Simon Pegg took to his personal blog to discuss the reaction to the recent news about Sulu’s sexuality, George Takei’s reaction to it, and how the Kelvin timeline works.
The news that Hikaru Sulu will be gay in Star Trek Beyond and the somewhat surprising negative reaction from George Takei has kept the internet abuzz for days. Today, Simon Pegg lays out the rationale for the changes, and more. Be aware – he uses the occasional colorful metaphor:
Well, this has been interesting. What was initially intended as a moment of progressive affection has drawn comment and debate from the unlikeliest corners. What is heartening is that the vast majority of comments have never questioned the decision to include an LGBT character in Star Trek, just whether or not it should be existing characters or new ones. Those who have whined about the secret agenda of the liberal left, spreading ungodly perversions, through the evil mouthpiece of homosexual Hollywood, can go fuck themselves (apologies to serial masturbators if you find that offensive, we get so little support from the mainstream media).
The main thrust for those who aren’t keen on our LGBT Sulu, seems to come down to two things. Firstly, why Sulu? It’s a good point, I mean it could have been anybody: Kirk is a pansexual fun seeker; who knows why Bones got divorced? Nobody said Spock and Uhura were exclusive; Chekov is just permanently horny and let’s face it, there’s more to Scotty and Keenser than meets the eye. The fact is, we chose Sulu because of George, there was something sweet and poetic about it. Introducing a new gay character had its own set of problems, as I mentioned before, the sexuality of that character would have to be addressed immediately and pointedly and the new characters in Star Trek Beyond have enough on their plate, without stopping to give us the intimate details of their personal lives. We were concerned it might seem clumsy, tokenistic or worse, too little too late, raising and exasperated, “finally!” from those who’ve been waiting for representation for the last 50 years.
So why persist when George Takei wasn’t keen? The thinking behind embracing an existing character was that it felt as though it retroactively put right something that had long been wrong. By the time, we mentioned it to GT, the idea had taken shape, it felt good, interesting and worthy of thought and conversation. We were disappointed that George didn’t see it that way but, truth be told, Sulu Prime seemed to be missing a very important point. With galaxies of respect to the great man, this is not his Sulu. John Cho does not play a young George Takei, nor does he play the same character George Takei played in the original series. He is a different Sulu. This brings me to the second point of contention, Canon.
With the Kelvin timeline, we are not entirely beholden to existing canon, this is an alternate reality and, as such is full of new and alternate possibilities. “BUT WAIT!” I hear you brilliant and beautiful super Trekkies cry, “Canon tells us, Hikaru Sulu was born before the Kelvin incident, so how could his fundamental humanity be altered? Well, the explanation comes down to something very Star Treky; theoretical, quantum physics and the less than simple fact that time is not linear. Sure, we experience time as a contiguous series of cascading events but perception and reality aren’t always the same thing. Spock’s incursion from the Prime Universe created a multidimensional reality shift. The rift in space/time created an entirely new reality in all directions, top to bottom, from the Big Bang to the end of everything. As such this reality was, is and always will be subtly different from the Prime Universe. I don’t believe for one second that Gene Roddenberry wouldn’t have loved the idea of an alternate reality (Mirror, Mirror anyone?). This means, and this is absolutely key, the Kelvin universe can evolve and change in ways that don’t necessarily have to follow the Prime Universe at any point in history, before or after the events of Star Trek ‘09, it can mutate and subvert, it is a playground for the new and the progressive and I know in my heart, that Gene Roddenberry would be proud of us for keeping his ideals alive. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations, this was his dream, that is our dream, it should be everybody’s.
Ultimately, if we love Star Trek, we are all on the same page, we all want Gene’s idea of a tolerant inclusive, diplomatic and loving Universe to become a reality. For those who have joined this debate in the spirit of discussion and forward momentum, it’s been a pleasure to see your reactions. For those who have seen it as an opportunity to sling abuse, or be rude and presumptuous, please take a long hard look in the mirror and remember we are discussing the personal details of a fictional spaceman. In the words of Martin Blank, who are you mad at? Because it’s not me.
I am so excited for you all to see Star Trek Beyond, whether you’re a 50 year veteran or this is your first time around. We made it with love and we made it for everyone.
LLAP
SP
Awesome.
Here is the thing… Pegg wrote “Introducing a new gay character had its own set of problems, as I mentioned before, the sexuality of that character would have to be addressed immediately and pointedly and the new characters in Star Trek Beyond have enough on their plate, without stopping to give us the intimate details of their personal lives.” So not only does this infer that Sulu doesn’t have much on his plate this feature, but also that is not necessarily the case. In fact, if they wanted to make a character gay, they pretty much can do that with anyone who hasn’t been fleshed out to any extent. All they need is to add one line and move on. So the question really comes down to, why do it at all? Is it important for the story? Will it make the movie better? If yes, then by all means, do it. If not then I really do not see the point in getting into any character’s sexual preference, if any.
Whether you agree with it or not Pegg has made it abundantly clear in the blog why they did it.
ML31,
Re:why do it at all?
I don’t think there is or should be ONE exclusive factor for why it was done, but the occurrence of STAR TREK’s 50th Anniversary would be the perfect opportunity to introduce another inclusive characteristic (Especially one that was always intended to be there but wasn’t because of business practicalities of the era in which it was produced.) to the main seven characters that Trek carries across to each script, and to recognize that that core was always intended to represent the inclusion available in that future that many in the present do not yet get to experience in all its perfection.
Respectfully I disagree. I get what Pegg is saying, he wanted to add this characteristic to a person who we already know and who, in any timeline, has some character dimensions already. He didn’t want it to be a totally new character because they felt that this would become the defining, or at the very least the first, thing that we know about the new character.
Not saying he’s right or wrong in this line of thinking, just that I understand what he’s saying. I think what’s being missed here in all the argument is that at it’s core this was supposed to be a meaningful thing to do.
The question I have to ask is why did they make the character Sulu when Takei asked that it not be done because that’s not the character he played and he appreciated the sentiment from what I got from Takei’s statements is that he didn’t like the idea because it was about him and not “Sulu” Why wasn’t it Scotty Pegg’s character or Chekov someone that is not directly tied to a gay man that did not want it to be about him. I think it’s because much like STID they had an idea they decided to stick with it against there better judgement and I appreciate both opinions I think if they wanted it to be one of the main cast it should have been someone other than Sulu
I do not believe that any cast member from TOS, whether it be George or any of the others should have the power to veto any plans that the current caretakers of this franchise have for the new versions of the characters that they used to play.
Do they have the right to complain and be vocal about it?
Sure they do, but they shouldn’t be surprised if changes aren’t made just because they don’t like something.
Exactly! I mean Takei didn’t create nor own the character. I understand they would like his blessing and in all honesty it wouldve made their decision and the backlash easier to handle if Takei liked it but end of the day he PLAYED Sulu, he isn’t Sulu nor has any creative rights to the character.
As as Pegg made clear, its not even the same freakin Sulu. I mean what else needs to be said? HIS Sulu could be straight, this one is gay, not hard to distinguish the two.
Exactly.
I’m so tired of this argument. There’s no point in getting into any character’s sexual preference. Except, stories DO THIS ALL THE TIME. As did Trek. The only characters who didn’t have romantic involvement were the non-white ones (although Uhura did get Nancy Crater as flirty black crewman).
And all they’re doing is adding a line about a husband and a daughter, apparently. That’s it. And it’s in the context of the crew being homesick, frustrated and wondering what they’re doing out there.
He’s talking about a new character created to be the gay character.
Taking an existing, beloved character and quietly showing that he’s gay is actually a beautiful thing.
George doesn’t think Sulu should be gay. But George isn’t the decider here. It might not be honouring Takei personally, but it’s honouring his (very wideky publicized by Takei himself) accomplishments in increasing awareness of gay rights.
I don’t think they’re saying that Sulu has to be gay because George is gay.
Jack, ^^^ what you said, 100%. And thank you Simon Pegg.
Way to go Jack!
Well Said.
Jack, in spite what Pegg said that it could be any character, I think it rather obvious the only reason they opted for Sulu was due to Takei. In fact, I highly suspect that had Takei not been gay or not come out this wouldn’t happen at all.
I also think it possible that a reason Takei isn’t fully behind this is because he is a bit self centered and could very well be bugged that it wasn’t HIM who initiated or implemented this. And he is just being a little ornery about it.
I’m no conspiracy person but part of me is considering the possibility that it was also done more for movie publicity than anything else. They could have not said anything and it would have come and gone. But to have Cho mention it a couple of weeks ahead of the movie gets people talking about the movie and Trek in general.
He says “go fuck yourself” to anyone who doesn’t like his agenda, and then explains in detail how it was agenda not story that drove the decision.
Right back at ya Pegg. This movie is going to be awful. Not because they’ve put a homosexual character in it, but because they have checked boxes in order to get people to come see it. Meaningless action? Check. Amazing looking space aliens without any connection to the story? Check. Woman being valued because she acts like a man? Check. Homosexual character? Check.
When will people who are in these situations ever realize that politicians and Hollywood are just exploiting you? It won’t change your life on bit if there is or isn’t a homosexual character in this movie… but just like a politician knows if they march in a “Gay Pride Parade” that they have just bought your vote for free, Pegg knows you’ll go see Beyond… and probably convince others to as well.
I wonder what “people who are in these situations” means to you.
I wonder what “a woman acting like a man” means to you.
I wonder if a character in “Star Trek” ever inspired you.
I wonder if you’re aware that representation by minorities in films or TV shows is extremely important to minority viewers of those films or TV shows [e.g., Uhura, 1966-1969, an inspiration to women of all colors].
I wonder if you’re bitter about such people or simply the representation of such people.
I wonder if you’re, say, Caucasian, and over 70 years old.
I wonder if you know how awesome it is to laugh at someone who creates and gets upset about a strawman.
Seem like logical conclusions to me. Tell me specifically where I’m wrong.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic
“It won’t change your life on bit if there is or isn’t a homosexual character in this movie…”
This couldn’t be more wrong and self-centered. I take it from your comments you’re white and straight and male and, not that you said anything to indicate this, but also perhaps a Christian? If you’re utterly and totally used to seeing and having your basic identity constantly being reflected in every single aspect of American life, then of course you wouldn’t know what it’s like to never see “yourself” in the culture (other than as an object of ridicule or constant questioning, even if it’s for a make believe version). I’m gay, and I can tell you that especially growing up I would be ECSTATIC just seeing a gay person on TV…and it is exactly because there never are gay people represented normally on TV or movies. It was always as the feminine BFF of some girl or a guy dying of AIDS. I’m beyond (no pun intended) excited that they’re finally just having a regular dude just be himself and have a family, you know, like it is in reality and how straight people are portrayed?
What exactly was “self-centered” about my comment? Even a little? Let alone so much so that it couldn’t be more so.
“I take it from your comments that you’re white straight and male and Christian.”
Well I take it from your comment that your’e a racist bigot.
Kev,
I dunno about this. I think if you were a young gay Star Trek fan living somewhere like the middle of Kansas, having a main character in Star Trek identify as gay might very well change one’s life a bit. Sort of like having Uhura on the bridge made a huge difference to young black girls in the 1960’s – so much so that MLK felt the need to encourage Nichelle Nichols to continue the role.
For free, huh? So the end of the ban on gay service members in the military, the passage of Federal hate crimes law covering LGBTs, the legalization of gay marriage nation-wide, the sea change in popular attitudes about queer people, et al – all in the last 8 years under the leadership of progressives – is, in your opinion, an elaborate con perpetrated by the left on clearly very stupid gay people who will vote for anybody as long as they march in our “parades?”
