George Takei Gay Sulu

George Takei Opposed Star Trek Film's Gay Sulu Reveal, Calls It 'Unfortunate'

Star Trek alum George Takei is not happy about Hikaru Sulu being revealed as gay in the upcoming Star Trek Beyond motion picture.

Responding to John Cho’s recent disclosure that Sulu will matter-of-factly be revealed as gay (with a husband and daughter, Demora) in the third, Justin Lin-directed entry of the current Star Trek film franchise, the openly out Takei told The Hollywood Reporter, “I’m delighted that there’s a gay character. Unfortunately, it’s a twisting of [Star Trek creator] Gene [Roddenberry]’s creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it’s really unfortunate.”

Takei told the trade that in 1968, when he was still closeted, he broached with Roddenberry the topic of introducing a gay character. And though the series’ creator “was a strong supporter of LGBT equality,” he feared that crossing that particular bridge might be too much for network brass to handle, and Trek at the time was already riding the renewal bubble. Takei said he never asked for Sulu himself to be gay, and that Roddenberry always envisioned the Enterprise‘s helmsman as heterosexual. (Sulu never had a love interest in TOS, though he did get handsy with Uhura in “The Naked Time” and “Mirror, Mirror”).

Takei said that when he first learned, last year, that Cho’s Sulu would be revealed as gay — as tribute to both his legacy as a Trek alum and his LGBT activism — he appealed to Lin to instead “create a new character” and thus honor Roddenberry’s intentions, especially seeing as the film will help mark Star Trek‘s 50th anniversary. Instead, he would later learn that Lin and screenwriter Simon Pegg (who also plays Mr. Scott) did not heed his advice.

“I really tried to work with these people when at long last the issue of gay equality was going to be addressed,” Takei said. But despite his intentions, the end result has left him “confused.”

Bryan Fuller, who is shepherding CBS All Access’ upcoming small-screen relaunch of the Star Trek franchise, recently hinted at LGBT representation, saying that in casting, “[W]e want to carry on what Star Trek does best, which is being progressive.”

 

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

92 Comments
  1. AliBm says:

    He makes a good point. It’s better to create new characters rather than change old ones.

    • David4 says:

      We can say the same thing about redoing TOS. Why bother when you can just make a new Star Trek set in the future with new characters.

    • Mark says:

      I don’t agree that changing Gene’s universe is off-limits. That’s like saying that only Bob Kane’s Batman matters. Gene’s vision still exists, and even that was constrained by network execs, so it’s not Gene’s “true” vision. Other people can do their take on the universe, and others will come after them, too.

      I’m disappointed that George isn’t happy about a gay Sulu. I respect his opinion, but I don’t agree with his reasoning.

      • sulu aint gay says:

        “That’s like saying that only Bob Kane’s Batman matters”
        That is a false statement. Bob Kane brought all the major basics, he did not helm the direction of Batman throughout the years.

        Whereas Rodenberry not only gave the major basics as Kane did, Rodenberry vindictively controlled the entire vision of Star Trek decades to come, movie after movie, character after character, new seasons after new seasons…Rodenberry always gave the greenlight or the red light. Yes, he had some disputes and some debates but he stuck with it and tried to steer the thing, he was always thee constant in the vision up to his death.
        Kane only appeared initially and then disappeared, even tho he was still living he had no input in the vision of Batman there after.
        Conclusion: comparing Bob Kanes vision to Gene Rodenberry vision is a SERIOUSLY false equivalent.

        “I respect his opinion, but I don’t agree with his reasoning.”
        It’s not really complicated, his reasoning is that the core of the Sulu character is not homosexual and further that it’s simply not at all Rodenberry’s vision.

        When the very man who PLAYED Sulu publicly states that Sulu is not gay, and is in fact a gay man himself, then it should be radically obvious that the issue deserves your attention if not your respect.

    • Ben says:

      Except, of course, that this is an alt timeline created prior to Sulu’s birth, so it isn’t really changing the character… changing the timeline has ripples and one ripple is that Sulu is gay. As a Star Trek fan, it really doesn’t bother me at all.

      • Falcon says:

        Yes Ben, this was my thought process as well.

      • Big Mike says:

        Umm, the timeline was altered waaaay after Sulu’s birth friend.

