[Christopher Halsey]

You can view the article at https://ufplanets.com/news.php?1055-...ouldn-t-be-gay

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?

[Three of Seven]

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.

[Zach]

JJTrek does what JJTrek wants. End of story. I do think it's awesome to have characters from the LBGTQ+ community, though.

[Christopher Halsey]

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.

[Kains]

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

[Three of Seven]

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

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.

[Christopher Halsey]

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.

[pintDMG]

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.

[Christopher Halsey]

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.

[Bar'ol]

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.

[Kains]

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

[Three of Seven]

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!

[Christopher Halsey]

Good old Captain Jack Harkness, lover of men, women and aliens... sometimes at the same time.

[Kains]

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

[Isaac Angelos]

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.