Takei Disagrees with Decision on Sulu’s Sexuality, Beyond Cast Respond

Update: George Takei criticized the move to reveal Sulu as gay, but Beyond stars Zachary Quinto and Simon Pegg disagree, the latter suggesting such a move would have been “tokenism.”

This news comes fresh from Australia, where the Star Trek Beyond team was there promoting the movie. John Cho gave an interview to the Herald Sun, revealing that his character has a husband as well as a daughter (who made her first appearance in Star Trek: Generations).

“I liked the approach, which was not to make a big thing out it, which is where I hope we are going as a species, to not politicize one’s personal orientations,” Cho told the newspaper.

While Sulu was never romantically paired up with anyone before, mirror universe Sulu definitely had a thing for Uhura. But who says your mirror universe counterpart has to share your sexual preferences?

The decision was a nod to original Sulu George Takei, who came out publicly in 2005 and has been an LGBTQ activist ever since. He and his husband Brad were the first same-sex couple to apply for a marriage license in California in May of 2008; they’ve been together for almost 30 years.

Takei has said that he spoke to Gene Roddenberry about including a gay crew member when they were shooting the original series, and while Roddenberry completely supported the idea in theory, he admitted that if he did that, he knew they’d be taken off the air. He told Takei that he had to fight so many battles to get his ideas across, that losing the show over this one wasn’t the right one to choose. Takei, who hadn’t come out yet, understood and agreed.

But now it’s 2016. Bryan Fuller has been hinting that the new Trek series coming next year will be colorblind and genderblind, and has hinted at the possibility of gay characters, and now Star Trek Beyond has paved the way.

Infinite diversity in infinite combinations!

UPDATE – George Takei spoke to The Hollywood Reporter on Thursday and expressed his disappointment in the change to Sulu’s sexual orientation, calling it “really unfortunate”.  He is thrilled that there is a now a gay character in the Star Trek universe, but unhappy that it is Sulu, calling it “a twisting of Gene[Roddenberry]’s creation.”  He made his feelings known to the Star Trek Beyond production crew last year, and implored them to create a new character, telling John Cho to “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.”

To learn more about George’s feelings on the matter, go here.

UPDATEBeyond stars Zachary Quinto and Simon Pegg respectfully disagreed with Takei’s sentiments. Quinto, himself openly gay, said:

“…my hope is that eventually George can be strengthened by the enormously positive response from especially young people who are heartened by and inspired by this really tasteful and beautiful portrayal of something that I think is gaining acceptance and inclusion in our societies across the world, and should be.”

Video of his statements are available here.

While Pegg agreed with some of Takei’s sentiments, he told The Guardian that:

“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?”

 

Sort by:   newest | oldest

I’m shocked that Star Trek has never had an openly gay character before now.

I may have no basis for this, but I blame Rick Berman.

It really was unfortunate and after JJ’s comments (and I know this is childish) but I was hoping Trek would do it before Star Wars.

Somebody is gay in Star Trek?

I meant, “Somebody is gay in Star WARS?” I hadn’t heard that.

Just Another Salt Vampire

David Gerrold tried to introduce a gay character in the first season, but his script was rejected. I think that it has since been produced by one of the fan Trek series?

Just Another Salt Vampire

That should read “first season of TNG”

There was that race of androgynous people. That’s about as close as TNG got.

Ah! Yes. Saw your update just as I posted the above.

This site needs an edit function.

You’re right, Gerrold did, Star Trek Phase II turned it into a 2 part episode. Ironically, one of the gay characters is lovingly surprised by his boyfriend (in a ‘guess who’ moment) and longingly says “Mr. Sulu.” This just nicely adds a wink to that moment, for me at least.

The TNG script, “Blood and Fire” wasn’t so much a ‘gay story’ as it was an AIDS story. Way too ‘in your face’ political for late 1980s American television.

Yeah, “Blood and Fire” was a good allegory about what people in the mid-’80s thought was “a gay plague.” It would have been a very good time to broadcast it in the late ’80s, too bad; but at least Phase II produced it.

Where can one read this TNG version of the story?

That was on Star Trek: The Next Generation, not the Original Series.

Yes, in the episode written by David Gerrold called “Blood and Fire” — it’s ST “Phase II” [which series also has a second “subtitle” name] … pretty good ep concerning Regulan bloodworms, a plague and the battle of the crew to get out alive.

Yes, Star Trek New Voyages filmed his episode called ” Blood And Fire.” David also directed it

Join thhttp://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trek+fire+blood&&view=detail&mid=D7E2A4241AADA69AE750D7E2A4241AADA69AE750&FORM=VRDGARe discussion

Why not make Scotty Gay? Do it Mr. peg. I could care less if there is a gay character. However Sulu isn’t gay. In mirror mirror he wanted Urhura. Plus he had a daughter. Shit make McCoy gay too. So stupid.

How does having a daughter preclude one from being gay?

Sulu could actually want Uhura and be bi, or be pretending to be into Uhura for whatever reason. The Canon did not define Sulu in this regard. It did define him as being into fencing.

Mirror Kira was bi, our Kira wasn’t. So?

Mirror Kira probably banged [I]everything[/I]that she didn’t kill. The idea of banging [I]herself[/I] was icing on her Neutral Evil cake (as well as many lemons written since, I would imagine)

Just one of the many reasons why that episode was beloved & wrong on so many wonderful levels…

In the mirror universe Kira was all bisexual. The main universe Kira was completely straight… Also you can have a daughter and still be gay. Why is it stupid? It was never stated either way that he was straight or gay. You might have assumed it but that does mean he was.

Also I think Takei is probably just bitter about not getting to play Sulu as gay himself.

@ Paul: “Also I think Takei is probably just bitter about not getting to play Sulu as gay himself.”

Yep, and I hate to say it as I really like George Takei, but I think the reason he’s vocalizing his displeasure with this decision is because 1) As Paul said, he’s not playing Sulu anymore, and 2) Mr. Takei didn’t get to make the decision himself to “out” the Sulu character. So…it’s a bit (or a lot) of grandstanding on his part.

And after all, it IS the alternate timeline, so no “damage” has been done to classic Star Trek characters. :)

I like that — if it’s so progressive, why didn’t Pegg make himself the gay character? Or maybe that’s the sequel?

And he still has a daughter in this timeline.

“I could care less if there is a gay character.”

That means you DO care.

Scotty actually had a girlfriend, Lt. Mira Romaine, in “The Lights of Zetar.”

He could be bi?

He could be, but his constant womanizing throughout TOS and the Kelvin timeline would suggest differently.

I always thought Neelix was gay.

But he was clearly shown to be infatuated with Kes from the very start. And then he also found a wife in the last season.
I for one always assumed DS9’s Garak was gay. It’s well known that Andrew Robinson intentionally portrayed him as “sexually ambiguous” as well.

There was a rumor that one of “Enterprise” (NX-01) crew members was going to get “outed” as gay. But it never happened.

I, myself, don’t give a damn what character is gay or not. But as far as Pegg saying making a new character is “tokenism”… He’s right. But then so is taking an existing character and making him gay. In fact, since they seem to have felt it necessary to have a gay character for some reason I think it would have been better and made more sense if it were a new character.

Finally!

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

Finally!!! We have thrown the great birds vision under the bus!!! Finally! To heck with Gene Roddenberry!!!

Give me a break. Takei is simply wrong that this is twisting Roddenberry’s creation. Sulu’s sexual orientation was never addressed onscreen (he could have been closeted in the mirror universe or just completely screwed up).

And they’re doing it simply here without drama – they take a major character we know and mention in a line or two that he has a husband and kid and life carries on.

I love the idea and I’m a bit surprised at Takei’s reaction, but perhaps he objected because that meant his character would have been “in the closet” all that time. I’ll have to read his comments.

“Sulu’s sexual orientation was never addressed onscreen” – not addressed explicitly, but he DID make a move on Uhura in “The Naked Time” (just as Mirror-Sulu did in “Mirror Mirror”).
But I tend to agree with Pegg on the notion that he did’t believe that “Gene Roddenberry’s decision to make the prime timeline’s Enterprise crew straight was an artistic one, more a necessity of the time.”

Also the above examples hardly count, since in one case the character was intoxicated and in the other case it wasn’t technically the same character.

He was Funked up in the Naked Time so his Fair Maiden grab doesn’t count- he just wanted a prop for his little fantasy.
Sorry Neither.

Oh please Aaron. Gene never had a vision of the character that said he was specifically straight.

Gene never had a vision of the character that said he was ANYTHING other than “Asian.”

The Great Bird’s Vision was a humanist scifi future universe. Every other aspect big and small has been changed over and over and it has been accepted. In this case it does not even conflict with canon that he is gay or bi. I have the feeling that for some trekkies this is really uncomfortable and they just want their heroes to be straight.

That “Uncomfortable” feeling is Homophobia.
& they need to get over it.

@Trekboi

Exactly. it’s homophobia and/or repressed feelings.

“Finally!!! We have thrown the great birds vision under the bus!!! Finally! To heck with Gene Roddenberry!!!”

That was idiotic.

About time, and I like how they’re approaching it. He just is, and they have a daughter together, nuff said!

Maybe it’s easier for Trek because it is about humanity, and other franchises aren’t in the same way, but I think it is great to see Star Trek is still at the forefront of reflecting diversity and inclusion. It’s also a nice nod to George Takei.

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

Yes, it’s about time they trampled Gene’s vision completely!

I’m pretty sure Gene had no particular sexual vision for Sulu, at least none that appeared onscreen or in official written materials.

The daughter has already been established. Now we find out it’s with his husband. Not a deal (but good).

Gene’s vision, I think, was about 180 degrees from yours

“Yes, it’s about time they trampled Gene’s vision completely!”

You clearly have no understanding at all of Gene Roddenberry’s vision.

What is your Deal?

I love the way they’re doing this. Well done!

Surprise!….said no one….

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

Surprise!!! Screw Gene Roddenberry!!!

Yeah, screw him for rejecting Takei’s original idea for Sulu to be gay in 1966!

Oh Please Gay on Network TV in 1966? Unless iit was implied cleaverly there was now way that was happening.

Gezz you guys act like Gene is God or something. There has been a lot of people who worked for Gene that would tell you different about him.True that Gene had a lot of great idea’s ,but let’s give credit where credit is due. A lot of people made those ideas happen. Gene was a man just a man.

Yes. I’ve heard from a lot of sources that Roddenberry was in the way a lot of time, interfering and changing things for the sake of it.

“Surprise!!! Screw Gene Roddenberry!!!”

You simply don’t get Star Trek. This franchise isn’t a good fit for you. Find another one.

Nice nod to Takei, respectful.

[This comment had been deleted by a moderator]

Nah. Lets keep him around a while. And give him his own command, too.

I don’t like it. But I don’t like change in general.

This really isn’t much change.

Yes it is.

No, it’s not a change at all. Sulu’s orientation has never come up before in Star Trek.

