communications relay login

Takei says Sulu shouldn't be gay

Oh my! Veteran Star Trek actor hits out at Star Trek: Beyond's inclusivity attempts

By Christopher Halsey Fri 08 Jul, 2016 8:11 PM - Last Updated: Sun 10 Jul, 2016 12:41 PM
It has recently been revealed that the character of Hikaru Sulu will be revealed to be married to a male, seemingly making him homosexual, in the next instalment of the Star Trek movie series, Star Trek: Beyond.

Star Trek has a pretty good record when it comes to inclusivity but an openly gay main character is new for a Star Trek film and the news was met with a generally positive reaction especially from LGBT groups. George Takei, the 79 year old Star Trek actor best known for playing Sulu in the original series and movies, wasn't so happy.

Ironically the decision was meant as a tribute to Takei who came out as being a homosexual in 2005 and in 2008 married his partner, Brad Altman. Takei has spoken many times about his need to hide his sexuality for so long so as to not destroy his television career, you would therefore perhaps expect Takei to be thrilled at the decision rather than be disappointed about it.

Whilst Takei has said he is "delighted that there's a gay character" his objection is because Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was exhaustive in conceiving his Star Trek characters, and he had always envisioned Sulu as heterosexual, despite there not being any real signs of his sexual orientation on screen. Takei therefore feels that this is "a twisting of Gene's creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it's really unfortunate".

Takei claims he had discussed the idea of exploring sexual orientation in Star Trek and that Roddenberry was "a strong supporter of LGBT equality, but he said he had 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 first learned of what he perceived to be a change in Sulu's sexuality last year when he was contacted by John Cho, the 44 year old actor who plays Sulu in the reboot movies. Takei immediately petitioned the writers of Star Trek: Beyond to keep Sulu as he was and to introduce a new homosexual character instead.

"I told him, 'Be imaginative and create a character who has a history of being gay, rather than Sulu, who had been straight all this time, suddenly being revealed as being closeted'."

Star Trek Beyond director Justin Lin later contacted Takei to discuss the subject and Takei again stated his case, Takei believes that following this writer Simon Pegg, who also plays Scotty in the reboot movies and originally came up with the idea of having Sulu be married to a male as a tribute to Takei, had changed his mind. Sometime after though Cho once more got in contact with Takei asking for his advice as to what he should say on the subject during the Star Trek Beyond press tour, Takei was not impressed.

SuluTakei and Pegg have clashed over Sulu's sexual orientation."After that conversation with Justin... I interpreted that as my words having been heard." Takei told the Hollywood Reporter, "I really tried to work with these people when at long last the issue of gay equality was going to be addressed."

In a statement released to The Guardian, Simon Pegg, responded to Takei's views "I must respectfully disagree with him" said Pegg. "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?" "Justin Lin, Doug Jung and I loved the idea of it being someone we already knew because the audience have a pre-existing opinion of that character as a human being, unaffected by any prejudice. Their sexual orientation is just one of many personal aspects, not the defining characteristic." "Also, the audience would infer that there has been an LGBT presence in the Trek Universe from the beginning (at least in the Kelvin timeline), that a gay hero isn't something new or strange." "It's also important to note that at no point do we suggest that our Sulu was ever closeted, why would he need to be? It's just hasn't come up before."

Over the past year an increasing number of fictional characters have been re-envisioned in the name of inclusivity, Takei brings up a good point about whether the original creator's wishes for a character should be respected or if traditional characters should be re-imagined to better reflect the make up of society today. Equally Pegg makes a good point that Sulu's sexuality has never been discussed before so this doesn't necessarily represent a change to the character.

What do you think about the decision to make the character of Sulu gay? Should fictional creations stay as originally created or is it important to celebrate diversity and inclusivity with established characters? Are you team Takei or team Pegg?
36 Comments
Fri 08 Jul, 2016 8:21 PM
If they wanted a gay character, they should have just written in a new one, can't be that difficult. But then, JJTrek doesn't have much of a habit of keeping with the original series.
Fri 08 Jul, 2016 8:27 PM
JJTrek does what JJTrek wants. End of story. I do think it's awesome to have characters from the LBGTQ+ community, though.
Fri 08 Jul, 2016 8:30 PM
Hopefully my article will come across us unbiased but whilst I respect Mr Takei's opinion I think I have to agree with Simon Pegg.