        • Drew says:

          Actually, the timeline was altered just prior to the birth of James T. Kirk. The first significant alteration was the death of Kirk’s father. Ripples…

      • ara says:

        So are you a different timeline influences the biological predisposition to be gay?

        Or did it influence his choice to be gay?

        • Rob says:

          There are all sorts of things that go into being gay. Sexuality is a spectrum. Maybe Sulu in the original was heterosexual with some bisexual tendencies he never acted on. Maybe he was more asexual. Sexuality isn’t just a result of DNA. There are hormones in the womb to consider, and yes, sometimes outside influences can push ones sexual preference. I personally identify as gay, but I’m attracted to women now and then. I don’t seek a romantic relationship with those women for a number of reasons, one of which, due to psychological trauma as a child, I can never trust a woman on an intimate level. I’m not trying to make this about myself but I’m saying, that under other circumstances, I might consider myself bisexual. Any number of things could have happened when the timeline was altered to alter a characters sexuality. That doesn’t make being gay a choice.

          • Drew says:

            Being gay is most definitely a choice. It is a correspondence between neural transmissions that put the brains emotion charge at a “right” level. The same can be said for drugs, alcohol, being a pedophile. Now many people are addicts, right? This means they have a cognitive function in which what makes a “feel good” motion occur between synapses. In lamens terms, the individual observed promotes signs of submission to its desires. Wether a complete psychopath or not, we all have the ability to choose to act on our desires. This does not define us until it truly causes us to act upon our many twisted thoughts. The human race was manufactured in such a way….where “Oh well” means “Ok” and people will still get mad about the slightest and most intangible things in accordance with the true grit of reality. There is simply too much in the world now. No longer Godly are those who speak different. We have acclimated to a new set of rules. Zero class with zero classes. That USED to be the claim. Now it’s a heroes most trying time to achieve a rudimentary win, but we must all accept the fact that we are only human. Only beautiful. Only great. And there is the defining nature. One that may persuade us in the end. And lest we forget the beginning, allow for the examples we follow to be set anew. Then again? How much does it really matter?

        • andydoerksen says:

          There’s no scientific evidence that some are “biologically predisposed” to be gay.

      • Luka says:

        I don’t see how the destruction of USS Kelvin would change Sulu’s sexual orientation. However, it just feels right it should be Sulu. Given nothing was explicitly stated about it in TOS, I have no problem with it. They could say he’s bisexual. Also a minority that deserves representation.

        • sulu aint gay says:

          “Given nothing was explicitly stated about it”

          It was explicitly stated.
          Sulu went for the babe Uhura TWICE, once in the mirror universe and once in the normal universe. He digs girls, as he and Chekov were two perverts tailing a hot Kling On babe in StarTrek V. Then on TOP of all that he has a frikin DAUGHTER and it’s even stated that his daughter is a result of him settling down to have a family.

          We are left with zero indications of him being gay (which is a huge stretch) yet several evidence of him being totally straight. And don’t you think btw that Takei would KNOW if the character he was playing for decades was gay or not??

          Well he does know, because he experienced those exact 3 evidences for those scenes he performed and has already clearly stated “Sulu is not homosexual”. Society is just becoming more and more dishonest.

    • Jim says:

      Takei has said for years and years, ever since he came out, that Sulu wasn’t gay, shouldn’t be gay, and that he didn’t play him as a gay man. His feelings on this were well known by Star Trek fans. Personally, I think they should have been respected. All the Star Trek actors have been given a lot of input into how their characters have been fleshed out in future productions after the end of the original series, for example, Nichelle Nichols is the one who came up with Uhura’s first name Nyota. I don’t really care if Sulu is gay, transgender, or a pansexual in love with an intelligent tree, but I do find it very upsetting that Takei wasn’t respected enough by the new people in charge of the production of this film to be given the courtesy of guiding the legacy of his iconic character the way his castmates have.

    • no he doesnt. this is a non issue. there are way bigger problems out there that start with “unfortunate” and escalate pretty quickly.

  2. Z says:

    Well Gene never intended Spock and Uhura to be in a relationship either… and Sulu’s sexuality was never specifically addressed on the show… so its not that big a stretch…

    • Geo says:

      Yeah, when the movie universe has things like Spock dating Uhura, and Vulcan blown to smithereens, any discussion of being faithful to Rodenberry’s version of the characters gets thrown out the window.