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

Roddenberry did not intend for Sulu to be gay.

How do you know? And what difference does it make? a) he was never straight onscreen b) in this universe, maybe something changed and he is gay

If any of you had a clue as to what any & all of this means…

“Roddenberry did not intend for Sulu to be gay.”

You have no idea whether or not that is true. And it doesn’t matter anyway.

If Gene could have done it i the day He would have. I wish he had as a “fu*k you” parting shot to the network lol

It’s about time for sure but it’s also a good strong choice. Sulu has always been one of my favorite characters, smart, fun, brave. And if the Kelvin timeline holds true to the Prime he will go on to command the USS Excelsior. So as a life long Star Trek fan and a Gay man I’m thrilled. George Takei must be tickled “pink” with Pride.

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

Nope. George is disgusted at the perversion of Gene’s creation.

Gene would get if even if other small minded people do not.

So you’re calling George Takei small minded? Because he’s the one that came out against it.

Andrew SD and Capt JW Amick,

Re:small minded

I think you will find in this tale as Paramount relates it:

http://www.mtv.com/news/2368736/star-trek-tv-show-social-justice/

”Gene Roddenberry once told George Takei that he was very conscious of how the ’60s series was pushing buttons (the episode that featured television’s first biracial kiss had the lowest ratings of the entire series and was even completely blocked from airing in the South) and feared that focusing gay issues would get them completely cancelled. “I understood that, because I was still closeted at that time,” Takei noted. “I talked to him as a ’liberal’ rather than as a gay man, and I understood his position.”” — ‘STAR TREK’: 7 WAYS THE SHOW SHOULD RETURN TO ITS SOCIAL JUSTICE ROOTS, by VICTORIA MCNALLY, MTV News, 11/3/2015

The small mindedness wasn’t in either of those two.

Well, this is the same George Takei who flashes a Vulcan salute in nearly every photo and who has been obsessing about (and badmouthing) Shatner for years.

Oh, I’m sorry Aaron.
I responded to your comment earlier, not yet realizing that you’re just trolling.

Gay people are also gods creation. Are you disgusted now at the “pervertion” of God’s creation?
Quite interesting how people make a big deal about it. They can destroy Romulus, Vulcan, Kirk can lay down a lot of female ALIENS, he can even have a threesome. Humans can biologically interbreed with alien species which is logically way more impossible then humans interbreeding with animals (!). But nobody cares…
Everything is fine. But if 2 adult HUMAN males can’t be a couple a raise a children. Oh my god… here Gene’s vision is destroyed…but everything else is ok.
By the way: How can 2 russians have a klingon baby???
Gene Roddenberry would be sooooooo proud of you, how you defend his vision of IDIC…
And how could one man who lived 2000 years ago have THREE fathers (the one he called “father”, the one who impregnated his mother (who remained virgin) and the one who raised him)???

What are you talking about?

Nope. George is disgusted at the perversion of Gene’s creation.”

The only “perversion” here is your negativity and homophobia. Grow up, kid.

So, Aaron, you just come here to Troll everyone?

I don’t get how someone with a husband and daughter could leave for five years. I guess there’s Skype, but…

I had the same issue at the end of The Martian.

Asky anyone in the military and you will get your answer.

Agreed.

I retired last year after 27 years and 5 of those were away from my family. We survived.

Regards.

Lost rod, thank you for your service, and thank you to you family as well. 27 years–wow!

Are You Serious? Same way Every other Parent on the Ship Does!

Star Trek of old used to be groundbreaking, the leading edge. Star Trek of today jumps on a bandwagon only after the parade is over and nobody cares anymore. :P

That is not true .Star Trek is today what today is. The ratings of the time say Star Trek wasn’t leading anything.It made its mark in reruns leading to The motion picture. Paramount only did that because of Star Wars .They saw a money tree and grab it. And let’s face it those first 6 movies were not ground breaking ether. Except…… Star trek 4 and the whales.

Thomas Vinelli,

I don’t think you know how to properly interpret data.

For the episode to get the lowest rating ever (And note, it was NOT the last episode aired so viewers returned the week following its air.), people had to be actively tuning out, which means they had to know what the episode contained in order to decide to AVOID IT. It was getting noticed and talked about at the water cooler even if the actual scene itself was probably only seen by most as a print publication still. Negative publicity is still publicity.

The special dedicated solely to STAR TREK correspondence handlers that both NBC and Paramount had to both have on staff three years after cancellation definitely showed the show leading in hand written letters which began in 1967 and never abated.

And Paramount regarded STAR WARS as a one-off fluke. They only changed the Phase II TV series into a motion picture production in response to the success of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND.

And STAR TREK — THE MOTION PICTURE was groundbreaking as it demonstrated that a movie based on a TV show wouldn’t be a box office fizzle as MUNSTER GO HOME was, but could be a $175 million world-wide blockbuster.

Ratings don’t mean anything- Star Trek lead creatively- showed the ground was broken & people followed.

Thats the Truely Unfortunate abandoning of Gene’s ideals

Trekboi, tell me more about how Gene was opposed to inclusion of different peoples and cultures.

Oh Trekboi, I think you were responding to a different message when you spoke of abandoning Gene’s ideals. Please ignore my question to you :)

Paul, What is this bandwagon you speak of? Inclusion and acceptance and normalcy?
What you see as a fleeting social fad is actually the future that Roddenberry started when he created the multicultural crew in the first place. It is what we should all be working towards. A great way to show the progress we’ve made is to reflect it in our popular culture.

So…Romulan time travel makes people gay? And biology must be really different in the 23rd Century for two men to have a baby.
This movie is gonna be a disaster.

Was Sulu ever straight in the prime universe of the original series? No.
And you are right: biology must be really different in the 23rd century. Humans can interbreed with alien species. Kirk mates an female alien on many episodes.
But 2 male humans can’t raise a baby? How logical is that?
Quite interesting that nobody cared about offsprings of interspecies but went nuts back then when a white HUMAN kissed a black HUMAN. But noone cared about Kirk kissing a green-skinned ALIEN.

Two examples come to mind. In TOS “Mirror, Mirror” Parallel Sulu was lewd with Uhura. And in Star Trek V Sulu and Chekov where admiring that Klingon babe’s muscles.

In the DS9 mirror episodes it was established that the “mirror” character sometimes had different sexualities than their counterparts (see Kira and Leeta). And admiring someone is hardly evidence of your sexuality.

Giving the right circumstances, anybody could be gay. For me, I never bought into the idea that someone was born gay…or anything, for that matter. However, if you are more comfortable with a particular sexuality, by all means, follow your heart. As for this article: it is about time to be open to the idea of an openly gay character, but I was surprised that the first one would be an established one. Kudos!

DSWynne,

Re:the right circumstances

Well, the only way to account for the trait’s continually popping up in the sexual animal kingdom, such as we primates, is that bi-sexuality must be a quite common trait.

Now that doesn’t mean that in the genetic shuffle more than a few individuals aren’t born for which homosexuality is not a “choice”, just rather that there are a lot more BIs for which it is. And as long as whatever choice is mutually consensual among the parties involved, it is not the state’s or anyone else’s business, at least not in my United States by its Supreme Court deliberations.

Well believe it or not some species in the animal kingdom like some fish can be born female have young ,than turn male.

Also Shore Leave has him with a showgirl

Guess what Shane, you can admire a woman’s muscles no matter what your sexual orientation.

Yep, this. Who’s to say he’s not bi? To my understanding, we see him in the Kelvin Timeline as having a husband and daughter, but bi people have committed same-sex partnerships, too. We just tend to assume they’re gay when they do.

I’d be really disappointed if Sulu is actually labeled gay in the movie, because this would break realism for me, the context around gay identity has changed a lot in just the 20th century, who knows what it will even be by the 23rd.

Cause she was built like a Man

George Takei thinks Sulu is straight. That’s is enough for me:http://www.ew.com/article/2016/07/07/george-takei-gay-sulu-unfortunate-star-trek-beyond

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

Hear hear!

Paul,

No actor in the first series was ever the pope of STAR TREK – not even Nimoy. Not a one of them ever got a writer’s credit for any episode. If I were to give heed to anyone connected with those productions over what a character could or could not be it would be the writers.

In this instance I submit the actor’s position is the foremost importance, for these reasons.
1) The whole reason they are making Sulu gay is *because* of George. They thought it would be a nice homage to him. He disagreed. Which leads me to my second point.
2) The creatives of the film went to George and solicited his advice, thinking he would be pleased. He was not. Then rather than listen to his input, they ignored him completely. I find it terribly offensive that the man who knows Sulu better than anyone and lived with the character half a century, would be ignored by people not even born when he first played Sulu.
So they make the chatacter gay because of George, yet against his wishes. That’s a mighty slap in the face to a man work 50 yrs ago now keeps these people employed.

DaveCGN,

Please provide your evidence that Prime Universe Sulu was gay. Even the man who played him said he was straight. So I’m curious what your evidence is.

Is there any evidence he was at least not bisexual? No. If it is said that noone makes a deal about it in the 23rd century, then you don’t know…

Ever hear of adoption, or a surrogate? Ever hear of a gay man having sex with a woman for procreation (my gay dad did). Never in the original Trek was anyone’s sexuality explicitly mentioned. Bigots like you are why what should be a mundane character trait is being treated as progressive when it’s acknowledged.

Of course ,they couldn’t do that on TV in the 60’s. And look how long it’s taken where people are comfortable with the whole gay thing.

You do realise that there are same sex couples with children in the 21st century? Given that Sulu had a daughter in the prime timeline the implication would seem to be that he was always gay and that it just wasn’t a big deal.

What the hell ?? I know a few people that had children and then realized they were gay. It happens .

You really need to get our more, Mensa.

Haven’t you seen the movie Junior with Arnold Schwarzenegger? Men CAN get pregnant.

“The Visitor” Hope you enjoyed your visit, now go home.

A fact check first: You wrote that George and Brad were “the first same-sex couple to apply for a marriage license,” but you probably should have written, “the first same-sex couple to successfully apply for a marriage license in the State of California.” Several other American states had already been recognizing same-sex marriages before May 2008, as well as a few jurisdictions outside the US.

You also wrote, “But who says your mirror universe counterpart has to share your sexual preferences?” If sexual orientation is at least partly determined by genetics (and maybe more than partly), wouldn’t mirror universe Sulu–genetically identical to prime universe Sulu–likely have the same orientation? Of course, 23rd century mirror universe human society might have very different standards; mirror Sulu could have been performing for the benefit of his less than tolerant shipmates.

Reading comprehension check: “He and his husband Brad were the first same-sex couple to apply for a marriage license in California in May of 2008” It does not say what you alluded to earlier.

The article was revised after I made my post. The original that was posted on Thursday did not specify California.