I think it is admirable that Takei's only concern is protecting the integrity of what he believes to be Roddenberry's vision but I would like to think that if Gene Roddenberry were alive today he would be thrilled at the thought that a major character could be openly gay without being censored by networks. Obviously he isn't here today to tell us how he feels but I would really hope that he would be happy that the world has moved on to the point where a major character can be gay and that he would be supportive of such a change even if it meant the character was different to how he originally wrote him.

It would be one of those "you should never meet your heroes" moments for me if, he were here today and he objected on the grounds that 50 years ago he wrote the character differently and that meant the character had to be heterosexual, end of discussion.

I think if the writers just came up with a new character who was gay it wouldn't have the same impact, I think then it would look more like inclusivity for the sake of, to me it would scream "here's your token gay character", by having a bridge crew member, a character that his been around for 50 years, be gay achieves more and says more for inclusivity.
Fri 08 Jul, 2016 9:20 PM
Not sure who I agree with, seeing as I have a great deal of respect for both people, but I am glad we're, as a species, at a stage where we are having these discussions.

Even 10 years ago the idea of having a gay character in a show was largely unheard of and here we are discussing what the best way would be to include a character.

That part makes me happy.


Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
Fri 08 Jul, 2016 9:30 PM
There's little point in rewriting characters just to tick boxes though because that's how a lot of people will see it, just as a way to tick a box "major character is gay? Check.", start with a new character, build them up and it'll probably be received much better. The other thing is to not make a big deal of any form of sexuality in shows, let it develop naturally, there's also no reason to publicise the fact unless you are looking for brownie points.

Also Kains, I think it's something that's longer than 10 years ago now, early 00's had openly gay characters in shows, probably looking at 20+ years now Tongue Out

Another thing is that forcing issues onto people will not help, those who are intolerant will lash out, whereas if you don't advertise the fact and approach the issue with due care, you can teach those who are intolerant a lot better.
Fri 08 Jul, 2016 9:44 PM
There's little point in rewriting characters just to tick boxes though because that's how a lot of people will see it, just as a way to tick a box "major character is gay? Check.",
I agree that rewriting a character purely to tick an inclusivity box isn't perhaps the best way of doing things but in this case it's never been stated on-screen what Sulu's sexual orientation was, it sounds like in Beyond we simply learn that the character is married to a male, something that for all we know could have been the case for quite some time.

The other thing is to not make a big deal of any form of sexuality in shows, let it develop naturally, there's also no reason to publicise the fact unless you are looking for brownie points.
I also agree about publicising these sorts of things, it often makes it seem as if it's being done to appear more relevant or to get press but in this case it seems to be Takei is the one making the most noise about this, if he hadn't objected so publicly many of us probably wouldn't know until Beyond had been released.
Fri 08 Jul, 2016 10:13 PM
Here's the thing: Pegg has a point about tokenism if he were to write a new character for that purpose, absolutely. But then, he invited that by making a big deal out of it in the first place, and trying to somehow tie this to honouring Takei.

And while I don't think TOS really matters in this case (seeing as we're toying with alternate realities anyway), I think to him it very much matters that the JJTrek story now preceeds his tenure with the character ending up ... well, yes, closeted all of a sudden.

So between Takei rather outright saying he doesn't want this and Pegg's rather patronising attitude ("I know better!") towards it, I'm not sure how exactly this is supposed to help anyone. Takei doesn't want the tribute, they ignored him repeatedly when he asked them not to do it, and somehow it's still going to be held up as a step forward for the LGB movement? It's not, it's a gay man's input being put aside for some greater goal that actually-we-really-didn't-want-to-make-a-big-deal-but-really-kinda-do.

Come on now. To me, this looks like a silly PR stunt if there ever was one, and it's rather annoying to see that that's the case given the subject.
Fri 08 Jul, 2016 10:35 PM
Here's the thing: Pegg has a point about tokenism if he were to write a new character for that purpose, absolutely. But then, he invited that by making a big deal out of it in the first place, and trying to somehow tie this to honouring Takei.
I don't think Pegg did make a big deal out of it though, it looks like Takei was the one that really brought this in to public view, everything quoted from Pegg was from a statement earlier today in response to what Takei had said in interviews so I don't think it's fair to lay the blame entirely at Pegg's door for this becoming a big deal.