    • sulu aint gay says:

      It was explicitly stated.
      Sulu went for the babe Uhura TWICE, once in the mirror universe and once in the normal universe for TOS. He digs girls, as he and Chekov were two perverts tailing a hot Kling On babe in StarTrek V. Then on TOP of all that he has a frikin DAUGHTER and it’s even stated that his daughter is a result of him settling down to have a family.

  3. Drew says:

    The entirety of the rebooted Star Trek movie series takes place in an alternate timeline, so I have no problem with Sulu being gay, nor with the subtle reveal in the movie. I don’t see any evidence that Sulu was or will be closeted in the new series, so I think this unfortunately may just be George Takei being overly protective of Gene Roddenberry’s original characters.

    • Davidj says:

      Agreed. And it’s likely the only character development Sulu gets to have in the movie anyway, so it would be a shame not to have even that much.

    • ComeOn says:

      Exactly, it’s alternate timeline and Sulu is one of the main characters, higher profile than just any random new character. Gene’s reasoning was due to network opposition, we don’t have to worry about that anymore. A change to a character is not a personal attack to either the creator and performer. Nothing is set in stone.

    • Wordsmith says:

      It is an alternate timeline, but theoretically it only differs from the original as a result of Nero’s time-hopping in the first movie. I’m not sure how that would have had any effect on Mr. Sulu’s sexual identity. Then again, the whole point of the butterfly effect is that the results are totally unexpected.

      • Pedro says:

        Sulu was never once shown to be either gay or straight. The only canon was that he had a daughter. Which he still does.

        • sulu aint gay says:

          “Sulu was never ONCE shown to be either straight or gay”

          Never ONCE??? You don’t seem to watch much Star Trek.
          It was explicitly stated.
          Sulu went for the babe Uhura TWICE, once in the mirror universe and once in the normal universe. He digs girls, as he and Chekov were two perverts tailing a hot babe Kling On in StarTrek V. Then on TOP of all that he has a frikin DAUGHTER and it’s even stated that his daughter is a result of him settling down to have a family.

          We are left with zero indications of him being gay (which is a huge stretch) yet several evidence of him being totally straight. And don’t you think btw that Takei would KNOW if the character he was playing for decades was gay or not??

          Well he does know, because he experienced those exact 3 evidences in the scenes he performed and has already clearly stated “Sulu is not homosexual”.

      • Fido says:

        One of the effects of Nero’s hopping could’ve been Sulu having a mother.

  4. James says:

    I think this is a very delicate subject to talk about because as a gay man I’d love to see a character I admire being gay, but at the same time I understand where Takei it’s coming from: you have to respect the original vision. However, you have also to take in consideration this is not the same Star Trek than the one people saw twenty or thirty years ago. If we followed that mentality we wouldn’t have the diversity we have today -which still is lacking a lot. I guess you can’t make everyone happy.

  5. Lori Anderson says:

    This is a stab in the back to the creator of the original series. As a fan of the show, I am appalled by the new movie. I will not be watching it

  6. Adam says:

    I don’t see a particular difference whether he is gay or straight, at least not substantially enough for it to be a violation of Roddenberry’s original vision. It isn’t like this is a romantic drama where Sulu’s romantic interests are a key component. I understand why he might be upset that a character he played as heterosexual (played by a gay actor, closeted to public) is now enabled to be homosexual (played by a straight actor) in a missed opportunity envy sense, or the decision of all characters to revise to be gay they choose the one originated by a gay actor, but more visibility is nice.

  7. C says:

    I can see his point. But I also feel like the alternate time line of these films was designed to allow for these kind of veers with the characters, a la Spock and Uhura’s relationship. So overall, I don’t see the harm. It’s certainly better than the boasting the “Independence Day: Resurgence” director did about having a gay character when there’s no way you could tell who they were.

    • Luka says:

      Okun and Isaacs, in Resurgence, called each other “babe” from the moment Okun woke up. Seemed obvious to me.

  8. Amy says:

    Seems that they’d be damned either way – change an original character and it’s ‘blasphemy’. Create a new gay character and it’s ‘pandering’.