Capt JW Amick,

Max Choi is right. TrekMovie has a long history of amending articles without attaching an annotated list of changes. The most obvious indication the article’s been changed is it was originally titled “John Cho Reveals That Sulu Is Gay” as you can see via that it’s a part of the article’s url but it is now titled “Takei Disagrees with Decision on Sulu’s Sexuality, Beyond Cast Respond”

My apologies to Max. I agree, if they fix something in their article, they should have the intellectual integrity to own up to it in an edit or revision note. Thank you guys for pointing this out.

Sure. OK.

Well. Why not.

Demora Sulu disagrees

What part of adopting a child do you not understand?

“She was the daughter of Susan Ling and Hikaru Sulu. Born Demora Ling in late 2270, she spent her early childhood years living with her mother. ” etc etc etc

Hmm. Isn’t that a quote from a non-canon wiki ???

Yeah not officially canon man. If its not in a movie or TV show its not canon for this very reason. Novelists have the freedom to make their own changes but its not officially part of canon because it would tie future writers to stuff they have little control over.

@Tiger

Except for one problem… The official movie novelization. That IS canon.

Capt JW Amick,

Re:official movie novelization

Nope. All novels are non-canon – especially movie novelizations which are by needs of publishing based on the state of the script prior to principal photography beginning rather than its state upon completion of principal photography.

Only what is on-screen in canon. Sorry

Who’s to say that’s not Sulu’s ex wife in the Kelvin Timeline.

Gay people have children all the time.

Is there some reason why she could not be his biological child?

Exactly. No reason. Especially in the 23rd century.

It’s about time! This should have been a thing since the old show, but at least since TMP.

It makes sense that mirror Sulu isn’t gay. Based on DS9, I assume that everyone in the mirror universe is bisexual.

Very Cool.

Ugh. Hate it when Trek is pandering to the squeaky wheels. Trek is about being in a time when sexuality is NOT an issue. To forcibly focus on it is so off base and preachy…not what I like in my Star Trek. I hope they don’t hit us over the head with it. I have no idea of Scotty’s sexuality, or Chekov’s, or Skipper or Gilligan’s. It’s a non-issue that requires NO exploration unless it’s intrigal to the story. If it’s put out there as a, “hey LGBT community, look what we’ve done!” moment….then the true, and SUBTLE, message of diversity and tolerance that Star Trek embodies has been lost.

Wait….Gilligan isn’t gay?
So, what little we have learned about Beyond so far is that the crew is deep in the five year mission, and missing home. So why would it be a bit unnatural for Sulu to be missing husband and daughter of the story is taking a little time to emphasize that point?

The devil is in the details…all in how it’s handled. I mean, it’s still pandering, making a point to point it out…but it does flesh out the character a bit and that’s ok. I just wish I could believe it’s true intent was to flesh out the character, rather than indulge in a bit of self-congratulatory horn-tooting. But I haven’t seen the movie yet, time will tell.

Jonboc, thoughts like this are so frustrating. So when the show or films showed straight couples just being couples and having sex there is no discussion of sexuality???? Really?????? I mean this right here says it all. People don’t even get their own bias sometimes its amazing. Basically if its straight then no one cares, its just part of life, etc. But if you have the nerve to show one, I mean literally ONE gay character then its ‘being political’, ‘why do they have to show it’, ‘PC police’ and everything else. Its like saying, “Yeah OK, there are gay people in the world, just don’t ever show us or remind us about it and will acknowledge that way’. And hey IF people said the same thing about straight couples, fine, but no one EVER says that about straight couples. This is the problem with this silly argument because it only goes one direction apparently. Its been 50 years, Trek has FINALLY had ONE officially gay couple and now its “Oh they are just trying to please the gay community’. Uh no you have it backwards, they are finally just acknowledging gay people live and exist in society as everyone else does. I mean what does it say when Trek has gone this long and yet according to Trek, apparently no gay people exists anywhere. They do I guess, but none are ever shown or even recognized. Even more weird when its takes place in a freakin universe of diverse… Read more »

Tiger, I understand your frustration, but I guess what I don’t understand, is the need for “screen recognition” that brings on the frustration. I don’t know if the waiter that served my dinner is gay or straight and I don’t care…he did his job and did it well. Any more than he knows if I’m a Christian or atheist, left handed or right. And I don’t think he cares. it’s this deep rooted need for representation that I don’t understand. Yes, of course gays exist. And they will in the future. Why is the simple knowledge, that in Trek’s time, mankind has evolved into a species of much greater tolerance…not enough?

For the same reason that Trek started off showing a multicultural cast in 65. Representation. Uhura was an inspiration to a multitude of black women and children in a time when roles for them where typically as maids.
In a day and age when gay teens are committing suicide, gay people are shunned, beaten, and even lawfully sentenced to jail and even death, representation is a huge thing.
You may not care if your waiter is gay or not, but there are plenty that do and he has to deal with them.

Jeff, you have to know, as well as I do, that the prejudiced guy, the one that the “gay waiter” has to deal with, doesn’t care one way or the other that Star Trek has a gay character in it. Bigotry is never going to end because Star Trek has lofty ideas. It may make a lot of people happy, but it isn’t going to work miracles. I just want a good movie!

Jonboc, you’re not helping with lame excuses like that. Yes so because it doesnt end all homophobia lets just not show it. Seriously man, you sound like a guy who has no idea what its like to be invisible. Thats the issue and if you’re straight you wouldnt know. And for the record I’m straight too but I get that being gay is already hard enough and while its easier today its still a struggle. And yes believe it or not having gay people represented does help. Have you hear the famous Nichelle Nichols meeting Martin Luther King story? Of course you have. Does it matter one black chick on a show meant racism would be erased forever? Of course not. But did you also know her being on that show encouraged other black girls like Whoopi Goldberg to think they could be actresses who ended up not just being one but ended up on the very show 20 years later? THATS the power of representation for ANY minority. If you’re white, yeah, not a problem. If you’re straight, yeah, not a problem. If you’re a man, definitely not a problem. But for minorities, they get it. Hell Gene Roddenberry got it. The issue isnt why is a gay character on Trek now, the issue is why one wasnt on it sooner. Don’t know, but its about time. In a year no one is goign to care either. Other great thing about representation, once the first one does it and… Read more »

Yeah, but it would be pretty great for the gay waiter to see people like him on TV/in movies, especially when je was having a toughtime with this growing up in a world that says he doesn’t belong.

Wish I could Upvote you Jack

Jonboc, Representation has inspired so many to pursue their dreams and be themselves. As Tiger said, heterosexuality is the “norm” constantly depicted in the movies and on TV. Gay characters began appearing and helped hetero people get acquainted with, and eventually accept, homosexuality in the population. The same way that Uhura helped “normalize” professional black women [Martin Luther King Jr. asked her to continue on Star Trek because she inspired so many, including himself and his family].

Right on, Jeff!

Brilliant. I Luv you Jeff.

Jonboc, No offense but your argument is MORE ridiculous. Did you seriously just ask why should gays be given ‘screen recognition’ as if NO straight person on this show has never been given ‘screen recognition’ for being straight???? Have you ONCE ever complained that you knew Kirk, Janeway, Sisko, Troi, Hoshi, Archer, Chakotay, Uhura, Odo, Quark, Spock, Rike, Picard, O’Brien, Worf, Paris, McCoy, Kira, T’pol or Yar was straight?? This is a real question btw? Didn’t straight couples Worf and Dax get married? Didn’t B’lenna and Paris get married and later had a kid? Didn’t Data have sex with Yar…and then the Borg queen (ugh). Didn’t Kirk have sex with every alien woman in the alpha quadrant who wasn’t Klingon? Didn’t Worf spend quite a LOT of detail talking about the mating process of Klingons? Didn’t we see an entire episode of Spock going through Pon Far mating fever? Then they did it again with Tuvok? Didn’t Sisko get into a relationship and later married? Didn’t we see T’pol and Trip start having sex and later have a baby that they lost? Wasn’t Janeway in a relationship with a guy before she got lost in the Delta quadrant? Didn’t Troi have a relationship with Riker, then Worf, then Riker again? Wasn’t Odo and Kira together for several seasons? Man I can go on for a long long time with examples. But, wait, hold on, Sulu has a husband and wooooooaaaaaaaaah, wait what’s up with all this sudden ‘screen recognition’ all… Read more »
Sorry, you’re barking up the wrong tree with me and ANYTHING shown on the soapy TNG or it’s spin-offs. Don’t like them and they are so utterly removed from Star Trek that I don’t give any consideration to what happened with any of those characters. TOS was my cup of earl grey, and I have no idea what Uhura’s sexual orientation is…nor do I care, unless it is a plot point. Kirk’s supposes sexual appetite was never discussed until TUC, and then it was a joke, playing off the common misconception of Kirk’s “conquests”…which ranks right up there along the misconception of red shirts biting the dust every time they’re on screen, The fans liked to joke about Kirk’s “libido” and did so in commentary after the show hit reruns. But the common fallacy is that TOS was somehow indicative that Kirk will sleep with anything that breathes. False. Upon scrutiny, you’ll find that all this alien-tapping was done usually in a move to gain confidence or seduce, in order to get him or his crew or his ship out of a predicament. He used them, plain and simple. We know he is straight…not because of his bed hopping with aliens, but because he was deeply in love with Edith Keeler and loved a past flame named Ruth. All very important plot points that were being addressed to further the story. Answer me this, with your “everyone should be included and recognized” mindset. How do we address the invisible, never… Read more »
LOL man it doesnt matter if you don’t like the other shows, but they ALL exist chief and they ALL displayed sexuality to its core. People had sex, got married, had babies, etc. And your lame excuses for TOS the fact is you know VERY well the sexualiity of the TOS crew, ESPECIALLY the new series. Aren’t Spock and Uhura a couple? Did you get upset when you saw the first movie stomping your feet asking why did they have to tell us Spock and Uhura was actually straight? Yeah you didnt care lol. You know you didnt. And as said Kirk was straight as an arrow and you had NO problems watching him bed or make out with any woman. Dude you just don’t like it when GAY PEOPLE show their sexuality. Period. Did you once get on Spock and Uhura case for having the nerve to be a couple and have sex. Would love to see those posts lol. As far as religion, I thought Roddenberry was very anti-religious and basically ignored it. But would I like to see their religious side, sure, why not. Fun fact, one of the reasons DS9 is my FAVORITE Trek show because its the ONLY one that actually discussed religion AND had religious characters on it (if you watched it you would know that ;)). Major Kira is deeply spiritual and it was nice to see Trek become more layered and adult….and I say this as a proud atheis btw. ;) Unlike… Read more »

uhm Imma let you finish here but I dunno what kind of fandom experience you have in trek: people are complaining about Spock/Uhura since years. LOL Sure, most of them is slash fans (kirk/spock shippers) and sure it’s a popular ship online and among the general audience, but there definitely was a strong negative response from trek purists (and yes, because it’s interracial TOO along other reasons, you could find racist misogynistic comments against Uhura right in this site, some of which even Orci himself replied to)
Some people in this fandom think that only Kirk should get laid while the other characters are like kids or asexuate beings that should never have relationships. Spock literally cannot get a life outside of the original trio and don’t even let me start about the disingenuous ‘feminist’ arguments made about Uhura being just ‘the girlfriend’ (never mind the fact that black female characters are, anyway, subjected to different tropes than white girls are and what can be perceived as clichè for other female characters is actually the opposite for characters who are denied some things because of their race or orientation)
I don’t want to invalidate your whole reasoning, but Spock/Uhura is not a good example here because the gratuitous endless hatred is rampant. That couple ‘hurts’ some ‘sensibilities’ in a way no less than Sulu being LGBT does. But maybe trek needed to have both for this reason too.

my reply was for Tiger

You’re missing the point. NO ONE cares that Spock or Uhura was straight, only that they were a couple. Apples and Oranges. Jonboc is arguing that the showing ANY sexuality in Star Trek shouldn’t be allowed although he and others never seem to have an issue with other characters displaying their sexuality when its heterosexual. And yes even on TOS both Spock and Uhura displayed their sexuality. Spock many times obviously and Uhura had an ex-lover in an episode. That’s basically what is being discussed here.