Personally I think it would have been nicer if none of this had come out before the film was released, not only does it reveal a piece of information about the film that people might not have wanted to know before seeing it but it's meant that one ultimately likely minor aspect of the film is potentially overshadowing everything else about it.

And while I don't think TOS really matters in this case (seeing as we're toying with alternate realities anyway), I think to him it very much matters that the JJTrek story now preceeds his tenure with the character ending up ... well, yes, closeted all of a sudden.
Since it's never been stated in canon what Sulu's sexual orientation is I don't think that means he has been 'closeted' all this time, it's just that it hasn't been stated, if we looked at it from the other way around, Sulu's character being revealed as being married to a woman, would anyone be saying "you made Sulu straight!", viewers have assumed (rightly or wrongly) that Sulu was a heterosexual character and Takei claims that Roddenberry intended Sulu to be heterosexual but it's never been stated in canon and I doubt there are any materials produced by Roddenberry himself that explicitly states that the character is and forever must be straight, I therefore think it's probably acceptable for later writers to fill in that blank in a way that they feel is consistent with Roddenberry's vision with respect to inclusivity.

Since it hasn't been explicitly stated we don't know if Sulu is homosexual in just the reboot universe or was in the prime universe as well, it could be he was always homosexual and it's never been stated before it or could be that because of the events of the new timeline he either 'came out' or something happened to change his sexual orientation or attitude.

It's almost a bit schrodinger's cat, we didn't know either way before.

Ultimately I don't think it's a bad thing that two people are both trying to support inclusivity and that both are trying to be true to their interpretation of Roddenberry's vision.
Fri 08 Jul, 2016 10:41 PM
I wont go into much explanation but I say leave sulu the way he is ment to be. Dont let a past actor's social life effect the character in a fiction universe.
Fri 08 Jul, 2016 11:16 PM
Also Kains, I think it's something that's longer than 10 years ago now, early 00's had openly gay characters in shows, probably looking at 20+ years now [emoji14]
Oh I wasn't trying to imply that this was somehow new and fascinating, but I do remember the discussions having a different... I dunno... a different tone I guess?

Maybe I'm not articulating my point well here, and I certainly don't mean any insult on this. It feels like we're trying to discuss the right way to present a character, as opposed to considering the fact that he is gay to be a novelty?

Actually now that I write that out, I guess thats exactly what we're doing anyway.



Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
Fri 08 Jul, 2016 11:38 PM
Oh I wasn't trying to imply that this was somehow new and fascinating, but I do remember the discussions having a different... I dunno... a different tone I guess?

Maybe I'm not articulating my point well here, and I certainly don't mean any insult on this. It feels like we're trying to discuss the right way to present a character, as opposed to considering the fact that he is gay to be a novelty?

Actually now that I write that out, I guess thats exactly what we're doing anyway.
I was just calling you old, sorry! I didn't read it as an insult, but media is also different all around the world, Captain Jack Harkness from the Dr. Who universe is a good example of a character who was open about his sexuality and had a boyfriend onscreen, but it wasn't a major part or advertised, just naturally flowed, this was in the 00's but that's British media! There's also loads of British sit-coms from days gone by, this is all a side point, I didn't really mean much by my comment other than it's now longer than 10 years, as much as it doesn't feel like it is!
Fri 08 Jul, 2016 11:43 PM
Good old Captain Jack Harkness, lover of men, women and aliens... sometimes at the same time.
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 1:00 AM
Ah okies, Dr. Who wasn't nearly as big here back then as it is now, so it never really came up. We had characters that were gay in TV shows, but it was often used as a tagline or a 'edgy' selling point to the series. I always thought this seemed like a bit of a strange way to introduce characters, but a friend of mine told me otherwise, or as she put it 'What is captain Kirk other than Captain Hetero?'

I have a number of friends in the LGBT community and despite my best intentions I seem to create a checklist of exactly the wrong things to say. I do try my best to be as supportive and understanding as I can, but my big mouth does tend to bungle this a lot. So if I do offend, it really isn't intentional.

Which I know is the age old excuse, but I really am trying.

As for the discussion at hand, having read both men's statements more closely I have to admit I agree a little more with Mr. Takei. There is a kernel of sense in both arguments, of course, and I dunno if my opinion is being a touched biased by my preference for Prime trek (I did enjoy the new stuff, but I far prefer the old stuff), but I find myself thinking that Mr. Takei is most likely to understand the original vision far better than any of us.