  9. Spence says:

    I see his point, but I’m just elated at more queer representation in popular film- especially a non-white character.

  10. ninamags says:

    Well, I has happy about this when I saw it on Twitter but now that I know George’s take on it, I see his point as well.

    I’m sure it’s gonna be a blink-and-you-miss-it mention so I wouldn’t get too worked up over it.

    Baby steps. I can’t wait to go see this opening weekend.

  11. lshoemaker says:

    I feel the choice would have been braver if they had made the decision at the beginning of the reboot and allowed John Cho to play the character with a complete backstory rather than waiting until the 3rd movie in to say oh, yeah — you have a husband and a kid. While we may not have had a scene that explicitly referred to his sexuality, it would have still afforded Cho the opportunity to add nuance to his performance. Waiting until now makes this feel more like a marketing strategy vs. trying to tell the most complete story possible.

    • David4 says:

      I don’t really remember Sulu doing much of anything in the first two movies. But I think that’s his point, that they should have just built up to it but I like a subtle thing.

      Makes no difference to me, the movie looks awful.

  12. Kat says:

    A man 50 years ago declines to write a gay character despite being a supporter of the LGBT+ community pretty much solely because he (likely correctly) didn’t think the network would allow it, and now 50 years later when it’s no longer taboo it’s disrespectful to make one of his characters gay? I see a lot of people saying they see his point, honestly I don’t. The times are different. The characters are different. It’s a remake, in an alternate timeline, which makes many references to the original show/timeline and owes it’s success, obviously, to it’s predecessor, but it is it’s own thing and this feels like a very strange thing for someone to wring their hands over. It feels a bit like all the hand wringing over Starbuck being a woman in the Battlestar Galactica remake. If you’re going to do a remake you SHOULD do things differently otherwise there’s no point in rehashing the exact same thing again. I respect Takei a lot and I’m sure this comes down to him having a personal stake (his friendship with Roddenberry) that I can’t understand, but I can’t back him on this particular thing. I’m all for this change and I am thrilled it’s one of the main stars of the franchise.

  13. Daniel says:

    I think it’s unfortunate Takei opened his damn mouth to begin with. What’s to say Sulu WASN’T gay? Gay guys can have dalliances with women… and Sulu didn’t exactly have an explicit relationship history on screen. I’m glad they didn’t “heed” his advice… he’s not the screenwriter. They did this for Sulu to Honor Mr. Takei & his struggles back in the 60s. Making a redshirt gay for a throwaway scene is meaningless… no one would even think about it. Having Sulu come out… it’s even coming out… just show his partner , will inspire other gay kids out there to be out, proud and to NOT want to kill themselves. So you know what… I’m JUST fine with this… Trek is all about acceptance… and we better start accepting this.

    • LTK says:

      Yeah, how dare he speak against them making Sulu gay specifically to reference his real life when he had already asked them not to.

  14. David4 says:

    Sulu in the reboot has hardly had any storyline anyways, so it makes no difference.

    • Ben says:

      +1. Furthermore… they already ruined those movies with lame plots and making every single main character dull and annoying (a waay far from the original ones)… so who cares!… those movies are non canon… the trekkies already have what they always want (a new tv show in the original time line)… and the regular audience it’s gonna have more of the same action-garbage that they love in theatres for sure.

  15. It’s not a terrible choice (Sulu being gay), but George Takei is right when comes to honoring the intent of the original Star Trek series. Remember that the original series had a female “number one” character that was also cut because the network thought it was too risky.

    Today it probably just made more sense to make a character canon gay or bi in order not to “kill off ensign gay redshirt” later.

    • Normandy says:

      Do you also honor the same Roddenberry who thought Star Trek VI had way too much action in it? Star Trek VI!!!!

  16. peterwdawson says:

    You know, Gene had his fair share of problems (screwing people out of money and having a direct hand in some of the more sexist Star Trek stuff from both the original series and TNG as well), but Takei raises a good point on this one. Yes, alternate reality, but originality rather than just doing another version of an existing character is usually better. Really says something too when the guy you’re trying to tribute is questioning the idea. I am glad they got the daughter in there though.

    • Luka says:

      If they created a new character who’s gay, the impression would be that he/she was introduced just to be the gay character. Maybe they could have (re)introduced Janice Rand, and shown her with a girlfriend.

