for money?

 SickSix wrote:

Make new characters if you want to push some social agenda. Don't bastardize something that already exists and we love.

This is hilarious. Star Trek has been about pushing a social and political agenda since its inception, along with a lot of sci-fi.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Because whilst people may not care centuries from now, people care today. People enjoy seeing characters in films that they can connect with, that they feel can represent them. In a setting such as Star Trek, there is no excuse to not feature gay or bi or trans characters whilst still featuring straight characters as it is established that in that future, people don't mind who you love.

In a setting where sexuality is no longer faced with discrimination why were there no openly gay or bi characters whilst there were many openly straight characters? How does that make narrative sense?

Maybe they are just all straight because it is a coincidence?


Basically, I view this new Sulu as having come out. There was a big broohaha over it, as there always is when celebrities come out, and it has affected the way everyone will see him.

I go back to my earlier point that people need to stop getting all excited when people come out, because it only increases the idea that people who come out are different. I once met a guy who, as soon as I met him, said "Hello, my name is X, and I am gay." What was my glorious reply?
"If the most interesting thing about you is your sexuality, you must be a very boring person." And I never talked to him again. Maybe he was insulted, not that it bothers me at all.

I say this because you have to take into account films when they are released because they are often important to the world.

Look back at the first series. Sure, none of the characters are openly gay, but what is special about the senior staff? It is their nationality, Star Trek was made in the Cold War, and yet you have an American, Japanese and a Russian all best friends and respected officers. Then you have a Black Woman, an alien, and an alcoholic Scotsman. The basic idea of the original trek is that they are idealistic, and what was more idealistic than all the nations of the world, currently at war or only just stopped being at war, being friends and equals. People would have remembered the Second World War and the war against the Japanese, and they were living a war against the Russians.

For the record I don't mind Sulu being Gay, it doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is the way that his being gay was announced. It could have easily been kept quiet until the film was released and then have a small scene like this.

Kick: "So Sulu, got any plans for shore leave?"
Sulu: "Yes. Me and my husband are going to Planet X for a week."
Kirk: "Awesome. Pass on my regards."

Easy as pie.

 feeder wrote:


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.

Setting aside that DS9 is my favorite and easily the best Star Trek series, I agree. TOS has not aged well. TNG has aged a fair bit better, but its early seasons suffer. DS9 has aged really well technically, and a lot of its content actually feels more relevant now than when it originally aired in the late 80s and 90s.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This is hilarious. Star Trek has been about pushing a social and political agenda since its inception, along with a lot of sci-fi.

The first two movies didn''t doing anything to push agendas.

 LordofHats wrote:
Setting aside that DS9 is my favorite

Groovy

 LordofHats wrote:
and easily the best Star Trek series

But that is just wrong senpai. I like DS9 but I'd still take TOS over it any day of the week since it is easily the best series even if it is old. Some didn't age well, but that is true of the dulcet tones of DS9 as well. Of the Berman era it is certainly the best.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Because whilst people may not care centuries from now, people care today. People enjoy seeing characters in films that they can connect with, that they feel can represent them. In a setting such as Star Trek, there is no excuse to not feature gay or bi or trans characters whilst still featuring straight characters as it is established that in that future, people don't mind who you love.

In a setting where sexuality is no longer faced with discrimination why were there no openly gay or bi characters whilst there were many openly straight characters? How does that make narrative sense?

Maybe they are just all straight because it is a coincidence?


Basically, I view this new Sulu as having come out. There was a big broohaha over it, as there always is when celebrities come out, and it has affected the way everyone will see him.

I go back to my earlier point that people need to stop getting all excited when people come out, because it only increases the idea that people who come out are different. I once met a guy who, as soon as I met him, said "Hello, my name is X, and I am gay." What was my glorious reply?
"If the most interesting thing about you is your sexuality, you must be a very boring person." And I never talked to him again. Maybe he was insulted, not that it bothers me at all.

I say this because you have to take into account films when they are released because they are often important to the world.

Look back at the first series. Sure, none of the characters are openly gay, but what is special about the senior staff? It is their nationality, Star Trek was made in the Cold War, and yet you have an American, Japanese and a Russian all best friends and respected officers. Then you have a Black Woman, an alien, and an alcoholic Scotsman. The basic idea of the original trek is that they are idealistic, and what was more idealistic than all the nations of the world, currently at war or only just stopped being at war, being friends and equals. People would have remembered the Second World War and the war against the Japanese, and they were living a war against the Russians.