Oh, and I am not old Big Grin
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 4:59 AM
I'm with Takei on this. I'm glad Takei came out and called Pegg on his bs, because in this day and age where everything has to be perfect for everyone, it's getting tiresome seeing characters of old getting changed just in the name of being PC (looking at you, Marvel).

It's also insulting that Pegg seems to think that creating a new character for this is "tokenism". If you can't create a new character for this without making that aspect of their life a crutch, then you are the problem, not the character. Back during TOS' time people probably sat around and said Sulu was the token Asian, Uhura the token Black and Chekov the token Russian. Are they tokens now? Do people look at them and just pass them off as tokens to please their respective people? No. No, they were nurtured and matured over time into some of, if not the most, important characters in the Star Trek universe.

So instead of trying to create a good character with the aspect of being gay, instead we get the current method of just changing an already established character into whatever that checkbox needs. With the added gull of trying to pass it off as a nod to Takei.

But we'll never know. We'll never know if this character could have been a great character or possibly a staple in the JJverse side of things. Or hell, he could have just ended up being a bad character just as well. In the end i can't say it would be a good character and Pegg can't say it would be a token character. Why?

Because he couldn't be bothered to even try.
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 12:39 PM
It's typical of JJ verse trek to ruin and change canon trek to create an angle for themselves, it's another example of them doing what the please to get cheap positives for the film without demonstrating any real imagination, they would have been better to build in a new character to not spoil the canon aspect of Star Trek and try and build a storyline around it!
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 12:52 PM
-.- do u hate gays do uw ant me to report u
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 1:00 PM
I don't think anyone has said they hate gay people? Suspicious
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 1:04 PM
-.- do u hate gays do uw ant me to report u
I don't think anyone here has said or has implied that they hate gay people. If you suffer from homophobia you can't really call yourself a Star Trek fan, Star Trek has been built on a foundation of inclusively.

I think it's good that people can passionately debate just how to get inclusivity right.

That said to those upset about canon being changed, firstly where has it said in canon what Sulu's sexual orientation is and secondly he could have a different sexual orientation in the alternate universe to the one he has in the prime universe.
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 1:06 PM
Given my beliefs, I do not necessarily support a homosexual lifestyle. I think many here know that. But I hope they also know that, like Christ, I still love and I don't ever want to do harm or offend. I say all that to give context - even as a traditional Christian, I still support movies and books and culture tackling these issues, and I think having a homosexual character makes things interesting, and quite possibly more true to our "world", for sure. That said, forcing it into a medium is kind of silly - like this Sulu rewrite, or come out with rumors like Poe Dameron being gay (which may have been planned, who knows).

TL;DR: I think homosexual characters and topics are just grand to tackle, but I think forcing them and rewriting things to conform is silly. Write anew, as Three suggested - it will likely be far more interesting.
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 1:10 PM
That said to those upset about canon being changed, firstly where has it said in canon what Sulu's sexual orientation is and secondly he could have a different sexual orientation in the alternate universe to the one he has in the prime universe.
Well, he had a daughter, although that doesn't mean he wasn't gay, I realize. It just implied a traditional lifestyle, especially when the movies were written. That said, I agree that they can rewrite whatever they want in prime. I just agree with Three that it's a bit lazy - try something different. *shrug*
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 2:12 PM
Well, he had a daughter, although that doesn't mean he wasn't gay, I realize. It just implied a traditional lifestyle, especially when the movies were written.
I agree that the movie was released (1994) Sulu having a daughter certainly would be more likely to make someone assume (rightly or wrongly) that he was heterosexual. That said we were watching a piece of fiction about the 23rd century, I think, and perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, to assume that a 'traditional lifestyle' in 1994 would be the same as one in the 2370s would be a pretty big assumption to make.

This is one of the things that I love about Star Trek is that when exploring the crew tries their best not to make assumptions about other cultures and their beliefs, I loved that bit in 'Broken Bow' where Trip mistakenly thinks that an alien mother isn't caring for her child correctly and T'Pol instantly corrects him and warns him about the dangers of making assumptions about other cultures.