      • peterwdawson says:

        Same deal really: bringing back an old character but changing them for reasons. Yes, creating a new character to be the gay character is pandering, but creating a character to fulfill a role like that is always just the start of creation. I mean, to use a Star Trek example, Sisko was always meant to be black, but that wasn’t all there was to him: even from the getgo he was a single father, somewhat cynical, and more of a line officer than the officer and a gentleman we had with Picard around the same era. Now granted, that was a main character and this hypothetical new character would probably be a supporting role at best, but you could still probably do more with them. Heck, have them be someone Kirk hadn’t seen in years who has a happy family life with a same sex spouse and a child, contrast with Kirk’s own personal life and their own quiet life to Kirk’s own adventure, including a scene where Kirk laments to them how he was effectively dead and came back in the last movie. Plenty of opportunity there. Of course, it all comes down to how much you respect Gene and his exact vision, since this is also the guy that said all personal conflict had been evolved past.

        • Luka says:

          This isn’t a TV show. They don’t have time for a new character’s development. Even the main characters don’t all get proper development (much like TOS : ). The lion’s share of characterization goes to Kirk and Spock.

          • peterwdawson says:

            They can still have a new character matter, even if for one scene, and also have that character be gay. Character would still come out of nowhere but you can make that a positive, have a reason why that specific person is someone Kirk ends up seeking out after experiencing death and then rebirth. Kirk may not want his closest friends, his crewmates, to know what’s going through his mind now, and since he can’t turn to his family or to Pike he turns to an old classmate who can even lampshade that they haven’t seen each other since the academy. Mention a mutual friend Gary Mitchell perhaps. Plenty of opportunity for a scene that doesn’t even have to be three minutes long.

  17. Alichat says:

    I can see his point, but at the same time, this is a reboot. It has an alternate timeline. And what’s to say that Roddenberry wouldn’t have gone this route if the climate of the viewing audience were different when the series first began?

  18. Lori says:

    I think it might also be possible that he just didn’t like the way they handled it in this story. By introducing a new character they may have been more able to expand it and make a better tribute than shoehorning it into an existing storyline.

    I do find it interesting that he chose to speak out in this way. Just guessing that there must be more to the story.

  19. Amy says:

    I’ve got to agree with him. The new Spock isn’t revealed as gay to honor anything. Why would they change the character that Sulu was because of the same reason? It’s an ever expanding Universe, so I don’t see a reason why they can’t create a new character with the purpose to honor what they intended to honor, which is just as valid too.

    • Luka says:

      I don’t think the intention is “honoring” anything. It’s just to have a gay character. Why couldn’t there be one gay character, when there are many straight ones already? Creating a new character is exactly what would make it seem like it’s an agenda.

  20. Agent 86 says:

    This is a tricky one. On the one hand, I’m amazed that a “main” Star Trek crew member will be openly gay. I think that’s pretty phenomenal and that it has much more meaning than if a random gay or lesbian “red shirt” was introduced for a scene or two. On the other hand, it’s unfortunate that the character’s original player is so resistant to the “change” (although, I’m not sure it is a change as the only canonical fact about TOS Sulu is that he has a daughter, which the nuSulu also has – the second parent of the daughter was only addressed in a novel, which I don’t think is canon).

    I’d like to believe that if Roddenberry had more freedom, then one of the main crew members may have been openly gay. Or maybe they would have openly explored Kirk’s bisexuality (on the basis of Roddenberry’s footnote to the novelisation of the first film). I don’t see why that can’t happen with nuTrek.

  21. Dave Rioux says:

    Change for the sake of change isn’t always good or even necessary. These things are not to be taken lightly and should be reserved to advance a major plot point, not just to say hey look at us we crossed a barrier. Art doesn’t always need, and in most cases, shouldn’t be changed to reflect current political turmoil.

  22. My respect for this man went up ten fold. He could have easily jumped on to this to have Sulu be gay, but he is more committed to honoring what the Creator wanted. That is class when you put the vision of the project ahead of any political or social need.

  23. TV Gord says:

    I don’t see all the hubbub. TOS Sulu was straight. Reboot Sulu is gay. They’re different people, as far as I’m concerned. Their father just sent different swimmers to the finish line.