Yes I know some fans didn’t like Spock and Uhura specifically together but they are not saying they didnt want them with anyone at all, just with other people. Again two separate issues.

Right Sulu is not hooking up with Chekov in the Kelvin Timeline …. I would not be interested in that at all. I wasn’t happy about Scotty & Uhura either in the Prime Timeline either.

Well, your waiter cares – and maybe he’d like to see peoplelike him onscreen. Ypu get to see people like you all thr time.

THANK YOU Jack! Exactly. People like Jonboc misses the point. It’s not about HIS wants and needs, its about people like his waiter who feels he would be shunned for simply displaying THEIRS. Straight people live in a world where being straight is the norm and obviously fully accepted. They aren’t marginalized. So of course he doesn’t need to see it, because he lives in a world where heterosexuality is the dominant culture by a huge huge margin and its all around him. We all assume someone is straight first before we assume they are gay. Its programmed into us. Its people who live in the shadows and rarely see themselves in anything. This applies to any sub group out there.

I’m black, I’m part of the ‘marginalized’ group but I also recognize I’m part of a very represented group in the media these days. Not everywhere and certainly not always positive but represented. We NEED more diversity like Asians, Latinos, gays and lesbians, native Americans, etc. And shows like Star Trek is obviously famous for that but its still not enough by a mile. But it does try. Its ALWAYS tried and for that alone is why I always respected it. And now with a gay character even more so.

Tiger, I agree.

I was out with my gay male friend for lunch and as we left the restaurant we saw a hetero couple kissing on the sidewalk.

“Ugh,” John said, “I just hate it when they display their sexuality in front of me. It’s disgusting!” And we both cracked up.

Exactly, people like Jonboc displays a real hetero dominant view thats basically “Yeah I’m fine with gay people…as long as I don’t have to see it.” Its sad but its common. And I’m not saying he or anyone here is homophobic. I dont think they have a problem with gay people so much as they seem to think its ‘taking over’ lol. This is what kills me about society. I live in L.A. and have lived in about 4 other countries worldwide, all big cities and I can probably count on one hand whenever I even see an openly gay couple like kissing or something. Its RARE I see it and this includes living in San Francisco which is the stereotype gay city. Unless you live in a gay community you rarely even notice. And yet you listen to cranks on the internet and think having another gay character on TV (usually 1) is a sign that America is going to shift the other direction any day now. Its ignorant, sad and shameful. I’m not saying ALLL of it but it usually come from religious people. I’m sure there are many religious people who don’t care and very open to everyone but its not a shock the most hardcore bigots are usually religious for some reason. Now THAT said, if people dont like the idea of Sulu himself being gay, I get that. As we all know Takei himself doesnt like it. So there are several layers of the discussion… Read more »

How inconsiderate for the Gays to want to be included in the Star Trek Universe!
They should have just written it that homosexuality was eradicated through genetic engenering in the eugenics wars- would that make you happy jonboc?

Yep!

Of course we know about Scotty and Checkov, they had relationships in the show.

So they dont like guys too? They’re not bi? Do we know? Do we need to know?

Jonboc – As soon as a character introduces us to his/her other romantic half, we get more than an inkling as to what that character’s sexual orientation is. So are you suggesting that the writers should never introduce us, for instance, to Kirk’s girlfriend or to Sulu’s sweetheart (who may be male or female) because then we would be given fairly definitive hints as to the characters’ sexual orientation?

Sex is what makes us and our orientation is a part of who we are. It is an essential aspect to our humanity. The fact that the Kelvin Universe Sulu is gay, while the vast majority of work colleagues are likely not, seems to tie in with statistics which estimates that between 5% and 10% of any given population will be homosexual and way more are likely bisexual.

Finally – Star Trek has been allowed to come out of this particular closet and represent a minority as well as the majority.

Movies, television series, stage plays are all about representation.

@ Keachick

Well said — I agree with everything in your post.

@ Keachick
Totally

Well said Keachick! Sexuality is an important part of human beings….mostly because its fun lol. Star Trek from day one has been ABOUT representation and I don’t mean just at the human level even the alien level. Roddenberry decided in the 24th century we needed to see a Klingon on the bridge of a Starfleet vessel. Star Trek was taking its own prejudice within its universe and saying that progress and inclusion should always be the goals of the humanity. But yes TOS was all about representing people who were basically ignored or shunned on TV: Blacks, Asians, Russians, etc. It was making the very point people like Jonboc is now trying to pretend never existed. And now, 50 years later, what is ironic about it is Trek is very much BEHIND the issue of gay and lesbian representation. They have been a component of mainstream media for well over a decade now. I can’t think of a single show I watch that doesn’t have a gay character in it, even if its not a main character. I watch a lot of shows on ABC and I applaud that network because so many of their shows have gay and lesbians characters and interracial relationships and none of it is a big deal. It just IS like so much of it is today. Guess you have to thank Shonda Rhimes for a lot of that—a straight black woman and has made all her shows representing all people regardless of color or… Read more »

Quite interesting. SO characters having a straight relationship or romance means “no clue about someone’s sexuality” and Kirk lying down a female alien almost every episode means “sexuality is NOT an issue”.
But implying a character has a same-sex partner means “sexuality is an issue”?
In a time when it isn’t?

Kirk was “lying down” with just about every female alien, usually manipulating them into saving their lives or the ship. He wasn’t bed-hopping. Watch much TOS?

jonboc,

Wait, you are saying Kirk got it on with the Horta? Fascinating…

Disinvited, whatever happened, when they weren’t on-screen is their business…long as no one’s getting hurt, to each/his/her/it own!

Which is why as John Cho said it is presented in a matter of fact manner. It is NOT a big deal in the 24th century. Rather similar to how Kirk and Co could not fathom the racial divide in Let That Be Your Last Battlefield. You think it is MORE diverse to never acknowledge that anyone in Trek is anything but straight? Sulu having a child and partner back at home is a classic conundrum for anyone in the military. How is this pandering?

J820…no, it’s more diverse if you dont feel like you HAVE to acknowledge it….it simply exists, without fanfare….and it’s ok. Which SHOULD be an automatic assumption by fans when watching the Trek universe. There is some sort of “need” to feel included in Trek by many members of the gay community. I don’t know why. I’m not gay so I don’t understand the need to see such representation. Personally, that is all backstory that is neither here nor there as far as I’m concerned, unless…like Kirk seducing a woman to gain back control of his ship..it is integral to the plot. I mean, If I want Sulu to be a Baptist…then he’s a Baptist. If it makes me feel good to think that Scotty practices the Catholic faith, then I can believe it. But I would have no drive or desire to see him attend mass on screen…and I wouldnt feel the least bit offended or neglected, if I were of the Catholic faith and his religion was never discussed. But he could…say, to flesh out the character, he could have a scene where attends mass, rosary beads in hand. Ok, cool, Scotty is Catholic. Fine. Ok…he likes booze too, and technical manuals…great, now let’s move on. But the problem is, you can’t move forward. Next you get the complaining. Why aren’t the Muslims represented? Where are the atheists?? Why is Trek not including the Buddhists? Where does it end? Do you just say, look, in Trek’s time, everyone is… Read more »

For God’s sake, they’re likely mentioning his husband and daughter in a throwaway line. There’s no ‘sexuality’ there.

Pity, cho is Cute & I’m over Kirk’s Junk.

That’s it. You don’t see the need for representation because you are constantly represented as a heterosexual male, just as I am as a heterosexual female.

However, if you have a different orientation, which means that you do not feel the same kind of heterosexual attraction as most of us do, then you can feel left out, lonely, even wrong somehow. I think it is natural that we see ourselves or aspects represented by others in some way or other.

Bread and Circuses showed Kirk and Uhura responding positively to the people’s belief and desire to live as the Son of God wished for them. Of course, Spock often immersed himself in meditation rituals according to the words of Surak and Vulcan custom and we had Worf learn and embrace his Klingon heritage and (religious) customs. Major Kira was represented as quite devout in her belief of Bajor religious/spiritual beliefs.

I am sure (and hope) that a member of crew may reveal his Buddhist beliefs and another Hindu/Bahai faith, while another will express agnostic/atheist rationales.

Maybe it will happen, should an episode warrant it.

However, who one chooses to share their (sexual) life and raise children together is a much more fundamental human need and representation of such is OK, very OK!

Wow I have never heard of the Bahai religion until you just mentioned it. I looked it up, thats the kind of religion atheists like me can get behind!

And yes I have been studying the tenants of Hinduism for a year now, just from an academic perspective and that religion has so many beautiful concepts and philosophies that I knew nothing about. It has really expanded my ideas of what religion is or could be. I understand why its used in a lot of films even if on a subtext level. It has made me rethink religion in a positive way. I was always mostly negative about it (although I know there are many great tenants about them all) but Hinduism is just fascinating on so many levels. I wish we did see more Hindu characters in mainstream media. I guess because its seen as an ‘Indian’ religion its kind of ignored but it really is an amazing and complex philosophy that sadly gets over looked in the west.

Oh and it kills me how you point out the fact that Scotty or Chekovs sexuality has never been mentioned but seem to forget the HUNDREDS of characters whose sexuality is not only mentioned but actively a big part of their characters lol. THIS is exactly the problem. Kirk has been getting for 50 years now. Its not only part of who that character is and its celebrated. I can’t count how many characters we see having (or implying) they have sex in these films. But those are ok. Why? Because they are STRAIGHT! But notice you said you have no idea of ‘Skipper’ and ‘Gliligan’ because those are characters people always suspected to be gay. Dude, THIS right here says it all. Basically if you are straight you are MORE THAN WELCOMED to flaunt being straight in every way possible. You can be married, in multiple relations or be the ultimate man whore. But hey if we so much as SUSPECT a character is gay, in any shape or form, then wooooah there, who needs to know if these people are gay right? Who needs to ever talk about it? Or show it? Or simply acknowledge it. Hey if Sulu is gay that isn’t any of our business and no one needs to talk about it at all, ever. Because sexuality is never discussed in Star Trek….if they are gay is basically what you are saying, right? Meanwhile lets watch Kirk have a threesome with two female cat aliens… Read more »

@Tiger

“Meanwhile lets watch Kirk have a threesome with two female cat aliens lol.”