It's a little similar here, people have assumed Sulu was heterosexual but it's never been stated in canon that he was, they are therefore getting angry about what they think is a change to a character but it can't be a change unless it has been established he was heterosexual and is now homosexual.
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 2:23 PM
Slippery slope there, as then they could just say, "Kirk was always gay, he just faked it." Writers can be more creative than that.
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 2:36 PM
Slippery slope there, as then they could just say, "Kirk was always gay, he just faked it." Writers can be more creative than that.
Well that could be true as people have often hidden their sexual orientation (such as Takei himself) but we saw Kirk in heterosexual relationships so making him gay would seem like a change (even if it actually isn't), we haven't seen Sulu in a relationship so how can it be a change?

Every main character in The Original Series with the exception of Sulu we saw indicators of their sexual orientation, if Simon Pegg had written any other character as homosexual it would have changed what we knew (or thought we knew) about the character, for Sulu it is not a change as it was never stated.

Unless it is established previously then it can't be changed and I would love for anyone saying this is a change to the character to back that up with proof that Sulu could never marry a man.
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 2:41 PM
I think the daughter factor, even if not a direct indicator, and the fact that the writers are doing this for the wrong reasons, are enough for people to scoff at this. Can the writers do this? Sure. But many, including the original actor, think it's bad form. But like I said, even if Kirk had been with so many women, they could just write that it was all a front. They can if they wish, even if it makes far less sense than say Sulu.
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 2:51 PM
I think the daughter factor, even if not a direct indicator,
Homosexual couples can have children even in this day and age. Again though a 1994 assumption of what a traditional family structure is might well be different from that of the 23rd and 24th century.

If you looked at it the other way and showed someone from before the American Civil War an episode of TNG they might well assume that La Forge was a slave forced to shovel coal in to the Enterprise's engines rather than a senior officer running a department with a staff of hundreds.

If you are going to make assumptions about a fictional character you need to consider the world and the time that they live in.

and the fact that the writers are doing this for the wrong reasons, are enough for people to scoff at this.
I respectfully disagree that that is a 'fact', it's the opinion of some people.

If it had previously been established that Sulu was 100% heterosexual and could not, for whatever reason, marry a man then I would understand people objecting about changing an established character, I might not agree as the character is 50 years old so I wouldn't expect them to stay exactly the same, but I would understand the objections on those grounds.

The writer's are not changing Sulu (unless anyone can provide proof that he couldn't marry a man), they are just revealing that he is married to a male. That doesn't even necessarily make him homosexual, he could be bi-sexual for example, since Star Trek Beyond hasn't yet been released we haven't seen how Sulu is labelled if he even is at all, all we know is that Pegg has written him as having a male husband.

This is one of the things I love about the current generation of Star Trek books, they are organically very progressive and inclusive, characters aren't labelled they just are, there is no straight or gay there is just people that are attracted or love certain people. My personal belief is that is how the world should be.
Sat 09 Jul, 2016 5:15 PM
If you are going to make assumptions about a fictional character you need to consider the world and the time that they live in.
Well yes, which is the point Takei is making: In the setting of TOS it makes no sense for the character to be (effectively) closeted. There should be nothing preventing him from being just as open about his sexuality as the rest of the crew. According to Takei, the character Roddenberry and he developed was not openly gay (but instead quite certainly bi- or heterosexual, especially if you also take supplementary canon into account), and now retrofitting homosexuality conflicts with what we would expect of that time in more ways than one.

Although, again, the point that it's an alternate reality always applies, so ultimately I don't think that particular point is all that important.
Mon 11 Jul, 2016 1:46 PM
Honestly from what I've heard it is just Sulu with his husband and their daughter and that's really all there is to it. Honestly, that's the nicest inclusion of a LB... You know what? I'm not using that label. I hate labeling people. Sulu's just being together and enjoying life with his family. That's all the scene is supposed to entail. That's a nice way of including it.

Since it wasn't stated in the original series, how exactly do we know what type of family life Sulu has outside of the original series? Yes, you have books, but I mean the original series didn't exactly come out and state "hey, this is what my life is like outside of work" for a lot of the cast. In fact, I can only sort of recall Kirk and Spock's history outside of work. And both of those guys had it shown quite a bit.

So it is quite ambiguous and you can't exactly say that Sulu is or isn't. And also, does it really matter? So he has a husband and daughter that we know about in this universe. It just adds to his background and seems like they are fleshing out the rest of the crew a bit more. I like the inclusion of it and hope to learn more about this Sulu.