  24. dman6015 says:

    Art always triumphs over political correctness. Perhaps Lin and Pegg should have listened to Takei while they were making the movie, instead of incorrectly assuming they were paying “homage” to the actor.

  25. Dayi Martinez says:

    I agree with those in favor of making Sulu gay. But one point I’d like to make is, if it’s okay to make an originally white character black or an originally male character female, and vice versa, why not make an originally straight character gay?

  26. BrianR says:

    Well you could argue that since they reset the entire timeline that included turning Sulu gay along with wiping out 99% of the Vulcans.

  27. C says:

    Making Sulu gay is not progressive, it is just lip service. Takei came out long ago, and now making a character he played do the same thing is just art imitating life.

    If they truly wanted to be progressive they would make Kirk gay.

  28. Quill says:

    Cant make everyone happy.

  29. pickleduck says:

    Cant make everyone happy. That’s what you get for trying to honor a guy

  30. Cameron Olsen says:

    Why did they feel the need to make him gay. Is there going to be a love story on screen? I haven’t seen one so far so I don’t see the need to make him gay or not. Why can’t they just leave it be. No one cares. This stuff is only an issue today because people are to sensitive to how other people feel and don’t want to say that something is wrong and take a stand against it. The whole world could have gone without knowing but because people are forcing gay lifestyles into everything they feel obligated to do this.

  31. Not A. Sucker says:

    Please. Just stop sucking c#$k and all will be well.

  32. Lisa B says:

    You know what *I* find disappointing? How much negative press George Takei is getting for stating his opinion. Both Zachary Quinto and Simon Pegg have been quoted as saying they are “disappointed in” Takei for his comments. I understand that Pegg was trying to do a good thing, thinking Takei would be so happy about it (and garner that much more press for the movie, since he has so many social media followers), and is now probably somewhat embarrassed. But George Takei has been a staunch advocate (some would even say activist) for the LGBTQ community for *YEARS*. That he feels Sulu’s character should remain true to his friend Gene Roddenberry’s creation is NOT any kind of affront to the LGBTQ community. It is just one man’s opinion that he should feel free to express. Should he have to lie simply because he’s a gay man? This whole thing is ridiculous. He is entitled to his feelings on the subject just as much as anyone else, gay or not.

    • Luka says:

      I don’t think they’re saying they’re dissappointed *in* Takei. They’re disappointed the change is not to Takei’s liking.

  33. Bob Wood says:

    While I respect the LGBT Community and respect a persons sexual orientation even though I do not agree with the life style I do understand and in these times it would make sense that there would be some shows and even movies that would have a gay character I also see and feel that Hollywood is trying to much and to hard on pushing gay characters on TV shows in a way that its more in your face and now even some of the super Hero shows are doing this and it bothers me to that extent like Christians and other religions trying to push people to accepting a faith or a life style with that said I think its a wrong approach, be as it may there are still a lot of people in this world who are straight, people who will never accept whether through their religion or just their belief. For me I don’t particularly care for seeing a gay couple’s make out session constantly on a TV show and I find myself more times then none fast forwarding these scenes now that i download everything instead of watching them when aired.

  34. Hillary John says:

    An original business! Take advantage of this opportunity! Make money online from home! We are looking for ambitious co-workers! Make money online from home! Make money quickly and easily! Learn more: bit.ly/29rpL9x

  35. Jocko says:

    In the first new Star Trek it was revealed that Spock and Uhura were in a relationship, which was a huge change for both characters from their TOS versions. Why is this any worse than that?

  36. JB Mil says:

    I’ve been angry at Takei for years because he refuses to forgive Shatner for being young and brashly opinionated in the 60’s… but this little tid-bit of statement he has made absolutely and completely redeems himself in my eyes… You are a gentlemen and a scholar, sir; and I implore your leadership for this franchise. Thank you for holding true to Roddenberry’s vision. Even if it is not identical to your own.. Thank you for being a leader of mankind with this statement. Political correctness does not always mean ‘superior’ or ‘necessary’, in fact, sometimes it means the exact opposite. They should have formed a new character all together, as you mentioned… thank you.

  37. CNU says:

    Simon Pegg’s rebuttal to Takai’s position was perfect. I hate to knock George, but I see this as a case of sour grapes on his part because he, as a gay man, was unable to play the role as a gay man himself.