Well, OK.
Here’s a newsflash for you, Kev: “Gay Pride Parades” are _political marches_. Indeed, queer people are arguably the single most politically attuned demographic group in the country. We know who to vote for – and perhaps more to the point, who NOT to vote for. Because we had to. It’s always been life or death for us.
Apparently my reply to you is awaiting moderation. Nothing like the open minded free thinking Left to control any thought that might disagree with them…
Kev, I have had my comments go through moderation as well… it is NOT a left wing conspriacy. Besides, no one can control your “thoughts” – just what you post.
As for what is self-centered – perhaps self-focused would have been a better description. When you claim that having a homosexual character introduced as one of the premier members of the Enterprise crew will have no effect on anyone’s life, what you are doing is assuming that everyone shares your worldview, and since it makes no difference to you, if is meaningless for everyone. In fact, it might have a very large impact on homosexual individuals. You have a point about “pandering” but sometimes people do good things for genuinely good reasons. I prefer to give Pegg the benefit of a doubt, since he truly is a Trek fan and seems to understand the whole idea of IDIC.
You had to project a whole scenario on my comment in order to twist it into being “self focused.” Perhaps instead of having an argument with someone you’re making up in your mind you could discuss the things I brought up in my comment… just a thought.
Entertainment is not parenting, and should never be. Period.
As for giving Pegg the benefit of the doubt, he lost that privilege when he told millions of people to go fuck themselves and then explained how they are exactly right about what he is doing.
I did discuss the things you brought up in your comment. I pointed out (twice) that having a homosexual character in Star trek could very well have an impact on someone’s life, as opposed to what you stated, which was, “It won’t change your life on bit if there is or isn’t a homosexual character in this movie…” So, you tell me, if your opinion is not the result of being “self focused” then please enlighten me – what gives you the ability to generalize for all others whether or not a gay character would have an effect on their lives? How can you know that to be so?
Kev,
Re: lost privilege
I guess there’s nothing like selective amnesia. Pegg was the author of the F-bomb that was heard around the internet when Orci quoted him. Care to explain why when it was dropped by him back then and then was repeated by his good friend, it didn’t lose him any privileges? Or is it just likely that the issue isn’t the F-bomb itself so much as that in this case he chose to disagree with you?
@ Trek Lady – Love your post and agree with it, but Kev is NOT right about “pandering,” which means “to gratify or indulge an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.”
People – if you think LGBT members are inherently immoral or distasteful and proceed from that assumption – um, you’re a bigot. That’s one of those things ONLY bigots say.
I know you on the Left love to re-define things in order to win arguments with Memes…
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pandering
@ Kev – Uh, what I posted is the definition that comes up when you google “pander.” It is the first definition, it is for the verb form – which is the form we’ve been talking about – and it is posted verbatim. Good to know where you stand on debating in good faith, though. This will be my last reply to you.
@scottevill
I wasn’t referring to Pegg or Trek when I spoke of pandering – more the general idea Kev raised of politicians pandering in order to get votes – which I agree does happen. This particular presidential race has certainly made that crystal clear… :)
I’m sorry, but timeline divergence is just that, a divergence at a set point. The timeline split in 2233 when Kelvin was destroyed. A rift in space-time would not have altered events for the entire history of this new universe/timeline because that rift only had an exit point in one point in space time, which was near the Klingon border in the year 2233.
That being said, most sources (non-canonical mind you) claim Sulu was born in 2237, which places his birth after the divergence point. So it’s still possible that altered events lead this Sulu to take a different path than the one in the prime timeline.
The moral of the story: do your research, and don’t try to rewrite physics.
And that’s the rub isn’t it? Was Sulu born prior to Nero’s arrival or after? Canon has not previously defined it … So I guess now we have our answer.
Nero changing the timeline is absolutely valid for virtually any differences that arise in the KT.
So if Sulu was born after, it isn’t even remotely plausible that Sulu’s parents conceived him at the exact same microsecond that they did originally in the Prime Universe. Everyone’s lives would have changed after the Kelvin incident. Sulu may not even have the same parents as he did in the Prime timeline. Given genetics, it’s impossible for Sulu to be the exact same character from the Prime Timeline, just like it’s impossible that Mirror Sulu was the exact same character. Do they serve the same function in all three universes? Essentially yes, but they aren’t identical. And that’s the distinction people seem to forget.
It would seem Pegg is trying to pull and Orci, as this is the most logical way to treat this problem in the KT without impacting the Prime Universe character, for those that need that. I personally don’t see a problem viewing Prime Sulu as gay, however. Canon fully supports it.
Rewrite physics? Last time I checked, time travel to the past was not possible.
And by the way, having re-read Pegg’s reasoning, I’m in agreement with you. He dug himself a hole trying to “Orci” his way out of the problem. He just needed to do a little research to know that Sulu’s birthdate was not a confirmed canon date that needed retconing.
“non-canonical mind you”
Again, we’re taking Pegg’s argument a little too literally. None of this is real. In this universe, Sulu has a husband and daughter. In TOS, accoridng to Takei, he did not. But we’ve never seen actual evidence of that either.
And you could bullshit retcon anything – the Kelvin could have sent distortion waves years or decades before it emerged (Spock entered a few seconds later but emerged 25 years after Nero) that somehow altered events in some way that slightly changed Sulu’s birth order, or delayed conception by 12 seconds or caused a change to the birth hormones he was exposed to in the womb. Does it really matter?
I do get the argument – if you’re saying this Sulu has a husband, then you’re saying that Takei’s Sulu was gay. I don’t really buy that. But, even if he were, I don’t think that changes anything about TOS or the movies.
We don’t know if prime Sulu was gay or not because his sexual orientation was never indicated in the TOS TV and movie series.
George Takei should know that it means nought what GR or anyone may have intended if it did not appear on film.
Takei is just bitchy because he couldn’t play a gay Sulu back then and now John Cho can!
Nope. In a universe/multiverse that acknowledges frequent time travel, this rift DOES occure in various directions… Think about it! Nero changes the timeline by destroying the Kelvin, so yes, this causes changes from this point onwards. BUT: We are save to say that his actions have also either caused or prevented other time-travelling activities by Starfleet or other factions that might have caused entirely new sets of changes…
Just look at how many times crews of starships called Enterprise have been involved in time travel. Starfleet has got hundreds of warp-capable ships, there are millions or even billions of space-faring species that might have had experience with time travel. So each and every chnage to the timeline does not just afflict its future but also the past because the patterns of potential time travel events are altered too…
That’s some weapons grade TNG technobabble right there, thumbs up to Simon.
LOL, some thoughts shortly. ;)
He should have just said it’s wibbly wobbly timey wimey. It would have made more sense.
Considering the entire premise of these films came from a TNG episode Parallels it’s only fitting. ;)
I suspect its real source was Marvel’s Ultimate line of comics, which did a second, “more sophisticated,” more cohesive draft on Marvel History.
Works for me. LLAP.
Totally on board with this!
Love it, even though I think the alternate universe reasoning is suspect (i.e. all he had to do was say Sulu’s sexuality in TOS was not conclusive, and thus the writers were free to develop it now)
I wish all Hollywood types were this honest and direct!
(i.e. all he had to do was say Sulu’s sexuality in TOS was not conclusive, and thus the writers were free to develop it now)
This. So much this.
People HAVE been saying that and they still throw out things like Sulu having a daughter or he smiled at a woman once in episode #34 to prove he’s a manly horn dog so this was the back up explanation. And yeah it actually makes sense. I been saying this since it was announced. I’m happy Pegg went into this much detail to explain it fully.
TNG fans though should love this reasoning….it’s like Pegg solved the whole Sulu Gay thing in the last 5 minutes of the episode….
RIKER: Computer, release command control to this station. Authorization, Riker-Omega-Three. Okay, Morta. The Enterprise computer system is controlled by three primary main processing cores cross linked with a redundant melacortz ramistat and fourteen kiloquad interface modules. The core elements are based on FTL nanoprocessor units arranged into twenty-five bilateral kelilactirals with twenty of those units being slaved to the central heisenfram terminal…..you do know what a bilateral kelilactiral is, don’t you?
MORTA: ….Of course I do, human. I am not stupid!
RIKER: …No, of course not. Now this is the isopalavial interface which controls the main firomactal drive unit. Don’t touch that! You’ll blow up the entire firomactal drive!
MORTA: What? Wait….What is… what is a firomactal? Just explain it to me!
RIKER: Sigh! That is the firomactal drive unit…it controls the central ramistat core and also keeps the ontarian manifold within forty thousand KRG.
One of these days we need to rewrite a technobabble segment using just medical terms, excluding gene resequencing, of course.
LOL! But yeah thats how this universe was created in the first place. THIS is what Star Trek is about and I love it.
I remember the 09 film how people were complaining its no way Kirk can’t drive a car because in TOS episode #45, scene 11 he was lousy at it. If they simply acknowledged its just two different Kirks from day one people would be less anal about this stuff.
I suppose the backwards thing might work– a’la All Good Things
Exactly. And, I know I’m reaching, but look how the Narada emerged 25 years before Spock’s warp ship, even though it ony went through a few seconds earlier. Maybe the Narada sent waves before it or there were waves from the red matter or whatever that slightly changed certain events that led to a chain that… – Sulu’s dad was home 3 minutes later than he would have been the night of Sulu’s conception because of a wierd signal at work, or whatever… and it was enough…
Who knows? Does it really matter?
Some folks don’t like change.
But I disagree with Takei that Sulu was ever defined by his heterosexuality.
“But I disagree with Takei that Sulu was ever defined by his heterosexuality.”
He wasn’t. Ever. Even if that was Sulu’s intent, it didn’t come across on the screen. And part of that I lay at Takei’s feet. He simply wasn’t a great actor, with all due respect.
It’s funny how certain kinds of people keep referring to themselves and their products as “progressive”.
“Progress” means change for the better. Are you sure your changes are for the better? Aren’t they just changes for the sake of changes? Some changes may even be detrimental in the long run, you know. Especially the ones made for the sake of change.
And either way, there have been gay characters on TV since the 80s… so you’re not being progressive, you’re just desperately trying to catch up on a yesterday’s trend.
That said, I couldn’t care less whom is Sulu bedding with. As long as it is between two consenting adults, it’s nobody’s business but theirs. :P
Its still progressive, believe me. A main, existing character in a blockbuster who’s not defined by his sexual orientation? And a gay character in a franchise founded on inclusion but yet which has never, in hundreds of hours of television, had a gay character?
There have been gay supporting characters and gay vilains since the 80’s, maybe, but it’s certainly not yesterday’s trend. There are comments in this site about how this move is disrespectful to parents who want to bring their kids to Star Trek.
Showing Sulu with a family is disrespectful to families?
Why is it when the issue is about showing someone to be gay, we start talking about how we don’t care about who they’re sleeping with and that it should be private.
When I see a couple with a kid or a family sitcom, I don’t start grousing that they’re shoving their sexuality down my throat.
It is progressive but yes it is also funny how much catch up Star Trek is doing on an issue that is part of every mainstream show and film these days. There are now actual shows and films staring gay characters. It hasnt been a big deal for quite awhile now which is why the entire “OMG GAY PEOPLE IN STAR TREK????” is so odd to me. Sure probably a big part of being Sulu himself but yeah I can’t think of any shows I watch today that doesn’t have strong gay characters. There is always at least one (two if they are dating or married ;)).