Which shows bi-sexual/lesbian characters together with Kirk…and they are flaunting it, which thereby disproves your own point that same sex situations are not flaunted in modern Star Trek.

@ Prodigal Son

Yeah that made zero sense lol. I’m talking STORY LINES man. C’mon. How many STRAIGHT story lines has Trek had over the years with all the shows and films? There has probably been well over two hundred stories revolving around heterosexual relationships when you add up all the standalone episodes.

Now how many can you count as ‘gay’? At best I can think of two. One from TNG and another from DS9 and both of those were about the CHALLENGES of being with the same sex, not simply a story line of characters of just being gay. This will be the first time a character is just is and nothing more as it SHOULD be..

But I guess that’s ‘flaunting’ it in your world. But the 200+ stories and plots about straight relationships? Who cares, right?

Exactly. Let Trek be Trek, no need to parlay to 2016 hot topics.

Star Trek (especially the original series) owes its success to “pandering to hot topics.” So, let Trek be Trek.

Wow you know NOTHING about Star Trek lol. Star Trek was ALWAYS about the issues of today. My god, are people here Trek fans or have you just seen these two movies???

Do yourself a favor. GO to Youtube and look up an amazing video called “Star Trek: 50 Years of Humanism”. It goes to the heart of what Trek is and in fact there is an amazing section in the video where homosexulaity is discussed.

And whats GREAT about this revelation is this isn’t shown as a ‘social issue’ its just Sulu married with a kid…as many gay people today are married with kids, only 300 years in the feakin future.

Anyone, please, go watch that video. Its 15 minutes and it sums up the beauty of what Trek is really about.

…hate to burst your bubble…but a lot of that “Star Trek is all about little morality tales and modern allegory, clap-trap was created post -TOS by fans who built it up over the years…culminating in the pretentious TMP and dull TNG…the turning point when Trek itself began to believe these things, thanks to new-age Roddenberry, along with some of the fans. A lot of the lofty humanistic “issues”, held in such high regard on the original Star Trek could easily be found by switching the channel…where a similar discussion on racism might be found with an indian or a Chinese immigrant. Trek had no exclusivity to such things. TOS was action/adventure but yes, it had some great thoughtful stories, it also had some that were just adventure based, futuristic fun.

Hate to burst YOUR bubble but yeah its still Star Trek and its the dominate story telling in Trek today. And seriously WATCH that video on Youtube. There are just as many examples from it in TOS as there are in TNG and DS9. ;)

@Baxter Er, have you seen Star Trek?

Was it pandering when Star Trek showed Kirk kissing Uhura? Was it pandering when it showed a diverse crew of equal social status? No to both. How is it forcing anything on you to merely acknowledge the diversity of our species? Since when was Star Trek subtle? They hd a show where 2 men were literally black and white to show how stupid bigotry was.

I also find it funny that people who have no idea of what real Trek is about wouldve been shocked of what was being discussed on the show in the 60s. We all look at it now when a lot of these issues has come and gone but Roddenberry was hitting the conservative establishment every week against racism, the Vietnam war, religious orthodoxy, nuclear weapons, gender equality and so on. These were things that were STILL going on and he had NO problem preaching his sermon about what he considered the evils of a corrupt and intolerant society at the time. Now 50 years later people are upset over an issue that is really no longer an issue? Legally I mean. So whats the problem? Oh right, you still have to acknowledge it actually exists in your backyards. Get over it, seriously get over it. I think you miss the point of what we call EQUAL RIGHTS! Its not just the right to be like the others, its the right to be ACKNOWLEDGED like the others too. I’m black and proud and I don’t mean I’m proud because of my skin color I’m proud that I can be black today and show it every expressive way possible. There was a time you could NOT do that. And sadly gays and lesbians are still fighting for the right just to be seen I guess. Because if ONE gay character is giving this many people a heart attack, Trek fans no less,… Read more »

(( Was it pandering when Star Trek showed Kirk kissing Uhura? ))

Nope, because the episode had nothing to do with showcasing inter-racial relationships and Kirk and Uhura were NOT an inter-racial couple. They had an inter-racial kiss on screen because it was an plot device in the episode that made sense within the story itself. Which was 180o degrees away from DS9 wanting to a lesbian kiss first and THEN writing a plot to work around that.

Proof that the 1960s writers got the point of Star Trek — to tell compelling sci-fi stories. The Abramsverse writers and the SJW don’t get that.

BillyBoy,

Re:Proof that the 1960s writers got the point of Star Trek

The problem for your contention, my dear uninformed fellow, is the original script was not written with Kirk kissing the girl. It was originally the non-human Spock. Shatner had it changed.

jonboc,

Re:Pandering

Wait, aren’t you the one that was claiming that for STAR TREK to continue it had to stop pandering to the the passé squeaky old guard wheels and start pandering to the new millennial squeakers? I’m so confused. But maybe that’s because I know all squeakers have value as they are usually avid and excellent word-of-mouth spreaders, if you can woo them?

Star Trek has a history of addressing current social/civil rights issues through story telling and getting people to think about their own possible biases and prejudices. I dare say, there were several episodes that dealt with controversial topics, and not in a way that was anything like “subtle”! I agree that I don’t want to be “hit over the head” with Sulu’s sexuality, but then again, I rather resent being “hit over the head” with Kirk’s, Spock’s and Uhura’s for that matter. (wink)

Exactly! I just find how disingenious these arguments are. Seriously ONE gay character is ‘hiting you over the head’? One gay character not just in these films but the ENTIRE franchise? A character who Im guessing we dont see with his husband, having any talks with him, just saying he miss the guy. OMG, ALL THE GAYNESS MAKE IT STOP!!!

Meanwhile there Youtube videos of Kirk bedding every alien chick in the galaxy. Isnt that sort of hitting people over the head? Double standards and all. Sad this is coming from so called Trek fans.

I can’t believe I got on the Star Wars fans case when they found out a black guy was in their movie and actually said how stuff like this has been long past for Trek fandom. I guess we still have one more hurdle. Also why it took so long to have a gay character. But so happy they do now.

” there Youtube videos of Kirk bedding every alien chick in the galaxy. ” Umm… no. Anyone who’s actually seen the TOS episodes dozens of times knows the “Kirk bedded every alien chick in the galaxy” never actually happened on the show itself. In fact, that comments shows neither you NOR the nu-Trek writers “get” Star Trek.

@BillyBoy

I get is just fine man, I been watching it for over 40 years. Yes I know they never showed Kirk in bed lol, it was still the 60s. The POINT is its implied sex was on the table. There is only one episode where I know they suggested he spent the night with one of them but the fact remains Kirk could be a man whore and none of the hypocrites blinked.

Now imagine if he was kissing guys the whole time instead? Hmm, I wonder what the discussion would be then?

And in fact you just made my point for me because Sulu isn’t seen with his dude making out or implied sex. They only mention the fact he has a husband and look at the hypocrites going nuts over it lol. You would think there was a full on sex scene or something.

Not “squeaky wheels,” but a demographic with money. Paramount would not have allowed it if there wasn’t the chance to put more asses in seats. Whereas it would have been risky 50 years ago, today, it’s a savvy business decision.

How dare Star Trek Pander to The Gays, to Women, to Blacks (you probably still use the N word), the Asians, the Blind, the Disabled, Native Americans, Klingons, the Russians, Bi-Racial, Mixed Species, Texans, Beagles… The list goes on.
Outragious!

It’s kind of interesting that every one of the other major TOS characters had a heterosexual relationship at some point, but Sulu (apart from one ambiguous scene in TAS) never did. He seemed into Uhura not just in “Mirror, Mirror”, but also in “The Naked Time,” but the latter seemed to be more swashbuckling damsel in distress than romantic.

I doubt Takei had anything to do with it- I imagine if they’d paired him up with a female, he would have played the role- but it’s still interesting.

Nachum,

Re:paired him up with a female

You mean such as when he played Hiro’s father on HEROES?

It’s late but so proud of Star Trek today. :) It’s even more important that it’s a main character and not some alien or some crewmember that maybe dies. Doing that in the 50th anniversary year is so great. Best birthday present. Only sad that Anton Yelchin can’t be here with us. :-(

I respect Takei’s wishes and reasons. I still hope he changes his mind and supports the AU gay Sulu version. Star Trek is optimistic after all.
I agree with wanting to have a new character that has never been closeted in the 23rd century. Like Takei I usually am not a fan of changing a long-time character. However, due to the reboot all characters are set. Therefore that new character would be a minor one, a one-time guest or someone who dies because the starring cast is already big. And that would not be equal representation.
It has to be a major character of the original crew and Sulu is, as far as I can see, the best option. Many fans have already treated Sulu as presumably gay because of Takei’s sexuality and his lack of relationships in the original series and movies. Many of the other reboot characters are already partly sexually defined but not Sulu.

But announcing it as honouring Takei when they knew he was against it is inexcusable.

I’m sorry for all the fans, especially LGBT+ who were so excited about there finally being equal representation only to find out Takei, one of their idols, is against it. It would’ve meant a lot looking at the outpour of joy in the LBGT+ community today, many of whom had assumed his approval.

It doesn’t diminuish my pride in a more equal Star Trek. Let’s stumble into a better future. :-)

Sweet! I totally called this back when he gave the interview saying he had a daughter and a relationship back home :)

It’s sort of disappointing how people are making a big deal out of this. It’s defeating the goal of NOT having someone who happens to be gay be separated and analyzed like a monkey in a zoo. Baby steps, I guess.

Its the FIRST gay character in Trek history, of course people are going to make a big deal about it. Especially since the news is literally just hours old lol. It will be the SECOND gay Trek character everyone will shrug as no big deal. It was a huge deal when Kirk and Uhura kissed in TOS because it was the first. No one batted an eye 40+ years later when Uhura and Spock was shown to be a couple. THats how progress works.

Perhaps now we know why Sulu enjoys swordplay? ; )

You made me laugh.

Don’t make tummy sticks into something it’s not.

Ah, it’s good to be right. :) I’m glad they did this, it makes perfect sense.

It’s about time! And I have no problem that it’s Sulu and that you/some could point out the mirror universe issue. Mirror universe Kira and Ezri were both into women so why not??? I remember when Lt. Hawk was supposed to be gay and then they cut any mention of that on-screen and put it in the book instead. Let it be said about Sulu in passing or briefly just as part of who he is and ya know, it’ll be just fine. I’m sure Takei has to be smiling a bit about this.

Please do not put spoiler in title, thanks.