    • Matt Webb Mitovich says:

      Yet he never asked for Sulu to be gay, so….

      • CNU says:

        Well in the time period between when he originate the role in the late 60s through his final appearance in a film in 1991 the climate towards gays was much less tolerant then today. Put in context, he original series debuted several years before the pivotal Stonewall riots and his final movie was still 5 years away from Ellen DeGeneres coming out in real life and on her series.

  38. mstrainjr says:

    This, Alanis Morissette, is what irony is. They made Sulu a gay character to honor the original actor, and Takei thought it was unfortunate. He even advised against it and they didn’t listen to him. Lol! So are they really paying tribute to him? Nope.

  39. tyler1861 says:

    Hollywood will simply not stop until it 100% normalizes a behavior that sincerely isn’t.. The gayness has Zero to do with the plot or character development other than to make the LGBT feel smug and normal everyday people feel revulsion

  40. oonai says:

    Takei is absolutely right. The reaction from Pegg and Quinto would be “disappointing” if I expected any better from them.

  41. Takei is right and wrong IMO. This is a the exact same strategy they used in making a Captain America a hydra agent. It creates cheap shock and is rather shallow.(BTW I AM NOT SAYING BEING GAY = HYDRA lol) On the other hand this version of Star Trek really gives zero craps about canon, so why not? Ultimately this doesn’t really do anything to negate/improve the stance towards the LGBT community. What this does do is give certain viewers a character that they can finally relate/connect to who isn’t just merely a background “gay” character. Sulu being gay is front and center. Which gives it prominence. My 2 cents.

  42. NotLikely says:

    (1) Takei is often a contrarian who likes to stir crap up for attention, so this whole thing sounds very disingenuous. (2) Star Trek hasn’t been Roddenberry’s since he sold out to Paramount and croaked. (3) Star Trek now operates in a completely different alternative universe established in the film reboot two movies ago – a world where Spock has emotions and the hots for Uhura. (4) Times change, stop being an old man screaming at everyone to get off his lawn. (5) Suspect that deep down he’s mostly mad they didn’t find a way to wedge him into the new movies they way they did Leonard Nimoy.

  43. ABC123 says:

    The key question is what was the “pressing need” to specfically establish that Sulu be gay, straight or otherwise in this movie? What dramatic purpose will it serve the story one way or the other?

    Apparently since the scene that will highlight Sulu’s sexuality is going to be completely unimportant/tangential to the main plot there appears to have been no essential literary reason to set in stone whether Sulu was gay, straight or otherwise. Basically since it had never been firmly established (in the last 50 years) what Sulu’s sexuality had been up until now why bother to define it now or ever?

    Clearly whatever noble intentions Pegg and Lin had to address real world political correctness or social tolerance the very act of “removing the mystery” of what Sulu’s sexualty might have been was probably the silliest/dumbest bit of pandering I can think of. Like other people have said it might have been more relavant to have made Kirk or Scotty be bisexual or somesuch rather than to just make Sulu gay “just because it was the trendy thing” to do.

  44. Sam says:

    Radically changing classic characters from classic shows/movies/books is cheap and dirty pool. Create a new character if you want a gay character. It’s simple. Don’t take a sledgehammer to classic characters. It’s thoughtless and mean. What if somebody took a classic gay character and made them straight. There would be OUTRAGE and rightly so. Please don’t alter classic characters. Thank you.

  45. The thing nobody says is of course that Star Trek is semi-appropriating Takei’s real-life to make a point, which is highly disrespectful towards George.

    They’re not just introducing an LGBT character, they’re high-jacking George, which I get, is very upsetting.
    And disrespectful to the Star Trek ideal, which is always build on respect, so…… JJ, Disney, RESPECT GEORGE!!!

  46. Nero tTVFiddler says:

    Ohhhh, myyyyy!!

    Mr. Takei’s trademark phrase has become iconic — good for him and for the rest of us who smile whenever we hear that phrase. I was surprised (and disappointed!) that no one remembered to put that line into their comments. :-O

    I hope it brings a smile to each of us who read this article.

    All the best to Mr. Takei and the Star Trek production and future movie. Long live George Takei and Star Trek!

    Ohhhh myyyyy. :)