Tiger, It sure is odd to me that so many fans of Trek, a progressive show since its debut in 1966, are so conservative as to be complaining about this stuff. I love that it’s just a given in the new movie.
Many military folk have been surprised over the last 20 years to find one of their comrades is gay. I have a friend who is gay and gives no overt signs; only a fellow gay would suss it out.
It’s an overreaction to something now commonplace that wasn’t permitted to be shown in the 1960s. Ermigerd!
Marja,
Star Trek appeals to progressive types, but it also tends to appeal to certain conservative that like space battles and the quasi military structure of Star Fleet – there are a lot of members of the various military forces in fandom (as well as a good number who never served but still enjoy being part of the sort of military ranking system via belonging to various fan clubs.) The dichotomy always surprises me a bit too.
There are liberal peaceniks like me who were in the military [Coast Guard], but mine probably doesn’t “count,” being “The Lifesavers.” Canada referred to the USCG as a para-military service ;-) That, Star Trek, and Lt Uhura were why I joined the USCG.
But I agree that certain conservative types do seem more excited by battles and tech.
Considering that homosexual acts between consenting adults have only been legal within the last 30 years or so (depending on where you live), yes, it is progress that people who do not share a majority orientation are given a mention sometimes.
I have the DVD of the Imitation Game starring Benedict Cumberbath as Alan Turing, the forefather of the modern computer. He was also gay, and when the authorities found out, he had the choice between going to prison or have “treatment”, ie chemical castration. He chose treatment, which involved being forced to take large does of oestrogen, which caused a myriad of health problems, given that he was a man and not a woman. He fell into serious depression and eventually committed suicide. He was one of lucky ones.
Not so for the homosexuals, if outed, died in Nazi concentration camps…
As far as disrespectful to families, what children need most is to be loved, respected, nurtured, preferably by their own parents. Well, Sulu is a parent and it appears a loving one at that. With all the horrors of child neglect, it is heartening to hear a man speak so openly about his affection for his child and the man (in this case) with whom he shares her raising.
Perspective, please.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/william-shatner-comiccon-key-montreal-1.3671985
LLAP
In a way, Gene tried to introduce this in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, with a character (Ilia) who, though we only saw her in a hetero relationship, was clearly from a society whose sexual mores were so much more open that she had to have an oath of celibacy on record. And the introduction of her sex life, in the middle of the V’Ger crisis, was wayyy clunky and then on top of that she was killed off which happens (coincidentally?) to so many characters in so many media just after they reveal their unconventional sexuality. Better to take an existing character and recast them, since then many narrative problems are solved – and you can’t easily avoid the issue going forward (although that’s probably the Star Trek equivalent of binding Parliament, but hey, it is a second canon). Bottom line, Simon makes a good point.
…and unlike everyone else, Sulu sure was stumbling over his dropped jaw when he was next to her at the helm lol just sayin’.
Funny how you mention Ilia and the Deltans. I had a major league “huh?” when I heard she (and only Deltans I guess) needed an oath of celibacy. And then nothing was mentioned further. It was explained in the novelization which I read later. But if you are going to do something like that the movie makers ought to know it warrants some kind of on screen explanation. If you aren’t going to revisit the concept or explain it away somehow then don’t say it to begin with. There is no need.
As much as I don’t want it to bother me, this really does, at least a little. It’s a big freaking deal that George very politely and privately asked them NOT TO DO THIS!
Do any of you understand how Hollywood has disrespected him, again?
George had a hard enough time making it in Hollywood back in those dark days of institutional homophobia. He knew he had to stay in the closet. He could never be outed for fear of losing his career, and life.
But to, 50 years later, have this films writer and director tell him, in essence, you’re struggle was so horrible, it makes a great plot twist! Now let’s “out” your character, and you can take it or leave it.
Just consider the awful, arrogant irony?
Takei lived a very private hell back then, and now has to watch as the role he is most identified with, is outed and paraded publicly as some kind of token gay tribute?
I’m gay, I love Star Trek, I love George Takei, and I know deep in my soul this is wrong. His life, struggle, and dignity doesn’t deserve to be a spectacle for publicity because some douchebag gets cute with techno babble and excuses.
Dignity? Did you see Takei’s performance on the Comedy Central Shatner roast? Or have you ever heard his interviews on Howard Stern over the years? I think for George, the USS Dignity ship set sail a long time ago… There is no logical (ahem) reason to be opposed to this Kevlin Timeline character detail.
So people who have (for example) done outrageous things in their lives cannot express philosophically valid opinions at any subsequent point?
This reminds me of George Carlin, who was a classic “bad boy” of comedy. His comedic shtick was unrestrained and frankly shocking. His personal philosophy (which was actually more libertarian and quasi-anarchic than many liberals want to admit), however, was sound, in that it had integrity. And — this is the point — he had a very serious side. In fact, his seriousness in private interviews with journalists was often a surprise. So should we never have taken Carlin seriously at all merely because part of his public life was so “schticky,” so to speak?
And isn’t the idea that we can’t take Takei seriously these days because he is a fun-loving type of guy an ad hominem argument? What’s the point of criticizing his private ideas of today simply through imputation based on dislike of his public persona in the past (even the recent past) by those who would say that his acts don’t comport with some concept of dignity? Why wouldn’t doing so be prejudicial in itself?
If I didn’t know the backstory to this, if I had just seen the reveal in the film, my reaction would have been “Fine. Whatever”. But knowing that it was intended as an homage to GT, and they went through with it anyway despite his disapproval, does bother me. More than anything, the public response by Pegg and Quinto rubs me the wrong way. He’s entitled to his opinion, but we’re younger and oh so progressive. It just seems callous and douchey to me.
Here’s how I feel about this: I supported Takei when he came out, but I haven’t been a fan of the Shatner bashing or the constant attention-seeking.
He came out late and has made a second career that has very much focused on his being gay. He’s widely known as a gay man.
He’s done good work to raise awareness for gay equal rights. And this acknowledges that work.
Does it matter that personally, he doesn’t feel that the character of Sulu should be gay? Not really.
This isn’t about the character – this about Takei trying to get attention and nursing yet another grudge.
Calling it a “twisting of Gene Roddenberry’s creation” is adding fuel to the homophobes.
As I said above why did it have to be Sulu if GT was not for this why wasn’t it Scotty or another character. They did not have to disrespect GT’s wishes he urged them to make a new character which can be difficult however we do have the space opened up by Carol Marcus for someone new to join the crew. After know the backstory behind the choice I just don’t like the character they picked I don’t see why they didn’t do something different.
Er…
I regret posting that.
You should. I had my 5 year old son sitting on my lap last night and I was scrolling through this page.
Fortunately, I don’t think he got a good look.
Why in the world would you post something like that?!!??!?!?
It needs to be taken down now.
We were hearing a lot about how this is an attack on Takei’s dignity. And it was posted on news sites at the time.
That was really inconsiderate and really disturbing of you to post that image, Jack.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
That’s going to take a full month to excise that from my brain lol.
@ Jack, CANNOT UNSEE
If its gay its ok. I am surprised at the abovepost has not been censod
red. Seriosly, TM! is there no shame these days?
Takei look sooooo happy though lol. And it has been ‘censored’ down there ;).
@Mac, JMHO …
Takei has many reasons to be proud of his spokesmanship for gay people. His celebrity has aided in that. And I get what you’re saying about his coping with homophobia for so long.
But I do not take it as an irony or a horrible arrogance on anyone’s part to make Sulu gay. I think it truly is a tribute to the progress Takei has so greatly contributed to. I am sorry he personally objects to this particular thing, and I believe he has a right to protest it, but I think that his “character attribute” complaint is small potatoes compared to Takei’s great accomplishments as a gay activist.
Let us say it’s not only a tribute to gays who have served their countries, or labored in fear that they might lose their jobs, or any number of things. Let us say it is a tribute to Takei’s contributions as a gay activist that this “Sulu is gay” is presented as a matter of fact in the movie; that in that day and age it is an everyday thing [as it is now becoming].
Marja, it’s not a tribute to anything if the person you are avowedly honoring opposes what you are doing to honor him. It would be like raising the Confederate flag to honor the ideals diversity that Martin Luther King represented. It’s a near-perversion of the concept of MLK’s ideals to do that. And while you COULD make an argument that raising such a flag is a “tribute” to “diversity,” in SOME sense, it would be absurd to do so in the name of MLK when all his life he fought against the people who used Confederate ideals against him, and his ideas.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
When the writers wrote in a line that made this Sulu gay, they believed that such would be, in part, a tribute to George Takei and said so. It is George Takei who is objecting and telling the writers to not have this Sulu be gay. The problem lies with George Takei, not with the writers or the studio and I suspect with other gay people living in our communities.
It is not all about George.
Hat Rick,
Re:not a tribute to anything
You are confusing things about honors and tributes. It’s nice if the subject is on board with it but society still honors those who refuse to acknowledge their honors for one reason or another, often because they have a marvelous sense of humility.
Marlon Brando was still honored by his peers awarding him with an Academy Award, even though he personally refused to accept it as he thought there were more pressing issues in the world, such as Native American rights, than silly gold statuettes.
I have often wondered at what a terrific internal conflict Takei must have had with the courage to speak out on the interment camps while at the same time fearing that he could be outed?
Takei is a complex man who’s led a rather complex life. Somehow, I don’t think the issues for him in this are as simple as he wants them to be.
Hat Rick,
You have have very little understanding of the honoring history in the South if you think such apparent contradictions didn’t and couldn’t occur. Oh they were the exception and the minority, but they happened nonetheless, and those oddities directly lead to the exclusive Confederate Decorating Day becoming the Memorial Day that honors all wars dead, not just combatant soldiers, and that people in the U.S. for one reason or another, often in ignorance, get on their soapbox about it not really being a tribute to anything because military decorum is not observed.
Hat Rick, It would be more akin to raising the “Black Power!” flag, so your analogy is lacking. Therefore, your perspective with relation to what I said is difficult to understand. The “tribute to Takei” idea perhaps should have been dropped in favor of “a tribute to all gay people who’ve served their country.”
It’s not necessarily about Takei, it’s about finally recognising that gays are right there, doing jobs along with hets. I’m sad that George has said what he has and that he took against the idea. His acting in TOS was not full of subtexts about being a heterosexual, so I never really identified Sulu as “one” or “the Other.”
Well said. Court adjured!!!
There is a major flaw with his argument. Every gay person I know say it isn’t a choice, that they are born gay.
So now Simon Pegg is has left this a little too open, Sulu could have made the choice to be gay in the new universe, or Sulu could have been in the closet in the prime universe. The basic core of the characters are still the same in new Trek, so their explanation for pandering is lazy at best. Never mind that Starfleet had the death penalty for treason and Kirk admitted to falsifying his log which basically amounts to treason so there is a clear body of evidence of lazy writing in the new Trek universe.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t have a problem with a gay crew member, I have a problem with them ignoring what has come before and using lazy explanations for everything they’ve managed to get wrong.
Navy,
Re:Starfleet had the death penalty for treason
In the first series, Dr. Janice Lester in Kirk’s body in the last episode tried to sell that hornswaggle in her court martial of Spock and her civilian self occupied by Kirk, and the crew mutinied because there was no such thing. The only death penalty Starfleet had was violating the Talos IV planet’s star system quarantine [Which, by the way, the Talosians in the episode, THE MENAGERIE, proved was totally ineffectual so any executions by Starfleet enforcing it up to the waving of it, in Spock’s kidnapping of Pike, would have been blood totally on the Federation’s hands for no reason whatsoever.]