For the record I don't mind Sulu being Gay, it doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is the way that his being gay was announced. It could have easily been kept quiet until the film was released and then have a small scene like this.

Kick: "So Sulu, got any plans for shore leave?"
Sulu: "Yes. Me and my husband are going to Planet X for a week."
Kirk: "Awesome. Pass on my regards."

Easy as pie.

That's exactly how I think "it" should happen. With exactly as much fanfare as him being straight. Make it a point to demonstrate that the future Federation doesn't care about something as trivial as this.

It's like how in The Flash on CW the police chief is gay, with a husband. But when it is mentioned a couple times in passing, it's just part of the casual conversation. Noone gives it any more care than if he's talking jokingly about his wife.

 Breotan wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This is hilarious. Star Trek has been about pushing a social and political agenda since its inception, along with a lot of sci-fi.

The first two movies didn''t doing anything to push agendas.

The first one doubled down on the interracial sexual tension of two original characters, and the second examines the justification of terrorism and the militarization in response to a threat of terrorism that the militarization created in the first place.

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This is hilarious. Star Trek has been about pushing a social and political agenda since its inception, along with a lot of sci-fi.

The first two movies didn''t doing anything to push agendas.

The first one doubled down on the interracial sexual tension of two original characters, and the second examines the justification of terrorism and the militarization in response to a threat of terrorism that the militarization created in the first place.

The first one may have push a boundary had it been done back in the 60s. By 2009 there were already many instances of interracial romances in media. Also, the sexual tension was played at in the original serios with Uhura trying to gain Spock's affections but never quite managing to, so this isn't entirely new territory here. As for the second... which boundary exactly are you describing? The franchise has always held the military in disdain. In TNG, DS9, and even Voyager there have been plots where a military or political agent went off the reservation and began military action to "protect the Federation" or something similar with our main cast having to go in and stop it. Sorry, no boundaries pushed here.

It's my view that snapping their fingers and making Sulu gay is just a cynical ploy to be edgy and stir up some controversy to drive ticket sales.

 Breotan wrote:


It's my view that snapping their fingers and making Sulu gay is just a cynical ploy to be edgy and stir up some controversy to drive ticket sales.

Why is there always this argument that any change that can be described as progressive must be a ploy or agenda? Do you also complain about the heterosexual agenda, the white agenda, or the male agenda when characters get whitewashed?

They had no reason to mention his sexuality in the the first two movies of the reboot so they didn't do it. Maybe they found a way to introduce it this time and just wanted to do it. All the resistance to the idea is about "not shoving it down our throats" and not being crass about it. It wasn't done until now because it wasn't relevant until now, maybe the characters gets a slightly bigger role in this movie. They might just introduce it with a picture in his cabin or somebody mentions that his husband left a message for him. They had the little Sulu/fencing joke in the first movie and they might introduce it with some ambiguity here too to play with the idea of the other characters assuming stuff about him.

Would the change be more acceptable if they had done it in the first movie despite having no need to mention it just to get people acclimated to the idea of a gay character?

Mario wrote:
They had no reason to mention his sexuality in the the first two movies of the reboot so they didn't do it.

He wasn't gay in the first two movies.

People dislike making Sulu gay now mostly because they are retconning a character to make a statement.

 Breotan wrote:

Mario wrote:
They had no reason to mention his sexuality in the the first two movies of the reboot so they didn't do it.

He wasn't gay in the first two movies.

People dislike making Sulu gay now mostly because they are retconning a character to make a statement.

Assumption. Nowhere was Sulu's sexuality mentioned or even suggested in the previous two films. It was equally valid to assume he was gay given the information about his character that we were given.

Just because he was straight in the original series doesn't mean he is straight as default in an alternate universe.

 Breotan wrote:

Mario wrote:
They had no reason to mention his sexuality in the the first two movies of the reboot so they didn't do it.

He wasn't gay in the first two movies.

What makes you think he wasn't gay?