A character’s sexual orientation is not a spoiler. This was revealed by the actor himself at a publicity event to promote the film. No plot points were revealed.

@Brian Drew,

I beg to differ; this wasn’t revealed in the various trailers/TV spots, and we had no prior knowledge from the previous movies, so it’s a spoiler IMO. Also, Cho revealed it AFTER the Australian premiere of the movie, but since the movie is not out yet in North America; a non-revealing title would have been preferable.

Anyhow, seeing as that most other entertainment sites did the same thing, except one or two, I guess it is time for me to avoid entertainment news feed for the next two weeks!

Brian, of course it’s not a spoiler. Thanks for reporting on it.

It’s about time, this should of happen in the 1980 but they chichen out and kept chickebing out ,doctor who managed it very well indeed with captain jack, I do hope it’s there but not banging you over the head, it should be no biggy type of thing, in some ways I wish nothing had been said and we just see it in the film,I have got a little more faith in this film now

Nice!

Wonderful news! Its such a great honor to Takei to basically retroactively say his character was gay all along. And to have the first gay character in Trek to be such a major one is even better. Its still crazy it took Trek THIS long just to have one freakin gay character although Trek the show has had gay themed story lines. Anyway Beyond still looks and sounds pretty generic but its character moments like this that keeps me interested in seeing it.

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

Ha! More like seeking their own self gratification.

So what? If sexual orientation isn’t a big deal then why the hype? So Sulu is gay, great. Let’s move on. I doubt that this will factor into the movie being any better or worse.

Thats the issue. Sexual orientation still IS a big deal in our society today. Its changing in places like America but people forget nearly half the world its still illegal for being gay. We have gone far in some ways about these issues but as a whole in terms of humanity, its still a big issue, especially for all the people around the world who are killed, jailed and beaten for just being gay.

As for if the film will be better or worse for it, agreed, it won’t. It still looks generic as hell sadly.

And look at the vitriol over the gay marriage decision in the U.S. And the number of states still allowing people to be fired or thrown out of accommodations for being gay.

Well done!

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

Well done? Butcher Roddenberry’s vision. Smh

How does one character’s orientation butcher the ENTIRE vision? Get real Mr. Naysayer. Your comments all over this board are tired and childish.

Finally! I am so happy that Star Trek has FINALLY included an LGBT character, and it feels only weirdly right for it to be our own Hikaru Sulu. It’s a nice little nod to George Takei. As a bisexual man myself, I am so glad that my community is being recognised, even in a passing, normal way that they have described it. Fantastic!

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

It should disgust any fan that they are butchering a established character.

Revealing thst a character is gay is butchering them?

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay),

Re:butchering a established character

Good God, man, they gave him a sexual preference, not a vasectomy!

Trek films have been getting steadily worse since Generations, with Undiscovered country being the last film truly worthy of the Star Trek name and First contact being the only STNG film even remotely worthy. Paramount knows this all to well so they figure if they have to break the ice on an openly gay character, it might as well be in the worst Star Trek film ever made. Smart thinking really as it reduces any collateral damage to the franchise in the future, assuming Star Trek has one given how bad it’s gotten. Since they’ve clearly given up on trying to make decent Trek films and have surrendered instead to gimmick based pandering aimed at the masses, they might as well take the opportunity to throw this in right next to the Sledgehammer music video.

If there’s one thing we can count on, it’s that modern Trek won’t be turning out any future world leaders, tech CEO’s or engineers. Plenty of coffee shop employee’s and burger joint cashiers yes, future scientists…probably not.

+1

AlexW,

I don’t think that necessarily follows. Plenty of those who were future world leaders, tech CEO’s or engineers have claimed STAR WARS allegiances too.

But I do note that PLATO’S STEPCHILDREN did, indeed, come out of the totally Paramount run, lower budgeted, and less well done third season; so there may be something to your contention that creatives operating under such stultification resort to throwing things in like that kiss in a last ditch effort to restore some relevancy to the show and its narrative.

You’re going to need a lot of cheese for all that whine.

And since you already know this is the worst Star Trek movie ever, I assume you saw it in Australia, or maybe you’re some kind of psychic? Or, are you just another self-important nerd fan that still hasn’t figured out that in the real world, you’re opinion doesn’t really matter.

Paint with a broad brush much?

This is not “modern Trek”, this is a movie series based on the old Trek – much like “21 Jumpstreet” movies are not “modern Jumpstreet”, but a movie series based on the old show. One part nods to the fans of the old show, nine parts an attempt to cash on selling a famous name to the muggles. ;)

The new TV show will be a proper “modern Trek”.

I just hope sulu doesn’t pull his sword out and start waving it around

I see what you did there. :)

So stoked to hear this! And as I recall reading once, people point to Demora as evidence that Sulu must be straight, because biology…however even in our own time, we’re inventing new ways of creating human life, including children with three biological parents [yes, three…this is a real thing]. 250 years from now, I am certain the technology will exist to allow two men who love each other to have a child together. So take your biology argument and stuff it! ;) #pride

You sir are an idiot.

So basically we should just throw out the biological fact that we’re either designed or have evolved to require genetic material from either sex to reproduce?

There is a simple indisputable fact, natural reproduction of the human race occurs when half of the DNA is provided by a female and the other half by a male.

Homosexual behavior is exhibited by a number of different animals, so that behavior is natural but at no point has a homosexual encounter produced offspring. So the Federation has a ban on genetic engineering, the only possibility is for Sulu to have adopted a child, or provided the genetic material to a surrogate mother.

Navy,

Re:at no point has a (animal) homosexual encounter produced offspring

I suggest you investigate the many reproductive options that the Komodo Dragon enjoys before you start spouting off on what nature’s sexual animals can and can not do.

DSWynne,

Re: Gay men can still have kids with women

I think what you mean to say is that if surrogacy and egg donors are options for heterosexual people facing reproductive challenges, there’s absolutely no legal way those same options can be denied Gay men.

Well, they are talking about giving males temporary wombs to carry a child to term, and whose to say that there won’t be artificial wombs and incubator in the future? Or that Demora had a mother anyway? Gay men can still have kids with women, you know…

How about adopting needy kids that need a home, and stop being so selfish as to need to change the laws of nature to pretend that two dudes having a baby is natural?

“Gee, the lack of humility before nature that’s being displayed here, uh… staggers me.” – Dr Ian Malcom, Jurassic Park

You guys are so nice! Wow, I’m so happy to be part of this community on TrekMovie. I’m an idiot and proud! :P

If you want a source… http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/two-father-babies-could-soon-be-possible-no-egg-donor-required/

As for adoption, I’m assuming that will still be an option in the 23rd century. I’m just saying we’re already closing on the technology to combine two male genomes to form offspring. This ain’t science fiction. I study biology. So I appreciate the opinions, but I stick to my sources.

@ albatrosity

Nope. That’s genetic engineering, and should not be allowed, as it’s not allowed in the Federation. That’s a huge slippery slope.

Prodigal Son,

Re:Natural reproduction

Hmmm…I suppose that “unnatural” argument all depends on whether you regard asexual reproduction, which I believe precedes sex by millions of years, as “natural”. News flash: it’s even more common, occurring within our own bodies even as we type. And an option that the Komodo Dragon, a “natural” sexual creature, still reserves as an option in creating its young.

However, in our times I support your call for resorting to the far less resource expensive adoption option which also serves to benefit society as a whole even beyond addressing an obvious need. I just hope and pray that by the 23rd century the population of orphans have been so reduced that the option is impractical simply because 23rd century society produces so few of them.

@ Disinvited

“Hmmm…I suppose that “unnatural” argument all depends on whether you regard asexual reproduction, which I believe precedes sex by millions of years, as “natural”. News flash: it’s even more common, occurring within our own bodies even as we type.”

Can you please provide me at least one example of a human being alive on Earth today that was born via asexual reproduction?

Prodigal Son,

Re:one example of a human being alive on Earth today that was born via asexual reproduction

We all are. Sex might be the spark that starts the process but there’s not a one of us that gets born alive before our bodies’ differentiated cells start reproducing asexually. Without the start of asexual reproduction going on in the fetus’ body, it never makes it out of the womb alive.

Now I told you that so that I can more specifically address your request, you will find that in the case of all identical twins alive on the Earth today, that science declares the second copy to have occurred, indeed, via asexual reproduction.

@ Disinvted

LOL

And surrogacy and fertility treatments ‘unnatural’ for straights too? Note that gay adoption is still banned in a bunch of places.

No, they still result in the natural combination of male and female genetic material to eventually produce a human.

I support all ways for gays to have babies, short of genetic engineering. Two male sets of DNA do not naturally mingle to create a fertilized egg…despite what Disinvited MD (who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!) says here, you essentially need genetic engineering-level medical tech to get to the point where you have a baby produced by 2 men’s DNA. I am against genetic engineering in all forms, include cloning, as is the fictional United Federation of Planets.

Prodigal Son,

Re: Disinvited MD (who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!)

Typical MJ move. You can’t attack the facts of the message so you attack the messenger.

Three Further Cases of Triploidy in Man Surviving to Birth:

.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1013003/

“In keeping with previously reported triploid infants they showed a variety of abnormalities. From a total of 13 cases now reported the more frequent associated anomalies are low set ears, coloboma of the iris, syndactyly of the hands, a single palmar crease, abnormal male genitalia in XXY individuals, polycystic kidney, and congenital heart defect. The most common anomaly, however, is hydatidiform degeneration of a large placenta.”

Ah, so you stayed at the new Holiday Inn Express on the Island of Dr. Moreau

Prodigal Son,

Re:the Island of Dr. Moreau

Did you even bother noticing the date of that publication? I chose it because I wanted to prove to you that it is a natural occurring phenomenon before the majority of double-sperm fertilizations which occur unintentionally in vitro today.

And vivisection doesn’t occur in nature, and it is a gross misrepresentation on your part to even hint at an equivalence when there can be none between the two, and solely based your cursory perusal of a 43yo research abstract.

Besides, I already agreed with you that adoption today is preferable to parents going to these extremes which would require the in vitro creation of thousands of “naturally” fertilized triploid embryos to sort out one that would have a fair shot at what we would regard as an acceptable quality of life.

My only point was to demonstrate that there is a path to achieve it without the vast genetic manipulation that both you and STAR TREK fear – a very extreme and costly solution but one nonetheless. And it wouldn’t take extreme genetic manipulation to make it less so to a cost effective extent but as even a little is forbidden, mass ovum fertilizations are options that even conventional potential parents wouldn’t hesitate to take and often do in seeking a solution to infertility today.

@ Disinvited

You chose incredibly wrong then, because it completely disproves your point as it shows that genetic technology intervention would so obviously be necessary to correct the huge genetic issues with those births…FACT!

As happens so often in our discussions, you once again inadvertently prove my point for me. Thanks!

““In keeping with previously reported triploid infants they showed a variety of abnormalities. From a total of 13 cases now reported the more frequent associated anomalies are low set ears, coloboma of the iris, syndactyly of the hands, a single palmar crease”….etc. etc. etc.