Who said anything about “choice” being involved? In one timeline, Sulu is gay; in another, Sulu isn’t gay. In one timeline, Kirk was born female; in another, Kirk was born male. It’s that simple. The Kelvin Timeline is an alternate timeline. Don’t think too much about it.
Your explanation makes no sense. Kirk is a man plane and simple and Sulu was not gay. Unless either one had a different set of parents due to the event of 09 then they would still biologically be the same person. That’s just reality and they pulling excuses out of their asses is stupid. Didn’t you have a problem that Kahn changed from an Indian to White Englishman? How could the events of 09 affect that.
Sorry no. The chances of Sulu being conceived at the very millisecond he was in the Prime Universe are astronomical, given that the Kelvin tragedy changed the entire federation. There is absolutely no way Sulu is the same biological person, any more than Chekov is, considering he was born several years earlier than he was in the Prime Timeline. This is far more logical than the Khan story ever pretended to be. Moreover, how do you know KT Sulu didn’t have different parents? Cho is Korean after all, and Takei is Japanese. Maybe Sulu’s mom was killed in one of the Kelvin’s shuttles a year before she met Sulu’s dad.
@Curious, Yup.
So basically, you’re saying then that Sulu, Checkov, and most likely Uhura are NOT the same people? They are different people altogether who just happen to share the same name as the actual Sulu, Chekove and Uhura? So only Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty are actually the actual characters then.
So who cares then by that logic. This isn’t actually Sulu. By that logic.
Chekov is absolutely not the same person. Never has been. It’s been established by canon that he was born in 2245 in the Prime Universe, and in the KT he was born 4 years earlier in 2241.
Sulu’s age has never been established by canon, much like his sexuality. Takei is 6 years younger than Shatner so Sulu is likely younger. Cho on the other hand is 8 years older than Pine. So it’s up for grabs, depending on how someone wants to view Sulu’s newly branded sexuality.
Uhura has likewise not been established by canon, though Nichols is 1 year younger than Shatner, whereas Saldana is 2 years older than Pine. Again, it’s up for grabs.
Also, while Kirk, Spock, Scotty & McCoy all started as the same people, they aren’t any longer. The Prime characters continue on with that distinction. These characters are more like that duplicate Riker they left behind after the transporter accident.
But you surmise correctly, this isn’t likely the same Sulu, or Uhura, so it really shouldn’t matter to anyone what is changed about them. In the end, they are just fictional characters to fit into a formula that Roddenberry created 50 years ago. As long as they perform essentially the same functions as their Prime counterparts, then there’s no problem. It’s like Kirk telling McCoy to go ahead and save Mirror Spock, because despite not being the same person, they still had feelings for him.
In other words, sadly, the Abrams version of Star Trek isn’t the Star Trek I have loved for decades.
That’s “great” to know — in the same sense that the people I’ve known and loved aren’t really the same people I merely thought I knew. In other words, not great to know at all.
If Pegg had intentionally wanted to alienate a large portion of the fanbase, and potential fans as well, I don’t know what else he would have done differently, except maybe strongly imply that Kirk was the son of a nerf herder. And — hey, who knows? We may find out that the retrochronistic effect of the Kelvin incursion caused that, too — in the fourth Abramsverse universe (if there is one). Stay tuned, Star Wars fans.
^^ fourth Abramsverse movie.
Well-said, Mr. Pegg.
Leaving all the nuSULU issues aside, Pegg’s comments on how he reckons the ‘Kelvin Timeline’ works are very interesting to me indeed. Thanks for ‘confirming’ this Simon, as that fits in nicely with my own ‘official’ TREK canon now!
I just wish that his particular explanation had been described as much in the the actual 2009 movie itself…as knowing that the ‘Kelvin Timeline’ scenario can actually involve such major changes to it’s PAST(!) events as well as any future events going forward, really makes it seem as if these movies are set in a truly self-enveloped ‘alternate UNIVERSE’ after all…one that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the TOS ‘prime timeline’ universe whatsoever after NERO & primeSPOCK enter/cause it…and one that due to this explanation is effectively a totally separate, unconnected universe to the TOS universe altogether – because not even the supposed original events leading up to the ‘rift’ are part of this ‘alternate universe’ now, according to the logic behind Pegg’s explanation.
So NERO and his crew presumably just ended up stuck in a part of the overall ‘multi-verse’ with characters that are merely familiar-looking yet totally different to those that they originally intended to take revenge on – as did elderly SPOCK who followed them. They needn’t have bothered, as they’ve merely entered a bizarre ‘alternate’ universe where the people who exist there are NOT the same products of the ‘big bang’ that kicked off the TOS ‘prime timeline’ universe, it seems – an ‘alternate’ universe where elderly SPOCK may or may not have raised an eyebrow on finding out how it’s nuSULU turned out! ;)
And to further distance these movies from the TOS ‘prime timeline’ universe, I can also stick to my own imaginary theory that the Nero & elderly SPOCK that caused/entered the ‘rift’ into this bizarre ‘alternate’ universe were NOT actually from the TOS ‘prime timeline’ universe to begin with…but merely from yet another familiar-looking but separate part of the ‘multi-verse’ to start off with! ;)
But whether I choose to accept that Nero and elderly SPOCK are actually from the TOS ‘prime timeline’ universe to begin with, or not…Pegg’s ‘Kelvin Timeline’ comments not only manage to offer a plausible ‘explanation’ (or ‘get out’ if you prefer) for how nuSULU’s character turned out, but also nicely allows for why each of the main nuCREW actors look/sound/act differently to the original TOS actors (as well as different eye color even!)…and can even explain why the likes of it’s nuKHAN looks so different to the TOS ‘prime timeline’ one too!
So to sum up, Pegg’s description of how this ‘alternate’ universe works now makes EVERYTHING contained in it more plausible to me now, whether it’s a ridiculously over-powered ‘personal transporter’ or why it’s nuSPOCK and nuUHURA ended up in a passive aggressive relationship! Hell, I might not need to fan edit ANY of these 3 movies now, after all ! ;) .
I meant to add that this all means that the ‘Kelvin Timeline’ universe created a naturally-occurring ‘gay’ nuSULU without the need for anyone to think of him as ‘hiding in the closet’ previously…while also allowing for the totally separate TOS universe’s primeSULU to be ‘straight’ in my mind, or equally, whatever anyone else chooses to wish!
Thanks again Simon. :)
It’s late here in my part of the world, but I just remembered that I mentioned a good while ago that I had a little notion which I would have loved any of these cerebral-lite ‘Trek’ movies to incorporate…as a way to give the general masses who saw them a something profound to contemplate.
Since I never got around to saying what it was, I’ll go into it in my next post on this article when I get time tomorrow.
We were bored with this after you first post…reading this three times like sitting through an insur-ance seminar.
@ Prodigal Son (MJ) – Well, I didn’t ask you to read it three times! ;)
The opinion mileage of others may vary to yours, and in fact seem to do so in many instances. G’night all.
Cervantes,
Its been known since 2008 these films take place in an alternate universe Bob Orci explained on THIS sight you are currently on that its not the same characters from TOS. Its just another universe like the Mirror universe is, simply closer to ours. Its been that way from the beginning. Its based on the Multiple World Interpretation. There are millions of Kirks and Sulus just like there are stars. The problem was they never explained it better in the 09 film because I guess they were afraid of confusing the newbies but yes this universe sits beside the old universe we know and where Prime Spock came from.
Tiger,
Yes I certainly recall Orci’s own explanation of this at the time…and believe me, the disconnect between what he said compared to how it came across in the 2009 movie is one of the movie’s biggest failings for me. And Pegg’s assertions only compound how confusingly vague the script description was in the initial reboot for a lot of people.
I agree with you, I have said over and over why its so frustrating to even discuss things like Khan and now Sulu is because the writers never made it clear IN THE FILM what exactly happened to them. To give Pegg credit at least he’s coming out and saying its an alternate universe but yes I wish they just made it clear in the film itself. Its just annoying 7 years on and we can’t even agree what freakin universe they are in.
THAT said I take the writer at his word. If he says its in an alternate universe then thats where it is. But yes I understand you would only know that if you read geek Trek sites such as this and that is the problem and it looks like they don’t have any plans to further that explanation in anymore films which is another disappointment.
@Tiger
@Cervantes
As I recall, In 2009’s movie they discussed the possibility of *multiple* universes in a scene on the Bridge. Briefly, but they did give an in-universe [ahem] explanation.
Kind of Marja, they said alternate ‘reality’ not universe which again just sort of compounds the issue because that could mean almost anything. To some people it sounds like another universe to others it just sounds like a change in their situation in the prime universe. Its annoying as hell lol.
And I read somewhere though, although not sure how true it is, that a line was cut from the film when we first see young Spock for the first time and the computer he’s working gives an answer to a question that says, “All realities can happen do happen in alternate universes” or something close to that. I think it was suppose to be a wink and a nod that the film was taking place in an alternate universe but as said they cut the line out.
If believing in traditional values garners such disrespect from an obnoxious jerk I’m fine spending my money elsewhere.
I’ve watched Star Trek since the mid Seventies. If this is the attitude of the creative minds behind the current franchise I’m okay sitting out.
Hope the film bombs.
spock out
Agree 100%
I really don’t want to share the theater with you dudes on opening night, so please stick with your promise on don’t ruin this for the rest of us.
With Pegg and the gang alienating half the audience you may not have too many people in the theater with you opening night.
Believing in traditional values – er, like firing, arresting, institutionalizing and beating people because of their private lives?
What traditional values? Gay people – and relationships – exist, period.
@SpockOut,
@George,
The 70+% population who believe in progressive values will not miss the 30-% of people who are too conservative to see a movie such as this, and I doubt the full minority of you will sit it out.
I think you already hate the Bad Robot Treks and are using righteousness to proclaim another reason why.
Also, ironic that one of you names yourself after Spock, a character devised by Roddenberry to be catnip to the ladies in his audience because of his “devilish” appearance.
Please stop setting up straw men. One can oppose Pegg’s defense of the decision at hand without being a raging homophobe.
The world is not a cartoon.
You won’t know it…
See you opening weekend!
generates more buzz for the movie, that’s all. irrelevant what the crews sexual preference is because unless it is integral to the plot, there won’t be time to explore the crews personal life.
It is absolutely integral to the plot. It’s known the 5 year mission has taken a toll on the crew, and this is a moment which helps convey the humanity of it, as well as set up important moments of concern by the crew and the audience when the Yorktown is attacked.
Being gay isn’t integral to the concept of being away from loved ones. Some ancillary character can mutter a line about being away from his husband for so very long and I promise you no one would care he was gay. A new major character could say the same thing and convey the same idea. Hell, maybe Idris’ character could be made gay and precious few would react. The real issue people have here is this is not some minor character change. This is a MAJOR alteration of a known character. The obvious better choice for this would be for a new character. But doing it to an existing character creates ahead of release “buzz” for the film. And let’s face it. That is likely the real reason behind this whole thing.
You’re right. But Sulu’s sexuality and romantic personal relationship is. Since every Trek fan knows about Demora, if Sulu said he missed his wife and child then who would care? Right? So what difference does it make that he has a husband? The nature of his sexuality is not what’s important, rather that he has one, which was never depicted in TOS — in order to make the moment meaningful, it has to finally be addressed. WHO does he miss exactly?