He was barely in the first two movies at all. The sum total of our knowledge of JJ Trek Sulu is that he knows fencing, and maybe he wants to be a captain himself someday. Literally. That's about as far as his characterization ever gets. The recent films have been overwhelmingly focused on Spock and Kirk, almost to the complete exclusion of the rest of the crew. Scotty seems to exist solely to solve plot problems, the sole female character does little more than be a love interest (Progress marches on!), Sulu knows fencing, and Chekov gets to be the goofy awkward guy two/three times a film. Oh. And Bones is around. Looking shockingly older than the rest of the cast as per the usual. Point is, unless your name is Kirk or Spock, you're barely in the JJ films at all.

At least we know they are both into interpspecies heterosexuality and that Bones is divorced.

 LordofHats wrote:
He was barely in the first two movies at all. The sum total of our knowledge of JJ Trek Sulu is that he knows fencing, and maybe he wants to be a captain himself someday. Literally. That's about as far as his characterization ever gets. The recent films have been overwhelmingly focused on Spock and Kirk, almost to the complete exclusion of the rest of the crew. Scotty seems to exist solely to solve plot problems, the sole female character does little more than be a love interest (Progress marches on!), Sulu knows fencing, and Chekov gets to be the goofy awkward guy two/three times a film. Oh. And Bones is around. Looking shockingly older than the rest of the cast as per the usual. Point is, unless your name is Kirk or Spock, you're barely in the JJ films at all.

Speaking of Chekov, I wonder what they're going to do with the character since Anton Yelchin died. Do you think the role will be recast for the next film or maybe the character will be replaced?

Chekov was killed in a freak shuttle accident where is comedic relief backfired, and he forgot to engage the zero point quantum safety matrix causing a freak energy cascade in his shuttle's primary sub-space manifold.

Or in layman's terms, he forgot to engage the safety break and his shuttle ran him over during shore leave.

Too soon?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Speaking of Chekov, I wonder what they're going to do with the character since Anton Yelchin died. Do you think the role will be recast for the next film or maybe the character will be replaced?

I think they recently mentioned that that they won't recast him. So if the character doesn't doesn't die in this movie they will explain him away for the next. But that came from a writer (I think). In the end it depends on what the stakeholders want.

 LordofHats wrote:
He was barely in the first two movies at all. The sum total of our knowledge of JJ Trek Sulu is that he knows fencing, and maybe he wants to be a captain himself someday. Literally. That's about as far as his characterization ever gets. The recent films have been overwhelmingly focused on Spock and Kirk, almost to the complete exclusion of the rest of the crew. Scotty seems to exist solely to solve plot problems, the sole female character does little more than be a love interest (Progress marches on!), Sulu knows fencing, and Chekov gets to be the goofy awkward guy two/three times a film. Oh. And Bones is around. Looking shockingly older than the rest of the cast as per the usual. Point is, unless your name is Kirk or Spock, you're barely in the JJ films at all.

If he was gay then, they wouldn't have waited 3 movies for a big reveal- we'd have seen it or had 'word of god'. Bones being Kirk's father would be a reveal worth waiting for, the one Asian guy also being the one guy attracted to dudes isn't.

Remember though, in the STU they've cured the common cold, and last movie they cured death. Meanwhile alien radiation causes anything from transporter failure to mood swings.
There could be a sickbay scene where after being exposed to pink tachyons, Sulu reports same gender attraction and a love of theatre.

Or a transporter accident where his sex drive is swapped with a female crewmember. That actually sounds like a TNG plot.

 =Angel= wrote:
If he was gay then, they wouldn't have waited 3 movies for a big reveal- we'd have seen it or had 'word of god'.

The only people who have that kind of luxury in the creative process are people who've spent years on a project before it ever gets a green light. In reality, most of it is made as you go.

There was 0 point in even discussing the sexuality of a character whose total time on screen is probably equivalent to a long music video with a goofy non-music scene shoe horned into the middle. Why would they waste their time, let alone ours, on that issue? Like many characters in many fictions, Sulu was not conceived in the mental womb fully formed and written in stone. He's fluid, and he'll change as time goes on and as the people writing the fiction develop new ideas. That's the creative process.

 Manchu wrote:
Heteronormativity as a concept is part of the argument for representationalism and therefore cannot constitute its evidentiary basis.

I'm going to be honest, I don't know what this sentence means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
My overall point is, homosexuality will only truly be accepted, once being homosexual isn't something that must be announced. So I don't agree that homosexuality must have deeming meaning, I'm arguing that it must have none.

How is one supposed to accept homosexuality if you don't allow its existence to be acknowledged in anyway?