Ah, so you stayed at the new Holiday Inn Express on the Island of Dr. Moreau

my favourite Jurassic park quote.

I am old enough to remember when the first “test tube baby” was born. It was quite controversial. People called that process “unnatural” and an “abomination” at the time. Now, IVF is common, and folks don’t seem to think it odd or selfish that people would choose to spend money on IVF rather than adopt. I suspect that if we continue at our current rate of technological and medical growth that many things we would currently consider impossible will be common place in 250 years. However, if we do not get our act together fast, it may well be that we won’t even be around in 250 years, rending this all moot.

@ Trek Lady

You are confusing assisted natural fertilization with genetic engineering. Big difference. Combining the genetic material of two males in such a way to eventually produce a fertilized egg that will combine the genetic material of the two males as the only parents REQUIRES GENETIC ENGINEERING.

Prodigal Son,

I don’t think you are speaking from a field in which you enjoy particular expertise.

I think you will find that triploidy is a rare but natural occurrence within humans and that one cause is dispermy, double sperm fertilization of the egg. As dispermy occurs naturally in human fertilization and you are on record supporting assisted natural fertilization, the two males do NOT require genetic engineering as you erroneously assert.

Where this gets difficult and expensive (which is why I support your call for the adoption option) is that it is only in certain rare mixoploidy patterns of differentiation that a triploidy embryo has the potential to grow into an infertile child with a reasonable chance at some quality of life. One would imagine that much like McCoy’s kidney pill these things would be much better dealt with in the 23rd century.

But the point is it IS possible without resorting to methods otherwise derided as “unnatural”. And we could certainly question the morals and ethics of any couple willing to go to that extreme, but it wouldn’t be as if we haven’t heard of infertile heterosexual couples going to questionable extremes in pursuit of a child.

@ Disinvted

My post was not addressed to you.

And the worst of MJ is back.

@ Jack

I have no clue why you are being so negative to me here? I support all ways for gays to have babies, short of genetic engineering. Two male sets of DNA do not naturally mingle to create a fertilized egg…despite was Disinvited MD (who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!) says here, you essentially need genetic engineering-level medical tech to get to the point where you have a baby produced by 2 men. I am against genetic engineering in all forms, include cloning, as is the fictional United Federation of Planets.

I am not “confusing” anything. There was no comparison made in my comment. I was merely pointing out that a technique that is quite common today was once considered “unnatural” by many. You call IVF “assisted natural fertilization”. Believe me, at the time there were a lot of people who did not consider it “natural” at all! Who knows what the future holds… what you consider “unnatural” may be commonplace in the future.

BTW, you also suggest that “genetic engineering” not be allowed. Does that mean a total ban on genetic manipulation? I ask because there are recent discoveries of methods that could allow doctors to genetically alter fetuses to prevent birth defects and genetic diseases. Would you consider this use of genetic engineering to also be wrong? If a mother is told that her child is going to be born with a genetic defect, but that the technology exists to correct that defect in the womb, would you deny the mother and the child that opportunity? Just asking because genetic manipulation is going to become a very real moral question soon, and it behooves us all to consider what limits (if any) we want to put on the process… altering your child to have purple eyes certainly seems unnecessary, but is preventing developmental and genetic deformities also inappropriate?

“I am not “confusing” anything. There was no comparison made in my comment. I was merely pointing out that a technique that is quite common today was once considered “unnatural” by many. You call IVF “assisted natural fertilization”. Believe me, at the time there were a lot of people who did not consider it “natural” at all! Who knows what the future holds… what you consider “unnatural” may be commonplace in the future.” Well, I am in my fifties, and I remember those times as well, and I did not have any issue with IVF and test tube babies, then, and I still don’t today. I do have an issue with genetic engineering on humans though, as does the fictional United Federation of Planets. Once you let open the cover of Pandora’s Box to minor improvements on humans, then you set up kind of proliferation worldwide of genetic engineering technologies, which some countries pushing the envelope, then others pushing it to keep up…pretty soon you are into full-on Eugenics, and we all know the dangers of that direction. I suppose that eventually the medical technology for the rich would support such strange things as synthetics ovaries in men, and kangaroo like appendages to grow babies with men…maybe even supporting conception though the annal canal — say with a bio-engineered receptacle that would include genetically engineered eggs pre-developed from the receiving males DNA — then connected with bio engineered tubes to an appendage perhaps adapted from Kanagroo DNA to allow for… Read more »

One: Federation is heavily biased against genetic manipulation, as such it is not likely to allow any such manipulation for something so frivolous and needless as facilitating the reproduction of two men. Not unless we throw out everything Federation stands for.

Two: being proud of your inborn condition doesn’t really make any sense.

Paul,

Re:biased against genetic manipulation

Agreed, But dispermy occurs naturally in human fertilization, so how can the Federation outlaw it as genetic manipulation? Is it your contention the Federation with its extremely rare death penalty is so biased against dispermy that they mandate abortion against the parents, for which it naturally occurred, wishes?

Enough please with the silly dispermy comments. Dispermy results in severe birth defects. It’s not a a solution for male-only conception, unless you introduced extensive genetic engineering manipulation. This is what is really is..fact:

“It is a rare disorder in which a baby is born with 69 chromosomes instead of 46. Most people are born with two sets of 23 chromosomes, or 46 chromosomes in total. People with Triploidy birth condition have an extra set of chromosomes in their body. A greater amount of chromosomes can lead to many birth defects and result in many developmental problems. In worse cases, this condition may even lead to death.”

Stop peddling this shiit to all of us here, please.

Prodigal Son.

Re:peddling shiit

Quit peddling that CAN means the same as MUST. And I said from the gitgo that it would be an extreme and costly measure. But it could be done without the extreme genetic manipulation that you keep insisting is required as long as the parents had the resources and temerity to create the thousands of embryos it would take to get to one that “naturally” shuffled the right Mixoploidy balance as you and STAR TREK frown on efficiently manipulating merely a few.

“Federation is heavily biased against genetic manipulation, as such it is not likely to allow any such manipulation for something so frivolous and needless as facilitating the reproduction of two men. Not unless we throw out everything Federation stands for.”

Yep! This would not be allowed in the Federation. It would re-open the can of worms from the Eugencis Wars.

This is an excellent development in the ST canon. It’s only logical, after all. IDIC and LLAP.

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

Only logical to butcher Gene’s creation???

Yep

Just like in today’s society, does it really matter what his sexual orientation is? He should be treated the same as other crew members who are heterosexual

This is cool. I’m usually a canon nut when it comes to changes between the Kelvin Universe and the Prime Universe, but this one fits OK for me. I think it certainly fulfills another aspect of the Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations philosophy that is probably long past due in the Trek universe. I also think that it is a little ironic that some have complained about a lack of a gay character in the Star Trek universe, but in reality, there has been one all along (just forced into the closet by lack of script coverage I suppose)! Kudos!

It’s not a change in canon. Sulu had a child in the prime timeline, his sexuality had never been depicted.

Welp, guess I’m not going to see Star Trek Beyond. I’m not a boycotter, just not interested in adding gayness to media for the sake of adding gayness to media.

Well, I wasn’t too keen on having to see three women in their underwear either, or Kirk in bed with three different people, or Uhura and Spock locking lips… but “sexuality in the media” is a thing. Sex sells, they say. Just because this time it happens to be “homosexuality” rather than “heterosexuality” does not make it any more obtrusive.

lmao.

the faux laughable feminist outrage strikes again.

women wear underwear ,its natural, its what they do when their are in their doom. getting outrage about that is ridiculous. the carol underwear scene was bad but uhura and galia in their underwear worked well in the film, galia was about have sex with kirk and uhura got home from school and was taking of her uniform,

spock and uhura was a no brainer, she was one of his top students, they worked professional close together and with time romantic feeling started. that was a no brainier. the only people who were crying and got mad that spock and uhura were a couple were the dumb kirk and spock fan girls who thinkt kirk and spock should be in a sexual relationship instead so they try and fail to sell the idea that spock and uhura is anti feminism when that is pure bullsh!t

Spoken like a guy…. *sigh* Shall I point out that 60% of the main female characters in this film have been shown in their underwear verse around 9% of the men…? But I suppose that is “natural”…Besides, who said I was “outraged”? Just illustrating the double standard towards what is considered “natural” (cause naturally we have to have a scene in a female dorm room while they are in their underwear) when one is speaking about heterosexual depictions of sex verses what causes “outrage” among the faux laughable heterosexual male demographic. Does the Gaila and Uhura underwear scene work? Sure it does. It is also gratuitous? Yes, and acknowledging that does not make me an idiot. I mean, honestly, WHY do you think the writer and direction had Uhura take off her uniform? Really? It was pandering to the young males in the audience and YOU know that. At least admit it was what it was…. And as for Spock and Uhura, yes I think it was a mistake, but not for the reasons you suggest. You call it a “no brainer” that a student and his/her professor end up in a romantic/sexual relationship. Hmmm. Well that “no brainer” will get your butt in serious trouble in most academic settings – even Spock acknowledges this when he at first does not put Uhura on the Enterprise to avoid appearing biased. There are reasons for the big NO FRATERNIZATION rules in academia. Do people break those rules? Yes they do, and… Read more »
Actually I am not going to reveal my gender, you don’t know if I am male or female because it is irrelevant. 60% of female characters, when there are only three characters who are female is not something to cry about and two actually made sense giving the context context 1. one got home , she thought she was alone with her roommate and she took of her dress. that is natural and nothing to cry about. context 2 . one was about to sleep with a man, so of course she is in her underwear with the guy who is also in his underwear. the 3rd one, carol was bad and the director apologised. so it is not a problem at all. you are still criticising what was already admitted as a wrong. The spock/uhura thing been called a mistake by so called feminist fan girls when they are wrapped up reading their slash fanfictions of kirk and spock been in a sexual relationship is laughable at best. if uhura was with anyone but spock, you would not care. now even if you use the weak teacher/student argument, it was not high school and above all we don’t know the true nature of their relationship and how it began but you can’t start by uhura speaking in past sentence. Was I not one of your top students? spock could have been a student and her boyfriend before he became a teacher and she could have finished her classes with… Read more »

“60% of female characters, when there are only three characters who are female is not something to cry about and two actually made sense giving the context”

There were five female characters with a name in the last two movies together, not that Gaila, Winona and Amanda got much to do. Of course this doesn’t make it much better. The gender balance is totally skewed and worse than in the 60s. They didn’t even bother to include Chapel and Rand and don’t keep Carol around for longer. And all this while they created new male characters and went to ridiculous lengths to include Chekov. Ageing him, child genius, making him a chief engineer, etc.

“Shall I point out that 60% of the main female characters in this film have been shown in their underwear”

Make it 100%. Technically there is only one female main character. The others were only one movie support characters.