And since this is likely a major theme in the new film, such a line will have far less impact coming from a new random character, rather than one every fan knows and cares for, and is one of the main characters in the film for new audiences. Moreover, it has even greater impact when Sulu is ripped between duty and family as is apparent from the trailers, when he must leave his family behind as the Yorktown sustains an attack jeapordizing his family.
You claim this is a MAJOR alteration of a known character, but it’s not. You don’t have any concrete evidence that Sulu was gay, straight, or bisexual. In fact, Sulu could have taken Ilia’s “oath of celibacy” for all the sexuality he displayed on screen in 50 years of depictions.
You’re entitled to your opinion, which I disagree with, but don’t twist the facts to support it, when the facts very clearly indicate Sulu’s sexuality is undetermined in canon. The only MAJOR alteration seems to be that the producers chose to make Sulu gay or bisexual, and not straight. And considering the pros over the cons, the opportunity to present a strong role model to an underserved and embattled community, it’s disturbing that Star Trek fans are even having the debate.
@Curious, Well said, sir or madam.
@Curious – Yaaaaas.
I am in agreement with Pegg here when he says that Kevin’s Sulu us not prime Sulu. We always stressed for anything before than this new timeline allows them to not replace or crush the prime timeline… so, be it, it should apply here as well.
I tweeted the following to Takei: “Is it not possible that in an alternate reality, Hikaru Sulu fell in love with a man instead of a woman?”
This is something I truly believe in. I have a friend that for many years identified as homosexual. But over time, he fell in love with a friend of his, someone that he was totally compatible with, and just so happened to be a woman.
Very disappointed in Mr. Pegg. Typical “progressive” reaction — “if you don’t like what I say, you’re a bigot.” I’ll take a pass, Mr. Pegg and see something where I’m not told what to think.
Like Trump at a campaign stop, perhaps?
Yes. If he becomes President no more Trek movies
Disagreeing doesn’t make you a bigot – calling to have civil rights taken away from certain people does.
Again, this isn’t about you. And if you’re against “progressives,” have you ever actually watched Trek?
For reals, Jack. I’m amazed at the number of conservative Trekkers — Trek was groundbreaking in the ’60s because of its progressive examination of the human condition. Maybe their favorite episode is “The Way to Eden” in which idealists are shown to be manipulative [Dr Sevrin] and suckers [his followers].
Marja,
Re:“The Way to Eden”
That was the Paramount run third season, where Roddenberry concentrated on his family because they steered the focus away from his quality aim.
I am surprised more people didn’t notice the change in the show’s tone and progressive ideas? People excoriated Freiberger for it but Paramount didn’t give him much leeway.
Marja, I’m not a conservative. But I don’t like to judge conservatives by the lights of their critics, just as I wouldn’t have ideas from critics of my views form the basis of a judgment thereof. I am a vociferous critic of the bigoted views of right-wing radio hosts who, I believe, have coarsened the political arena and paved the way for demagogues to take over one of major political parties — demagogues who would build walls not only against our neighbors, but also between and among our own people. (Demagogues exist on both the right and the left, but thank goodness at least the Democrats aren’t led by one.)
Let me retract the above just tiny bit: I’m not a conservative per se. But I do subscribe to some ideas that some conservatives support — just as I subscribe to some ideas that some liberals support. I believe, for example, that we should be careful to protect individual rights against government over-reach (a conservative/libertarian tenet), and that we should always try to promote the interests of the least among us by being sympathetic to their needs and acting accordingly (a liberal idea). I believe it’s a bit of a easy way out to say that one is, essentially, a doctrinaire conservative or liberal.
One should be human, before one is conservative, liberal, or otherwise.
Any attitude that prejudges people based on expression of a conservative, liberal, or other idea is just that: Prejudicial. And not in keeping, at all, with IDIC.
@George, good luck with that if you see any one of most movies. You’ll have more luck with, er, progressive theatre, which questions our assumptions. But then I don’t think you’d dig that either.
Wait, I thought Shatner was the asshole?
AJ,
LOL
“…it felt as though it retroactively put right something that had long been wrong.” – Are you kidding me?
No, indeed he is not kidding, and I agree with him. Fans like me have been waiting half a century to see confirmation that Trek’s “all-inclusive future” actually did include people like us. It’s absurd that we had to wait so long, but nice that Pegg and Co decided it couldn’t wait one second longer to be corrected.
I agree. There have been so many excuses, like saying that showing two males holding hands in a corridor or ten forward wouldn’t have been ground-breaking enough. It would have been a start.
Nope, and I like it.
I didn’t care for that line, either. I never thought anything was wrong with “Star Trek.” I enjoyed it for what it was, not what it wasn’t.
I just dare anyone who says that Sulu isn’t gay in the prime universe to show just a bit of his supposedly straight being. It is easy. If you can probe it, just tell episode and season.
PS1: The mirror universe is precisely the mirror universe. Everything that happens in the mirror universe is within the mirror universe and not part of the prime universe itself. Clear?
PS2: Having a child has nothing to do with sexual orientation. So please don’t use Demora as an excuse, as nothing has been established about her parents, beyond she is Sulu’s daugther (even if she is adopted, surrogate, etc).
Not this:
Nope, definitely not that. Thanks for playing anyway.
I’m pretty sure they thought that was a man. Wait that’s not a man? C’mon?
I’m pretty fond of Sulu’s expression.
Nope, that doesn’t probe anything. Don’t you have any gay friend that makes the kind of comments that Sulu does to Chekov to his straight friends? I do.
Of course it doesn’t prove anything – it was a joke.
Then I must apologize for what may did sound a bit hard ;)
@Jack
Maybe Sulu just likes muscular people.
I love him. I haven’t seen the movie or read the script or anything but I promise to keep buying tickets as long as Simon Pegg promises to keep writing and producing them. He gets it. I mean, of course he does. He’s Simon Pegg. And with Bryan Fuller – and Nick Meyer – resurrecting the TV arm, I’m not sure Trek has EVER been in better hands. Are we all ready for the new Golden Age of Trek?
I respect that many people enjoy debating timelines and canon – and you’re free to do so – but as a fan since 1981, I couldn’t care less.
In the end, Star Trek Beyond is a $200 million investment for production and marketing by massive entertainment companies designed to sell movie tickets to a global audience. It’s based on a TV show 50 years ago made to help sell TV ads. Fortunately for us, many of those episodes where brilliant.
I love Star Trek but let’s not forget it’s an entertainment product.
Further, I will not criticize Pegg, Lin and a few others for these decisions. They’ve given an incredibly short amount of time to create a movie. Good or bad, that was a massive challenge and I appreciate their efforts.
itblools like they made a pretty good Trek movie under today’s explosion-filled summer blockbuster requirements.
As for Mr. Take, he was an actor playing a role. It’s a fictional character. One he hasn’t played in a movie in 25 years. He has a right to his opinion and his opinion deserves consideration. Great consideration in this case. But in the end, if Star Trek is going to survive another 50 years it must evolve. New people with new ideas must go forward without voices for the past holding them back.
Hear, hear.
Star Trek can evolve, all right. And fans of all stripe can also criticize if the evolution seems to them to be rather stupid, counterproductive, and disrespectful. And we do.
Hat Rick,
Re:Evolution
Indeed, the progress of true evolution is that change often confers no advance or benefit, there are plenty of literally dead ends.
This nonsense that evolution requires things to change and that ANY change is beneficial is nonsense. People peddling that should tell it to the marine coelacanths.
So, Nero destroying the Kelvin altered the universe all the way back to the Big Bang. OK. Good thing that’s the ONLY time any spacefaring race anywhere has ever mucked about with time travel, because otherwise … Ruh-roh!
Actually, SM’s can now serve in Starfleet.
Helmsman: Captain, the Romulans are closing and I’ve fired all our protein torpedoes!
Captain: Well, since we’re out of protein torpedoes, we have no choice but to surr —
Ensign SM: Not so fast! I’ve got all forward tubes recharged and ready to go.
Captain: That was … quick.
Ensign SM: It’s kinda what I do. Sorry if the controls are a little sticky.
CmdrR, what’s SM? Sexxymans?
Last two lines, LOL. Bet the captain might enjoy such functionality.
I’m in favor of inclusiveness and it’s long overdue to have LGBT in Trek, But regardless that Sulu was never established strait or gay and all that canon stuff, is that George made his wishes known. How can you bestow an honor to him and ignore his wishes at the same time? Seems to me there are contradictions on what constitutes persona.
It’s like people who refuse to be recognized for awards and avoid acceptance of them…you don’t not give them award just because they don’t want it. The deserve it anyway, and in most cases, they will appreciate it later on.
I feel like it comes from a very actorly place, Takei’s reaction. “BUT I PLAYED HIM AS STRAIGHT!”
The intention was to pay an homage to Sulu. The reality is, Sulu is the only character they could do this with, that didn’t conflict with canon. Takei wasn’t flattered by the producers intentions, so never mind … It’s no longer an homage, just the only obvious choice, which is supported by canon. It’s not Takei’s character, any more than Kirk is Shatner’s. Nobody is dis-honoring him, they just disagree with him. He doesn’t want the honor? Fine. But it’s not his decision whether they do it or not, or even whether it’s the right thing to do.
Not true. I was thinking who would be the best choice for an orientation change among the original characters and came up with one. Uhura. But they killed that when they paired her up with Spock.
ML31,
Hmmm. Because Uhura’s female and thus a character of lesser importance? Because she’s female and lesbians are hot?
Trying really hard to understand your logic. Oh wait, maybe you just hate the pairing of Spock and Uhura?
Consider it as more of an acknowledgement of the very public role Takei had had in advocating for gay rights.
It’s what he’s become most known for.
And George has also been wrong about characters he’s played. There was a Twilight Zone episode where a Japanese-Anerican character had been a traitor, something which never actualky happened in real life (it was controversial enough that the show isn’t included in modern reruns), Takei dismissed the complaints and political implications of this and defended it as a fantasy taking place in the Twilight Zone.
As other people have already mentioned, it’s because the choice to make Sulu gay doesn’t seem thematically related to the story that it comes across as pandering. The decision seems arbitrary and meaningless: Let’s make one of the crew gay in order to win some IDIC points. Which one? Eh, make it Sulu since George Takei is gay and he played the original Sulu.
Personally, I don’t much care either way. If there was actually a meaningful gay theme in the movie, that could be unique and compelling. But, the thinking (or lack thereof) that went into the decision to make Sulu gay seems like just another indication of the superficial, shallow mindset that underlies this as well as the other Bad Robot Trek movies: We’ve hit the ten-minute mark—time for an action scene. We need another character moment here—make it between Bones and Spock. We need something new and different—let’s make one of the crew gay. Dip the brush in water, paint by numbers, and repeat.
You say pandering, I say a sincere attempt to truly have a diverse cast. As I’ve said in the other thread, there aren’t any “villains” in this story, and everyone has a valid point to make. So, NuSulu coming out “gay” won’t hurt the franchise either way, and if an original character was created just to have a “gay” crewmember, we’ll just end up having another Lt. Hawke situation: gay today, gone in the next film. FYI.
dswynne Today 7:12 pm
Not if a meaningful theme of the movie were related to a character being gay. If that were the case, you wouldn’t mind that a central character of the movie did not recur, because you’d have a Trek movie with a meaningful gay theme. And that’s worth a lot more than a superficial, background character detail that doesn’t factor into the story at all.
dswynne Today 7:12 pm
P.S. And you could always have more meaningful gay themes in subsequent Trek stories, which would not be limited to just one character.