We've also found out from AoY that the Kelvin timeline is much different than the Celsius (Prime) timeline, so, if there's a change here or there character wise, understandable.

As for doing a tribute for Takei, but him not wanting it, that is kind of not a good thing. To Takei, he probably thinks of Sulu as a straight man, because that's how Gene envisioned him at that time. Takei would want to keep that in tact as nearly all the cast loved Gene and that's Gene's original vision for the series. It is in a bit of a bad taste that they did a tribute but Takei didn't like it. However, they probably had already done production and told Takei while filming was happening and they didn't or couldn't find a good enough reason to take it out of the film, so therefore it still was in. Is that crappy? Yes, but it is unfortunately what happens with major projects. You screw up, you may have to live with it.

I'm going into game design portion of the entertainment world and trust me, I've worked on projects where I said I'd do one thing, had it done, then found out from my instructor that "you can't do it that way" and had to leave it as is instead of working on it otherwise I wouldn't meet my deadline. It worked out for me because I managed to make it still be good enough to not hurt me. However, it was still in bad taste.

So I'm not excusing them, but I understand why.

As for making a new character, they would've needed to introduce a new character into the films that wasn't there before and that would've needed to be done at the first film. Not now. So they pretty much had to include it now, because who knows? Maybe Beyond bombs and no more films. As some fans were upset that this universe was a reboot, not an entirely new timeline. Which we now know is the case via STO of all things.

In fact I was quite upset with the movies in general and how many of the crew weren't the same as the original timeline. Like Spock being more human than vulcan right away. Kirk being brash as heck. McCoy being entirely bitter. Yet with the introduction that this is an entirely new timeline, it made me realize that this timeline had different choices made, different results happen, etc. It isn't any surprise that these characters are different. So Sulu being gay, doesn't actually surprise me or bother me.

Hey, who knows. Maybe since Kirk never got to know his father and had such terrible parents (step-father and mom), just maybe he'll be a better parent to his own son. Heck, maybe he settles down and becomes a family man. After all, different choices. Also, Spock and Uhura are so getting married at some point. Bank on it.

So see? These people made different choices in life based on differences in what happened in their lives. Can Sulu be homosexual? Sure, why not? Different timeline, different choices.

Whew. So long. Longer than I anticipated. Oh and if you think Sulu being gay is a "big deal", just watch. When we get to TNG in this timeline, watch as Kelvin Picard become a younger version who's charming suave personality gets all the women, men and aliens because of how awesome he is.
Mon 11 Jul, 2016 1:50 PM
But why just target sulu? If they want to make a character have a different sexual orientation then the original don't just go with the obvious choice lol.
Mon 11 Jul, 2016 5:04 PM
But why just target sulu? If they want to make a character have a different sexual orientation then the original don't just go with the obvious choice lol.
"Target Sulu" You make it sound like he's a victim lol

Firstly it would likely make more sense for Sulu as out of all of the Original Series characters he is the only one that you don't really see in any kind of relationship or major flirtation with another character (I think the closest you ever see to that is in the Mirror Universe), in addition to that there is the fact that the person who played Sulu ended up marrying a male, hence the nod to Takei. Takei and his husband were the first males to be married in California and Sulu is the first male Star Trek character to be married to another male. That's not to say it would have to be Sulu but Sulu is likely the choice that makes more sense out of those available. Regardless I very much doubt if they had another main character married to a same sex partner there would be more acceptance from those hostile to this decision, I'm pretty sure the internet would break if Kirk ended up marrying a male.

Secondly it is not a change in his sexual orientation if his sexual orientation has never been stated, you can't change something which hasn't been determined. Sulu was apparently envisioned as being heterosexual but his sexual orientation has never been stated or even implied in canon, it is a blank that has now been filled in. It's almost like Kirk having a son, it was never stated he had a son until David Marcus turned up, that didn't mean they changed Kirk to be a dad, it was never stated before whether he was or wasn't and a later writer filled in that blank.
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 3:08 AM
I think it's safe to say that Sulu was presumed heterosexual in the prime universe, otherwise why the need to come out and advertise it? Other than the note of his daughter, there's also the mirror universe where Sulu hits on Uhura. (I know, I know, it's another "universe".)

