[Avenger]

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!

[loketuff]

-.- do u hate gays do uw ant me to report u

[Three of Seven]

I don't think anyone has said they hate gay people?

[Christopher Halsey]

-.- 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.

[Caymen Greener]

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.

[Caymen Greener]

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*

[Christopher Halsey]

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.

[Caymen Greener]

Slippery slope there, as then they could just say, "Kirk was always gay, he just faked it." Writers can be more creative than that.

[Christopher Halsey]

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.

[Caymen Greener]

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.

[Christopher Halsey]

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.

[pintDMG]

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.

[ForTheGamer]

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.

[Bar'ol]

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.

[Christopher Halsey]

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

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.