Unfortunately, as you have pointed out numerous times, you can only do so much in film, when you can do more in television.
dswynne Today 6:33 am
I’m should make a list of these commonly posited apologetics for why Bad Robot Trek just can’t be faithful to the spirit and values of TOS. Actually, I’ll start it now:
(1) You can’t make a meaningful Trek story in a feature film format. Counterexample: TWOK.
(2) You can’t make a “cerebral” sci-fi movie these days; it won’t make money. Counterexample: INTERSTELLAR.
(3) ?
All I am saying is that trying to find the villains in this latest “controversy” is silly, and, in your case, is feeding into your bias, which is very much well-known. And yes, there could easily be a marketing reason for this move, but do you honestly think that creating a new character for this movie would not be seen as a token move? I honestly think that Pegg’s reasons are sincere, even though his handling of it leaves much to be desired. And I think that Takei setting himself up as a pseudo-spokesman for what Gene Roddenberry would think about all this is equally weak, which is probably being used to shield his true feelings. Personally, I think Takei didn’t like this because he, as an actor, is sensitive to being type-casting: first as the Asian guy, and now as the gay Asian guy. I think Sulu was Takei’s one role that he could say that he played as an actor, and not as himself. That’s why he’s sensitive about this “honor” that he is being bestowed upon.
dswynne Today 6:33 am
As well known as your bias.
And you’re the one at odds with Trek’s most prominent LGBT advocate.
Ermigerd Cygnus, and imagine how many Conservative Trek fans would stay home then!!! A meaningful gay theme?
It’s not a superficial b/g character detail. It’s a “matter-of-fact” detail. Yes, there are gay parents in Starfleet. There it is.
Marja Today 2:42 pm
Are there Albanians in Star Fleet? I’m outraged. Where are the explicitly “Albanian” Albanians? And what about people of Inca origin? And where are the Hassidic Jews?
IDIC, my ass.
Marja Today 2:42 pm
imagine how many Conservative Trek fans would stay home then!!! A meaningful gay theme?
Well, they’d get the Log Cabin Republican demographic. But, it’s the whole market-research approach to Trek that has degraded it, in the first place. When you try to include something for everyone, you end up with mediocrity at best. To hell with conservatives and to hell with the PC Police, I say. Star Trek is supposed to be art and entertainment, not a political campaign. Hire thoughtful sci-fi writers to write a meaningful Trek-like story, and then market it to thoughtful people hungry for real Star Trek. I’ll mention INTERSTELLAR again, to preempt the, inevitable that’ll never make money! retort.
LOL
Was it ever thematically related to the story that Kirk was straight?
It’s a character detail.
As I understand it, we’re going to see Sulu with a photo of his daughter on his station – he’s going to be missing his family. Apoarentky, all of the crew is dealing with mid-mission ‘why are we out here’ ennui. It’s part of the story.
If they’d done this and nentioned a wife instead of a hisband, would we be complaining about pandering?
PS, on being “related to the story” – Another Trek board has a post up that pretty well confirms (SPOILER) that Sulu’s family live on the Starbase which puts them in a fair amount of Act 3 peril. That’s the story justification. Enterprise family members have to be there on the Starbase. It amplifies the stakes for the characters but also – and more importantly – it emotionally invests the audience in the fate of the Starbase… which by all appearances is the climax of the picture. Did it have to be a GAY FAMILY our heroes are fighting for in Act 3? Nope. But that’s why it’s genius. And quintessentially Trek.
Yes that makes perfect sense.
Jack Today 7:34 pm
The characters in Bad Robot Trek are intended as variations on the TOS characters. They’re lame, one-dimensional variations for the most part—Spock in ST09 (but not in STID) being the one exception, and his variations were lifted from the ENTERPRISE character, T’Pol—but, technically they are variations. And the ways in which the Bad Robot characters differ from the TOS originals are meant to be significant. Again, the themes I’m referencing are very shallow and poorly developed on-screen, but we have it from the writer (Bob Orci) that these character variations are supposed to be meaningful—Kirk growing up without a father, etc…. The point being that there’s a difference between changing an established character in a meaningful way, and changing it in a pandering, superficial way. From the explanation given for the Sulu change, it does come across as being a pandering, superficial type of change. If Sulu had been written as gay from the outset, and they changed him to be straight for no meaningful reason, how would it come across? Not well. People would naturally question why the character had been changed for no dramatically significant reason. Again, this Sulu change just seems part-and-parcel of the mindset that underlies these BR Trek movies, based on the information given. And if there were a deeper meaning to the Sulu change, don’t you think that Pegg would have hinted at it in order to placate George Takei and others who disapprove of the change? I’m pretty sure that he would have.
None of us here (save a couple of Australians) has actually seen the movie, but we have opinions about the writing?
Cygnus ALWAYS has a point about the writing. But his prescience is truly amazing. Maybe he lives in Australia or his other name is The Amazing Kreskin.
Marja Today 2:45 pm
It’s nothing to do with prescience. Pegg, Cho and whomever else basically said that it’s a casual, background detail—a photo on Sulu’s wall or something, of him and his husband. I think they said something to the effect of “not making a big deal out of it.” This implies that it’s not central to the story. As I said, if it WERE meaningful to the story, don’t you think that Pegg would have said so in response to the disapproval by Takei and others?
Happy to be “pandered” to one time in 50 years. When I cry over it, am I pandering to it over its pandering to me?
scottevill Today 7:53 pm
I’m happy that rewriting Sulu to be gay has made you feel validated as a person. I really am. I’m not sure that’s Star Trek’s job—it seems to me that the only one who can truly validate you is you—but, I honestly am happy that so superficial a thing as arbitrarily changing a character’s sexual orientation has brought you so much joy. Personally I can’t relate, as I’ve never associated the details of Trek characters with any sort of validation of me as a person. And I am actually a minority. Do you feel that it’s “OK” to be gay now that there’s a gay Trek character? Do you feel that this movie’s writers and producers understand you now? If that’s all it takes to make you feel OK about yourself, then I’m happy for you. As I said, I don’t much care either way. I’m happy that you’re happy. And if there are many like you, the producers will get a lot of mileage out of this superficial change.
It doesn’t validate me as a person but thanks for the patronizing straw-man. It validates me as a fan of Star Trek. You know, the show that promises EVERY kind of person is included, and indeed REQUIRED, to build an optimistic future, but nevertheless somehow managed over 700+ episodes and almost 50 years to avoid ever featuring a single LGBT character?
To term this development “superficial” is to ignore the more complicated experience queer fans have always had with the show, and what this long overdue representation means for us – not as people. (Again, thanks for that). As fans… And yes, there are quite a few of us queer Trekkers. Always have been.
Meow.
It doesn’t validate me as a person (but thank you for that bit of toxic condescension). It validates me as a fan of Star Trek. You know, the show that promised all the kinds of people were not only included but REQUIRED to build an optimistic future… but nevertheless somehow managed to avoid featuring a single LGBT character over the course of 700+ episodes and 11 feature films? To call this development “superficial” is to be in denial of the fact that it had become an enormous black eye on Trek’s otherwise laudable legacy of challenging audience prejudice in exactly this way – by putting representatives of despised minority groups on the bridge and making them our heroes. Perhaps more to the point, though, your reaction utterly negates the experience Queer Trekkers have ALWAYS had with the show as irrelevant. Which I suppose I means I should thank you … for so aptly illustrating why this was necessary in the first place.
All Bad Robot Trek is “superficial” as expressed by Cygnus in many many posts. He does have valid points about writing, but the “superficial” appellation seems almost knee-jerk by now.
scottevill Today 9:03 am
It doesn’t validate me as a person…It validates me as a fan of Star Trek.
What’s the difference? Are you saying that you weren’t a real Star Trek fan until the decision to make Sulu gay? Are you saying that you can’t appreciate any art or entertainment that doesn’t include an explicitly gay element?
…but nevertheless somehow managed to avoid featuring a single LGBT character over the course of 700+ episodes and 11 feature films?
You’re just factually wrong about this. TNG had an LGBT-themed episode in Season 5, “The Outcast.” And, unlike this superficial bit of gayness in STB, which appears to have nothing to do with the story, “The Outcast” was centered around a meaningful LGBT theme. It’s the difference between superficial things and meaningful things. But, maybe you’re not able to tell the difference. Or the difference doesn’t matter to you. Another LGBT-themed Trek episode was DS9 Season 4, “Rejoined.” Again, the entire episode was centered around an LGBT theme.
Perhaps more to the point, though, your reaction utterly negates the experience Queer Trekkers have ALWAYS had with the show as irrelevant. Which I suppose I means I should thank you … for so aptly illustrating why this was necessary in the first place.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say by this.
@Cygnus
The promise that every kind of person is included – and in fact required – has been identified by many as the basis of Trek’s enduring appeal. That is Trek’s bedrock promise to its audience, but it has never been PROVED to queer Trekkers and our allies until now. Whether you want to admit it or not, whether you agree with it or not, this has been a thing for a significant fraction of fans and well-known to TPTB for many, many years… yet somehow queer characters have always remained just off-camera. Or – twice in 700 episodes – couched in tortured allegories that lack the courage of their convictions.
And you’re like, ARE YOU NOT SATISFIED?
Um, no. How do you not get that? Maybe you don’t want to…
Trek’s legacy of challenging audience prejudice is almost entirely derived from the radical acts of putting a black woman officer on the bridge during the height of the civil rights struggle, a Russian at the height of the cold war, and an Asian-American less than 20 years after America had them in concentration camps. Everything else they ever did in the realm of sociopolitical storytelling, morality plays, allegories, etc – wonderful as much of it was and remains – pales by comparison to the enduring power of these three castings. 50 years later, we’re still marveling at the audacity. LGBT people – arguably the single most despised minority group in today’s world – deserve nothing less radical, particularly after being so timid on the subject for so long. Again, we’re talking about a fictional world that is based on the conceit that we are all included and required or none of the cool, optimistic things in the show can ever come to pass. That is the point.
Pegg gets this implicitly. And it’s not just that Sulu is gay. It’s that the climactic battle is to save Sulu’s family (who live on the Starbase). Stop and think about how radical that is for a minute. This is a hundred and fifty million dollar tentpole sci-fi action movie with an enormous GLOBAL audience where our heroes final battle is to save a gay married couple. Many thousands of people around the world (and right here at home) will see this and be shocked and challenged by it in exactly the same way Nichelle Nichols on the bridge did in ’66. And THAT, in a nutshell, is Trek. Everything else is gravy.
scottevill Today 9:15 pm
The promise that every kind of person is included – and in fact required – has been identified by many as the basis of Trek’s enduring appeal.
You’re overstating this. “Every” kind of person has never been included. There’s never been anyone of my background. And yet, I don’t go demanding that Trek writers write their stories to pander to me. But then, I don’t feel any less valid because there happens not to be any Trek character with my ethnicity. And even if I did, I’d feel terribly selfish demanding such specific, personalized treatment from an international entertainment franchise just to cater to my ego needs. But, that’s me.
And while diversity has been part of Trek’s appeal, I wouldn’t characterize it as the main appeal of the show. To me, it’s never been all that important. I’d rather have a thought-provoking, meaningful sci-fi show with all white (or all Black, or all Asian, etc…) people than a meaningless, dumb show with a diverse cast. But, that’s me. I value meaning in art. Perhaps this is where we differ. I’m not a Trek fan just to see someone like me on the screen.
yet somehow queer characters have always remained just off-camera. Or – twice in 700 episodes – couched in tortured allegories that lack the courage of their convictions.