 LordofHats wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
If he was gay then, they wouldn't have waited 3 movies for a big reveal- we'd have seen it or had 'word of god'.

The only people who have that kind of luxury in the creative process are people who've spent years on a project before it ever gets a green light. In reality, most of it is made as you go.

There was 0 point in even discussing the sexuality of a character whose total time on screen is probably equivalent to a long music video with a goofy non-music scene shoe horned into the middle. Why would they waste their time, let alone ours, on that issue? Like many characters in many fictions, Sulu was not conceived in the mental womb fully formed and written in stone. He's fluid, and he'll change as time goes on and as the people writing the fiction develop new ideas. That's the creative process.

We are discussing a character who has been around since 1966. For simplicity's sake, we could reasonably assume that anything we are not directly shown to be untrue about this new portrayal of the character is still true to the original version.
They would 'waste our time' to let us know how the character differs from the original incarnation.

It's fine to take a character in a different direction, let him evolve. Deciding 'he's gay now' is the opposite of this. It's not developing out of anything we've been shown about the character since 1966. Showing him falling in love with man and discovering that he had same sex attraction (arguably the entire subtext of Into Darkness) or even hinting at a close relationship with a man would be character development.
Sulu leaping out of a space closet and kissing a man is not' fluid change as time goes on'.

This may be the last Star Trek movie- there's a whole ST series planned, riding on the success of the movie. Sloppy characterization now can hurt the franchise financially for years to come.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Heteronormativity as a concept is part of the argument for representationalism and therefore cannot constitute its evidentiary basis.

I'm going to be honest, I don't know what this sentence means.

Its buzzwords for 'people assume you are normal until they are shown otherwise' or 'pattern recognition'.
You don't assume someone's a billionaire until you see evidence to that effect because billionaires are rare. Most of us aren't rich, most of us like the opposite sex.
It's a poor argument for needing to see more billionaires in film.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Heteronormativity as a concept is part of the argument for representationalism and therefore cannot constitute its evidentiary basis.

I'm going to be honest, I don't know what this sentence means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
My overall point is, homosexuality will only truly be accepted, once being homosexual isn't something that must be announced. So I don't agree that homosexuality must have deeming meaning, I'm arguing that it must have none.

How is one supposed to accept homosexuality if you don't allow its existence to be acknowledged in anyway?

Probably the same way one accepts heterosexuality despite the fact people don't generally acknowledge the fact they are one in regular conversation.

Isn't any showing/talking of sexual/romantic relationships an announcement on some level, regardless if it's heterosexual or homosexual?

 Cheesecat wrote:
Isn't any showing/talking of sexual/romantic relationships an announcement on some level, regardless if it's heterosexual or homosexual?

It is, but it shouldn't be a talking point. Just look at the media the last time a celebrity came out as homosexual or announced they were going to be undergoing a sex change, they are all massive talking points that people go on about for a long time. When was the last time people went on about "teenage boy realises he likes girls?"

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Heteronormativity as a concept is part of the argument for representationalism and therefore cannot constitute its evidentiary basis.

I'm going to be honest, I don't know what this sentence means.

Briefly, "heteronormativity" is a piece of jargon invented to support representationalist arguments. A religious equivalent would be like saying, transubstantiation is evidence for the truth of Catholicism.

 =Angel= wrote:
For simplicity's sake, we could reasonably assume that anything we are not directly shown to be untrue about this new portrayal of the character is still true to the original version.

"Simplicity's sake" would be assuming nothing about anything until it is shown. Sulu's sexuality has never been a topic of significance in any incarnation of Star Trek. There is no "true to the original version" here, and even if it was this is an alternate reality created for the whole point of not being tied down to the original version.

This is why I've increasingly come to hate fandom. No matter what some corner of it will think up some bizarre logic to justify being pointlessly angry. Case and point;

This may be the last Star Trek movie- there's a whole ST series planned, riding on the success of the movie. Sloppy characterization now can hurt the franchise financially for years to come.

If the success of this film hinges on what team a nonexistent human being is swinging for, then the film is not the problem, (especially not this film which has been mired in rumors of production troubles since it was announced).

Mr. Takei obviously disagrees about there being no "true to the original version" argument, since he is, ahem, making that argument both as someone who brought the character to life and as a close associate of Mr. Roddenberry (so in effect, as a co-creator and on behalf of another, now-deceased co-creator).