I don't have any problem with Sulu being gay, and although I hold the same views as Caymen Greener on the subject, my gripe--much along the same lines as Takei's issue with this announcement (I think)--is that they're changing a character just because they can. Because it somehow will bring in that kind of audience. I'm sorry, but you should be able to bring in your audience based on how well you write a story, not which or how many characters you change to be a certain way whether that's color, race, sexuality, etc. I hate seeing shows and characters I grew up with suddenly being transformed into something else just because someone "can." Why not just write the story a new way or better?

Why is Star Trek so loved? Because Gene had a vision and he wrote it well. I'll admit, Gene did something what may have been considered wild back then with so many characters with different ethnical backgrounds on the same screen all playing lead roles working together as a common people regardless of race or point of view (something we could still learn from today). I can even see how this change is an extension of that belief that Gene had, but Gene didn't have to change characters just to progress their story or to show how a diverse culture can come together and work together. He could create characters and make them interesting, unique, and each have their own importance to the story and how no matter their background the world/galaxy can be a better place because of them.

"Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing."
(Might be taken out of context, but it's a Star Trek quote.)
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 7:33 AM
People once assumed the Earth was flat. Just because some people assume something to be true does not necessarily mean it must be true.
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 1:03 PM
"Target Sulu" You make it sound like he's a victim lol

Firstly it would likely make more sense for Sulu as out of all of the Original Series characters he is the only one that you don't really see in any kind of relationship or major flirtation with another character (I think the closest you ever see to that is in the Mirror Universe), in addition to that there is the fact that the person who played Sulu ended up marrying a male, hence the nod to Takei. Takei and his husband were the first males to be married in California and Sulu is the first male Star Trek character to be married to another male. That's not to say it would have to be Sulu but Sulu is likely the choice that makes more sense out of those available. Regardless I very much doubt if they had another main character married to a same sex partner there would be more acceptance from those hostile to this decision, I'm pretty sure the internet would break if Kirk ended up marrying a male.

Secondly it is not a change in his sexual orientation if his sexual orientation has never been stated, you can't change something which hasn't been determined. Sulu was apparently envisioned as being heterosexual but his sexual orientation has never been stated or even implied in canon, it is a blank that has now been filled in. It's almost like Kirk having a son, it was never stated he had a son until David Marcus turned up, that didn't mean they changed Kirk to be a dad, it was never stated before whether he was or wasn't and a later writer filled in that blank.
Still remains, why must it be sulu? It's obviously a choice they have due to the actor that played him in the past or this wouldnt even been brought up....
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 1:50 PM
The reasoning as to why Sulu was likely chosen as well as the reason Pegg provided has been explained so I don't think that does still remain, regardless of whether or not people like the reasoning the reasoning is there. But if "Why Sulu?" is an argument then that argument could be applied to literally any character in Star Trek.
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 2:21 PM
The reasoning as to why Sulu was likely chosen as well as the reason Pegg provided has been explained so I don't think that does still remain, regardless of whether or not people like the reasoning the reasoning is there. But if "Why Sulu?" is an argument then that argument could be applied to literally any character in Star Trek.
That's exactly what I was getting at. Gene was famous for fighting the norm. I think the first mix culture kiss was from Star Trek. He challenged the very principles of his time, which he could of involved homosexual easily in how he presented Star Trek at that time or to even TNG. I find it hard to believe that it isnt something he thought about but he chose not to do it for whatever reason.
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 2:27 PM
I think there are two debates going on here: should they have retcon'ed it; and now that they did, was their reason a good one? And I don't think you're going to sway anyone from their opinions at this point. I see a lot of circular motion in this thread at this point, which is why I've not responded since yesterday or whatever.
Thu 14 Jul, 2016 7:41 PM
I agree with Caymen that I don't think anyone will change their opinion on this if they haven't already although if anyone wants to insist on calling this a change (which it isn't unless someone can support their opinion with facts that show Sulu could never marry a male) I will be more than willing to continue to debate them.

Anyway, moving on, the BBC published an article yesterday which I found an enjoyable read, in it both Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto have come out in support of Sulu's character being married to a male although that isn't a massive surprise since they are in the film, I hadn't previously seen that Gene Roddenberry's son Eugene 'Rod' Roddenberry has now weighed in on the matter stating his belief that his father would he been "100% in favour".

You can read the BBC article which also contains a video featuring Simon Pegg discussing this HERE.