Off-camera? Two women kissing in a Trek episode centered around a same-sex love story is what you refer to as an “off-camera” “tortured allegory that lacks the courage of its convictions?” What the hell are you talking about? The only thing tortured here is your argument. You don’t seem able to tell the difference between the superficial and the meaningful, as you have them exactly reversed. A gay character whose gayness is irrelevant to the story makes his gayness superficial. A story whose central theme relates to LGBT issues is meaningful.
I should rephrase the above.
It’s more accurate to say that I’ve grown accustomed to Trek being sufficiently diverse that I no longer think about it. If Trek suddenly became noticeably un-diverse, then maybe it would seem important to demand diversity. But, being that Trek has always been at the forefront of diversity in entertainment, it doesn’t seem necessary to demand characters specifically based on ethnicity, sexual orientation and other background traits. If we let Trek be Trek, then Trek will naturally do as it has always done, which is to be diverse and…(man, I hate this PC buzzword)…inclusive. (blech, I feel like a tool just typing that.) But, if you force Trek writers to eat their broccoli by demanding characters based on certain background details, then you’re interfering with their creativity. Imagine everyone in the audience demanding that the characters on-screen represent the world’s population proportionally: 0.17% (but no more) of Trek characters should be Jewish, 15% (but no more) should be Hindu, 23% Muslim, 31.5% Christian, 7.1% Buddhist, etc…. And should the stories likewise revolve around all of the specific backgrounds? Or are we content (as with Alt Sulu) to settle for superficial background details that don’t much pertain to the story? Do you want Trek to be a tokenist show? Here’s your token Buddhist complete with scarlet robe for this episode—are you happy now?
I live in NYC, the most diverse city on Earth, and I can tell you that diversity per se is not all that intrinsically interesting once you get used to it. The first time that I saw a man who looked like he’d grown up in the mountains of Nepal getting on a bus in Queens, it was exciting. After seeing that a dozen times, I don’t much think about it any more. And I’d much rather talk with a Puerto Rican who has a good story to tell than to a Nepalese man who has nothing to say. So, if the Trek writers (and I’m speaking of future Trek now, not of the Bad Robot movies, about which I couldn’t care less) happen to come up with a story featuring a Scotch-Irish character, then great. Hurray for diversity. But, I’m not on board with discriminating either in favor of, or against, characters on the basis of ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation or other background details. I expect that future Trek writers will be naturally as “diverse” in their writing as have past Trek writers, which is plenty. And as has been said by others, how do we know that all of those crewmen walking the corridors of this or that Federation ship aren’t gay? We don’t, and it doesn’t matter. Have a gay-themed story, arc or series, if it’s well-written. Substance over superficiality.
Cygnus-X1,
Re:All gay crewmen
Forgive me, I know this is not your thing.
But speaking of homogeneous crew, I never could get a handle on what those writers’ thinking was on making Nero’s all male? But then for that matter, I didn’t get what was it about these miners that made them so much more adept at military intelligence and engagement that they were better at invading and ripping off a cutting edge top secret military base than any other Romulan opportunists free to do so in the disaster?
Disinvited Today 12:37 am
Oh, don’t even get me started on that. Nero somehow manages to escape with his buddies from a penal colony, and they all agree to devote their new lives to seeking vengeance on a person whose great crime is that he tried to save their planet but failed, even when doing so entails waiting around in the middle of space for 25 years (somehow they had sufficient supplies for the wait). And how’d they get that great big fancy starship? They carjacked it, I suppose.
Cygnus-X1,
Re:“Every” kind of person has never been included.
True, but every time the Kirk character is written to say “There’s over 400 people on board…” the potential is held out there that, maybe, just maybe, this is the week that someone just like me plays a key role for over 400 different types of viewers the world over, and in the meantime, I can daydream about that very palpable statistical chance.
It’s part of what gives Trek it’s diverse feel that you type about in your next message.
Disinvited Today 12:15 am
Sure, and like I said, how do we know that all of those crewmen walking the corridors of the Enterprise aren’t gay? We don’t. How do we know they’re not Buddhist? We don’t Etc… So, yes do a gay-themed story. Do a Buddhist-themed story. Show the audience how these people enrich the human race. Don’t just trot out some character, announce that he’s gay, and then move on with the story. Chekov being Russian, for example, was typically worked into his characterization. He was always spouting off about how great Russia is, or Peter the Great, or what have you. Chekov had his own way of looking at the world, and let it was able to work harmoniously with the rest of the crew. It seems very simple thematically today, but back in the 1960s (as I’m sure I don’t have to tell you) it was significant. That’s my point. Make the character’s attributes significant to the story. Don’t just trot out a token this or that.
@ Cygnus – “You’re overstating this. “Every” kind of person has never been included.”
So Trek’s promise of “infinite diversity in infinite combinations” actually, to you, means finite. LOL.
I don’t really have anything to add to my last post. Except to reiterate the part that you snipped out when you selectively quoted me: whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, this has been an issue for a significant portion of the audience for many many years. You can think whatever you want about that, but we exist, and you are evaluating our testimony as false. You’re saying the issue is nonexistent, and the solution is “pandering” – which is defined by google as “to gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire).” This is 100% a dick move.
Among other things.
LLAP.
How about we just include those people who are currently still openly persecuted and discriminated against because of the color of their skin, or who they love? I’d say homosexuals and the black population fall squarely into that category presently. Latinos and those of Middle Eastern descent are getting a lot of hate right now, too. Unfortunately, there’s really no way to represent that population without adding a new regular character. Sad to say, now that Chekov is gone, the opportunity exists.
Religion is a different matter, and is something that could be included into each characters background as they are. Uhura could be Muslim. McCoy Catholic. But at the end of the day, that has never been something Trek has depicted, and possibly best it doesn’t start, outside of exploring alien races spirituality as analogous to our own.
Curious Cadet Today 1:53 pm
Yes, do a story about people who are persecuted. Show the audience something meaningful about them. That’s been my point all along. If you just sort of stick in a gay here and a Muslim there, it smacks of merely filling a quota (perhaps that is a more palatable term than “pandering”, though I think to many it does come across as pandering to the PC police).
scottevill Today 7:00 am
Well, I did not mean to imply that it’s immoral for you to want a bone thrown at you by the movie. My point, as I think you know, is that comes across as pandering because it’s superficial and not related to the story. There’s no need to get nasty. I have said from the beginning that I don’t care one way or the other if Sulu is gay in this movie. And I genuinely am happy that it makes you happy, even if it is superficial and meaningless to the story. You don’t seem to be following my point about meaningfulness vs. superficiality, or you don’t care, so I won’t bother repeating it.
scottevill Today 7:00 am
So Trek’s promise of “infinite diversity in infinite combinations” actually, to you, means finite.
Well, technically, it is finite. And there’s no evidence that infinite sets or magnitudes actually exist in nature. But, what I meant is that every kind of person has never been depicted in Star Trek.
Regarding the definition of pander, I believe the commonly intended meaning as it relates to this discussions is this one: to cater basely. I’ll spell it out for you. The studio wants your money. But, they don’t want to have a substantial portion of the movie relating to gayness. So, they’re throwing you a bone—i.e. pandering to you—in the form of an insignificant gay bit in order to get your business. That’s the best that I can put it. Do I care that they’re pandering to you? Not really. But, I understand why some people have received it as such.
@Cygnus,
Let’s make one of the crew gay to show that gay people have children and miss them. Again, the crew’s been out in space for a long long time. I don’t think that’s arbitrary or meaningless.
Marja Today 2:39 pm
Let’s make one of the crew gay to show that gay people have children and miss them.
Who’s being prescient now? How do you know that this sentiment is in the movie?
Cygnus-X1, and Marja,
Re:How do you know that this sentiment is in the movie
A reasonable projection on Marja’s part given that back in January, when Cho leaked his daughter was in BEYOND via a photograph, he said there was more but he was not at liberty to reveal what. Now that the other shoe’s dropped, it seems more than obvious this is likely intended to do more than reveal Cho’s Sulu is gay. It seems likely written to reveal that now he’s a highly competent functional seasoned professional and family man who just happens to have the quality of being gay to be seen as taken as matter-of-factly by his coworkers as if someone had noticed he had black hair.
Disinvited Today 8:21 pm
It seems likely written to reveal that now he’s a highly competent functional seasoned professional and family man who just happens to have the quality of being gay….
Well, when you put it that way, maybe I will see this movie in the theater. I mean, a highly competent, functional, seasoned professional and family man who’s also gay—does he breathe oxygen, too? I mean, that is immensely compelling. Where else on Earth will I ever get the chance to see one of those? Oh, yeah—I’ve got that in my own family. I guess I don’t need to see this movie, after all.
Cygnus-X1
Re:I’ve got that in my own family
Thanks for confirming what I’ve suspected all along – that you and your family are centuries ahead of the rest of us.
My comments are all being flagged now. First time this has happened since the change to this new format.
Totally agreed. You guys rock. Thank you for making Beyond. It looks like its going to be the best one yet!
And a colourful metaphor to you too, Simon. You lack moral guidance and have a general lack of comprehension of just what it is you’re talking about. Clearly, you’re one of those who would suggest, “it’s just the way they are”. Ok…let’s try that for a moment…
A habitual thief simply cannot stop. So does that mean then that we just suggest, ‘it’s just the way he is’, and allow him to go unpunished?
An alcoholic can’t leave alcoholic beverages alone. They can’t go a single day without at least one drink. It’s ultimately self-destructive….so, do we just chalk it up as it’s just the way they are? Or do we try to get them some help to stop?
“But that’s not the same thing!” YES…IT…IS.
“Hater!” “Bigot!” Wrong…on both counts.
If I “hated” homosexuals, I would NEVER even BOTHER attempting to make this point. I’d just let them go about their business & allow them to go through their lives never knowing that there’s someone out there who loves them & wants them to come away from that lifestyle.
I’ve had gay coworkers & gay friends. I didn’t hate them. I didn’t condone their lifestyle either, but I never, ever hated them in any way. The real hatred comes from those who FAIL to understand WHY I would even bother wasting my time with this…and who ASSUME that someone like myself is hateful as those out there who claim they’re a God fearing church (such as Westboro). Those people are delusional and do not fully understand the book they claim to believe in.
“Homophobe!” Also wrong. First of all, the term literally means ‘one who fears humans’. I don’t. Secondly, what you THINK it means isn’t accurate either. I don’t fear gay people. As I mentioned, I’ve had both gay friends & coworkers. I was no more afraid of them because of their lifestyle than I am of anyone else out there who chooses to live that way. I believe it’s wrong….and I care about them & their souls. I do not want them to suffer for eternity which is why I’m concerned & would ever bother with any of this.
Something you need to understand…I can disagree with you WITHOUT hating you. Can YOU say the same about me?
“If I “hated” homosexuals, I would NEVER even BOTHER attempting to make this point. I’d just let them go about their business & allow them to go through their lives”
On behalf of all gay people everywhere, allow me to officially request that you (and only you) just go ahead and just hate us. In your case, the hate sounds way more pleasant. For us.
Oh, and your comment indicates that you fundamentally do not get what Trek is about.
@scottevill
Yea, you know it’s the people with obvious hate who are convinced they are not haters that are really scary.
At least the people who are unapologetically hateful are not hypocrites — you know where you stand with them.