When we look at all of them, it is 100% for all female characters with a name who aren’t mothers. It is either motherhood or sex object treatment so far.

Yeah I don’t think that is what is being done here at all.

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

You are 100% correct. Pegg and Lin seem to just want to stroke their own ego and get gratification from it. They even deliberately went against the direct wishes of George Takei for goodness sake!!!

Yeah, a wedding ring and daughter are sooooooo gay.

(Sarcasm)

I never say this sort of stuff – but if you don’t get the reason for this, then you don’t get Star Trek.

My first two thoughts:

1. I haven’t done a thorough inventory, but Sulu Prime always seemed at least hetero, and not just in the Mirror Universe. Look at the way he got flustered by Ilia, or the way he and Chekov admired that Klingon woman’s muscles. He could have been bisexual, of course, though, so this isn’t necessarily that big a change. (Incidentally, is the daughter in this film really Demora? Memory Alpha says Demora wasn’t born until 2271 — around the time of ST:TMP — and this film takes place in the early 2260s.)

2. I’m a little leery of characters being rewritten to resemble the actors who played them in general. This reminds me of one of William Shatner’s novels, where Kirk jumps ahead to the 24th century and reads up on what his old shipmates did with their lives, and it turns out that each of them did more or less exactly what the actors who played them did (Sulu getting into politics, etc.). Things like that have the potential to take you out of the story, if it seems like the book or film is winking at our knowledge of what the actors do when they’re not in character.

Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay)

+1

Color blind and gender blind…

I personally don’t care what color your skin is, who you prey to or who you have consentual sex with.

As someone with a very high sex drive, childhood was very confusing. I was left with a male baby sitter who was making unhealthy advances towards me. I’m very blessed that I escaped that situation but it left a lingering effect on me. Ever since then I get stage fright when I try to use a urinal with other people around.

I hope that the new star trek series does not specifically push any kind of sexual conduct and leaves it subtle so adults understand but children do not.

Pushing these gender issues on Children is very dangerous, it could very easily lead them to make an adult choice before they are adults. Not to mention the risk of predators using our sexually open culture to subvert and distort a young mind.

I went through a number of different phases, questioned my sexuality and my sex but it wasn’t until I was 25 that I had a clear enough understanding of who I am, to be able to know I was born a heterosexual male.

So sorry you had trouble on your journey to adulthood. Most people do. To grow up gay without seeing positive examples of it is torture. Providing examples is not “pushing gender issues,” any more than any other depiction of a couple on a TV show.

For Christ’s sake, they’re showing a photo of his daughter and mentioning his husband. How is that detrimental to young viewers.

And aren’t you staying home from this anyway?

I said I’m not going to be there opening night. As a life long Star Trek fan, dreamer even, I believe I have the right to an opinion on any subject related to Trek.

I’m voicing my concern about ensuring that adult subject matter is handled in a way that does not add to the confusion of growing up.

Recently the Canadian government paraded out a 10 year-old that is questioning its gender(I don’t know what gender it is or identifies with so “it” is the only way I know how proceed). While exploring your identy and gender is part of growing up a child’s mind is still developing and it is my opinion that it is dangerous to encourage a child to make an adult decision like that before they are an adult.

I completely agree that homosexuality is natural, that a clear understanding of homosexuality should be taught because education overcomes fear, but that education should also include the notion that some behavior, while normal, goes against the need of our species to propagate.

Heterosexual relationships are the only way of efficiency mass producing future generations.

As a society we must accept homosexuality, we must learn to embrace people’s differences but we must also be honest and identify with and encourage the choices that are best for us as a species.

Navy,

Re:mass producing future generations

You calling for a breadth of education is sound and valid.

However, the planet’s human population is 7 billion and growing. I think the last thing it needs is for the Canadian Government to reorganize its education with the goal of increasing the mass population more efficiently. Nature seems to be doing that quite nicely in those regards. If anything, we need to better educate fertile people toward the goal that the overwhelming number of unplanned pregnancies are abated.

I get it, they made Sulu in the Kelvin Universe gay because the actor who played him in TOS is gay in real life. If that is now the template, I just pray they don’t put Captain Willard Decker in the next Kelvin Universe film :O

Harry Plinkett,

Re:New Story Template

How about a spoiler warning heads up before you spill the direction Quinto’s Spock is going in BEYOND?

No wonder they break up!

;-)

This is fantastic. It’s great that Cho says they don’t make a big deal about it because it honestly shouldn’t be. People should be accepted for who they are without feeling pressured to come out or feeling inadequately different.

It’s also fantastic that Sulu is not someone that is “stereotypically gay” as what Hollywood likes to portray. LGBTQ people are people that come with all shapes, sizes, and personalities.

Being a Star Trek fan, I see the need for gays to be represented given GR’s vision. So the way to do that is the way they have done it here — they picked from the 2 crew members that aren’t really established as heterosexuals — Chekov and Sulu — and went with Sulu. And thus we get 1/7 (13%) of the crew being represented here as gay.

On the acting front, we have 1/7 as well being gay in real life (Quinto), who is the co-lead for these movies as well, so Star Trek satisfies again here with 13% of the actors as being gay.

So for those of you who need to see this happen to validate things for you, this should do it. For others of us who have accepted IDIC since their formative years, and never had any issues here, this is kind of a “so-what?” thing, but nevertheless if it makes people feel more included, then sure, do it…but the media hype on this thing actually makes me sad.

@Prodigal Son,

“but the media hype on this thing actually makes me sad.”

Well, it’s free publicity.

It’s sort of like white people saying they never see racism and therefore it’s made up. People in some states can still be fired and denied housing for being gay (or being perceived as gay). A bunch of people were shot in Orlando because they were gay. Gay teens still commit suicide because they believe they don’t belong here.

“Chekov and Sulu — and went with Sulu. ”

Chekov definitely wouldn’t have worked. He was actively after an attractive female yeoman in “The Apple,” and had an established relationship with a former academy cadet in “The Way to Eden.”

I like it. And I like the fact that they (apparently) don’t feel like they need to make a fuss about it. I mean, that’s the whole point about equality, isn’t it?
Not descriminating means showing neither men, nor women, nor gay people, straight people, bi people, trans people, whatever people as being defined by their gender or sexuality but rather by their personality. That’s the Trek spirit.

Annnnnnnnnd Takei is not happy about this!

==========================

George Takei Reacts to Gay Sulu News: “I Think It’s Really Unfortunate”

And so a scene was written into the new film, [Spoiler]. Pegg and Lin assumed, reasonably, that Takei would be overjoyed at the development — a manifestation of that conversation with Gene Roddenberry in his swimming pool so many years ago.

Except Takei wasn’t overjoyed. He had never asked for Sulu to be gay. In fact, he’d much prefer that he stay straight. “I’m delighted that there’s a gay character,” he tells The Hollywood Reporter. “Unfortunately, it’s a twisting of Gene’s creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it’s really unfortunate.”

He explains that Roddenberry was exhaustive in conceiving his Star Trek characters. (The name Sulu, for example, was based on the Sulu Sea off the coast of the Philippines, so as to render his Asian nationality indeterminate.) And Roddenberry had always envisioned Sulu as heterosexual.

….

Takei first learned of Sulu’s recent same-sex leanings last year, when Cho called him to reveal the big news. Takei tried to convince him to make a new character gay 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.‘”

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-takei-reacts-gay-sulu-909154

“Roddenberry had always envisioned Sulu as heterosexual.” -> strange, given that there was never anything overtly heterosexual depicted about the character (outside of the mirror universe episode that the article mentions).

1) Except Takei is forgetting that 50 years ago Roddenberry couldn’t have envisioned anyone gay and gotten away with that, so who says the man himself didn’t imagine McCoy or Uhura or Sulu being gay and simply couldn’t?

2) Convincing John Cho to make a new character gay? Uh? John Cho is not a writer or a producer. He is an actor, who plays what the script says.

3) While I do understand why Takei may not be keen on mixing his own personal/public life with Sulu, a new character would not cut it. A new character does not have the same impact as taking one of the iconics and giving him (or her) this story. It is not the same thing, period.

4) Somehow I don’t think Leonard Nimoy would have batted an eye if they had decided that Spock is gay.

Oh, Nimoy was very VERY protective of his character…I think he would’ve batted that extra eyelid a time to two.

Nah he wouldn’t. Nimoy said himself that he liked a lot Uhura/Spock in the reboot, why would he care if Spock was gay? Or are you saying that Leonard Nimoy would have a problem with Spock being gay for reasons like, say prejudice? Sorry, I don’t think so.

And there’s not exactly time in a movie like this to make a new gay character of any significance to the story.

The problem with making Spock gay is that the character rivaled Kirk as a “lady’s man.”

(Are people forgetting there is a whole sexuality in between gay and straight?)

I respect Takei’s point on this and NORMALLY he would be right. But, as been stated a thousand times now, this Sulu is in a different universe. Its not even the same guy technically and this Sulu was never made clear of his sexuality. And its never been made clear of Takei’s. So if he doesnt like it, I get it. But its two different characters at the end of the day. Thats what an alternate universe means.

It’s a shame this news is already out there because it’s a really nice reveal / surprise in the film.

Gay or not, would a loving father leave his daughter for a five year mission?

Or is Trek Next Gen’ing already?

Bones did. “The Way to Eden” was originally written about his daughter. Regardless, when you take the oath of enlistment, you go where the brass sends you.

TrekMadeMeWonder and Thorny,

Re:would a loving father leave his daughter for a five year mission

Why not? We are meant to believe Kirk did that for far longer with his son, David, and still loved him enough after to turn Klingon bigot at his murder.

I still think the decision LACKS character.

TrekMadeMeWonder,

Re:LACKS character.

Tell me more about your struggle with Kirk’s lack of character as David’s father and what it does to STAR TREK for you that its captains have this very human character flaw of choosing career over parental responsibilities?

Sorry, Disinvited.

I do not recall David from the show, or Carol Marcus for that matter. Of all the babes Kirk laid on that 60s show, did any make to the big screen? No. Uhura does not count either.

Sorry, I just DO NOT consider the movie franchise as Trek cannon. As they clearly abandoned the style and history of the TV series.

Just like Sulu and his gayness.

Sorry, Disinvited. It’s just my opinion.

TrekMadeMeWonder,

Re:David from the show

If you do not regard any of the movies as part of the show, then logically you have no beef with the script for BEYOND. It is just another non-canon novel. So why exactly are you wasting your time and energy disparaging non-canon filmed literature?

Seriosly, Disinvited.

I still care about the franchise, even after 11 or 12 terrible movies and the questionable Next Gen era, I think (overall) they may be FINALLY be getting back toTrek’s true roots.

And I am sure the Sulu sexual preference storyline will not dominate the movie. Unlike that damned pervert Collins / Decker who really seemed to push the envelope with his attraction to children / mechanisms.

Sorry, Dis….

Awaiting approval from Trekmovie moderators.

IRL, that happens all the time with military families.

wpDiscuz