‘Allow him to go unpunished?’
What is Cho’s Sulu doing that requires punishment? Having a family?
Oh I don’t hate you. I fear you. If anyone gurantees that our society doesn’t make it into the hopeful future Star Trek represents, it’s ideologues like you.
NEW RULE — if you takes you more than three sentences to claim you are not a bigot, then you most likely are one.
PS, New Rule, LOL. Applies to “I’m not” racists, too
Wow that’s someone with issues. They don’t need ‘help’. This isn’t 1950s anymore and you can’t ‘pray the gay away’. Move on already.
Oh dear. If there is a hell, you’re gonna be in it!
@ TheAncientOne – I happen to be as ‘straight’ as they come, and don’t happen to have any ‘gays’ in my own immediate circle of friends…but oh brother, I absolutely worry about any dubious religiously righteous views you seem to have been indoctrinated with.
If there indeed proves to be a ‘God’/’Creator’/’Whatever’ out there, then I pray that he/she/it shows his/her/it’s ‘followers’ the errors of their ways without too much pain one day…
Considering your views, your name is most appropriate.
Ah, the old “love the sinner, hate the sin” …
You do fear humans … gay humans
And it’s not a LIFESTYLE. For God’s sake, get with the program.
For their sake I hope none of your children are gay.
Did Pegg just say that some folks can go “F” themselves? Lovely.
Yes, but only to folks who truly should.
Well he said this in STID when he heard people voted that film the worst of the franchise so I can only imagine how he feels about this lol.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/star-trek-beyond-director-justin-lin-interview
Not that two wrongs make a right, but I’m not sure I’m getting what fans are on about now, after all these years, with George’s story being heard and ignored?
After the first Trek Picture, Paramount created a special position for Roddenberry from which his ideas could be heard, listened to, and promptly ignored on all the films to come. And now 36 years after the creation of that post, with Meyer reading Gene the riot act along the way, I’m supposed to be outraged about filmmakers supposedly ignoring Gene’s wishes yet again, just as so many before them have already done without a fan incident?
Maybe I missed something along the way, but I don’t recall any movie boycotts over what had been done to Gene back then — so we are supposed to boycott this picture because Takei says Gene’s being ignored, still?
What wishes? Are they saying that because Gene didn’t include a gay character, we shouldn’t now? I still don’t see any evidence that this is twisting Gene’s creation.
And there were some pretty good reasons for some of Gene’s wishes being ignored, especially once he started believing the PR.
But, yes, I agree that the outrage is selective.
Jack,
Re:What wishes?
Well, as the tale Takei relates goes, Gene defined Sulu as straight to him and therefore would object to anyone redefining the character as otherwise.
Dis,
Yeah, and Takei acted the hell outta that heterosexual subtext
Dude Gene Roddenberry been dead for 25 years. He has absolutely no opinion on this either way. I’m pretty sure if he was alive these films wouldn’t exist at all if he had his way but yeah, we’ll never know either way.
“Spock’s incursion from the Prime Universe created a multidimensional reality shift. The rift in space/time created an entirely new reality in all directions, top to bottom, from the Big Bang to the end of everything. As such this reality was, is and always will be subtly different from the Prime Universe. I don’t believe for one second that Gene Roddenberry wouldn’t have loved the idea of an alternate reality (Mirror, Mirror anyone?). This means, and this is absolutely key, the Kelvin universe can evolve and change in ways that don’t necessarily have to follow the Prime Universe at any point in history, before or after the events of Star Trek ‘09, ”
Full on reboot then. We at least someone finally had the guts to say it.
As far as canon, I think the Kelvin incident would have had a serious Butterfly Effect that could have rippled backward in time. Think about it… In the new timeline, there’s no Voyage Home, which means no Scotty giving up the formula for transparent aluminum and no Dr. Gillian Taylor leaving the 20th Century prematurely. Makes total logical sense within the fictional universe that’s been created… a lot more sense than promotions from cadet to captain and planet to planet beaming.
Well in all fairness, we have no idea if the guy Scotty gave the formula to didn’t die of a heart attack a year later without telling anyone about it. Or had the disk corrupted while he was copying it to a backup — hey it was a Mac Plus, I can’t begin to tell you how many things I lost on a Mac Plus, just from random system freezes — nd the Federation turned out the way it was always supposed to, because the guy wasn’t the one to invent TA.
Unfortunately, the way QM MWI works, on which the Kelvin Timeline is based, is that when they went back in time in STIV, they actually splintered off a new universe. So the Federation already had evolved to the level they did without anyone ever going back in time and affecting the timeline — well at least the incident from STIV. Well … that’s not entirely true — since with MWI anything that could possible happen has happened, then the incidents from STIV could have happened with the crew of another universe going back in time and splintering off the a Kelvin Timeline, thus setting up the Federation as we know it. However, because there is no grandfather paradox in QM MWI, it means that no one ever need worry about going back in time to fulfill the paradox, since it already happened. And even if they did, they would splinter off a different universe, not the KT.
I like to pretend there was no “Voyage Home” isn’t canonical or that it was really an alternate universe story because it was such a terrible movie and so many characters weren’t themselves at all in it.
I hate to get political but since Pegg did then I will. You really have to give it to these Progressive Liberals. If you have a different opinion then they tell you to ‘Go Fuck Themselves’. How tolerant they are. And by the way, nice way to convince people to come out and spend their money to see the movie. Does he really think comments like that won’t affect turnout? We (and he) should want this movie to do as well as possible to assure another one. Of course they already got payed and don’t care about the investors that actually payed for the movie and they contract. I guess he only wants people who agree with him to see this movie.
There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word tolerance actually means.
And, yeah, if you think you have a right to decide what rights are given to other groups of people based on how you feel about them, then yeah, indeed go and do that. I just don’t want to see it.
“Different opinion,” huh? Like one side prefers chicken and the other wants fish? Or is it more like one side thinks there should still be laws and constitutional amendments against queer people and the other side is horrified by that and thinks anyone expressing such an opinion disqualifies himself from being taken seriously on any other public policy topic? Personally, I think it’s more like the second one. And I think “tolerance for the intolerant” is the last refuge of bigotry. It’s where bigotry goes to die. It’s akin to arguing, “I hurt my hand when I punched you in the face.” Huh. Imagine that.
@scottevil Or people who say it’s racist to talk about/point out racism.
Or people who say its anti-man to talk about anti-woman complaints about a Ghostbusters movienobody’s seen yet.
If you don’t like the message, attacking the messenger like you are doing can work.
Common “Sense”,
I’m quite sure the investors had a say, being that all major studio movies are made for profit.
Amazing how Pegg twists himself into a pretzel to explain Sulu’s sexually in the JJverse. Just goes to show how artificial and forced the decision was.
And very mature of him to curse at those who disagree with him. Typical of ‘social progressives’ who think they’re a cut above everyone else – they don’t want to even hear, let alone tolerate, others’ opinions.
Sorry, you just lost 4 people going to see the movie on opening weekend. I will not give my money to someone so smug and insulting. I can wait and watch the movie on Showtime in 6 months.
Nothing at all against those with a different sexually than mine, I just get rubbed the wrong way when something’s forced on me and then insulted when there’s a respectful disagreement.
I’ve been a Trek fan for over a third of a century now; go and run a less beloved franchise into the ground Pegg.
Let me rephrase – I get rubbed the wrong way when its implied that those who disagree with the decision are the problem.
All this talk about a ‘throwaway line’ is BS – Pegg and others knew their decision would be big news and they want the attention prior to release.
Yea, why can’t the social progressives be more civil and not curse?
Take our leading anti-progressive today, Donald Trump — he is always civil and never curses.
Red Herring – who’s talking about Trump?
Zazou, I’m sure Paramount will cry all the way to the bank.
Perhaps after massive box office losses, they’ll do an opinion poll of conservatives to see what direction the franchise should take /end sarcasm
Who said I’m conservative?
http://www.msn.com/en-au/music/story/entertainment-news-star-trek-beyond/vi-BBuauqk
Sorry, Mr. Pegg, I’m not buying it.
Everything from Nero showing up in the past on can be different.
If Sulu was born AFTER that, then he can POTENTIALLY can be a different person, really a sibling of the man we knew, due to the “butterfly effect,” though I still think that’s a big stretch in itself.
Yea, it’s a weird and unnecessary explanation.
Canon in TOS leave plenty of room for Sulu to be gay — this complex reason was not needed
Its TWO different Sulus. This is what he is saying. Just like you had Nimoy Spock and Quinto Spock together they are the same and they are not at the same time. Thats what he is saying. Thats how MWI works. Now I get it, I understand people are having a hard time buying one Sulu is gay and one is straight but there is absolutely nothing that says that isnt possible either since its ALL just made up science fiction stories. It has taken a real theory from quantum mechanics but since its just that, a theory, and obviously never tested, they can do what they want with it.
This isnt aimed at you but I’m always surprised how anal Trek fans are about some of this stuff since they are watching a franchise where literally anything can happen if they throw enough fake science at it. This is the same show that has aliens living in wormholes, omnipotent beings, de-evoliving to a salamander when you hit warp 10, cyborgs taken over half the galaxy and spontaneously being pregnant I don’t think having a guy gay in another universe is a big stretch.
@ Tiger
“but I’m always surprised how anal Trek fans are about some of this stuff”
Maybe not the best choice of words, given this topic, eh? ;-)
@PS, you read my mind, man! LOL
Perhaps Tiger is giving them a sarcastic, erm, jab.
LOL I swear I didn’t mean it that way.
“It has taken a real theory from quantum mechanics but since its just that, a theory, and obviously never tested, they can do what they want with it. ”
Well, I read a very hard sf book on this very theory, a number of years ago. It was titled “The Time Ships,” and was written as a sequel to HG Wells’ time machine be noted hard sf writer Stephen Baxter.
In that book, a multiverse was created from one universe from changes that propagated forward in time due to incursions by time travelers. The changes never ever propagated backwards.
Sorry, but in the context of all time travel stories, Pegg’s explanation doesn’t work, for me at least.
If Sulu was born after Kirk, though, then, I admit, it might be possible that, in some way, his conception was affected by Nero. Ray Bradbury’s classic story, “A Sound of Thunder,” is all about how even a small change in the past can, with enough time, cause huge and unforeseen changes to the present.
“This isnt aimed at you but I’m always surprised how anal Trek fans are about some of this stuff since they are watching a franchise where literally anything can happen if they throw enough fake science at it. This is the same show that has aliens living in wormholes, omnipotent beings, de-evoliving to a salamander when you hit warp 10, cyborgs taken over half the galaxy and spontaneously being pregnant I don’t think having a guy gay in another universe is a big stretch.”
You’re right, but I’d still like, though, to have some sort of logical explanation that is in keeping with what has been shown before. Pegg’s explanation doesn’t work in the context of what Orci and Kurtzmann laid out in Star Trek 2009.
Fair enough DrH,
And I’m not disagreeing with you so much as I’m saying Star Trek has always found inventive ways to tell stories that throw us for a loop. Thats WHY its so interesting.
And speaking of a time travel story I’ll give a crazy one from Star Trek where they did a story that is basically doing EXACTLY what Pegg is proposing. Its called All Good Things… I’m sure you heard of it lol. Anyway in that story they create a time space anamoly in the future that disrupted the galaxy by growing in time BACKWARDS not forwards. And it was a paradox because they created it by trying to stop it. Its one of those delicious Star Trek stories people love so much because it CHALLENGES you to think of time and alternate timelines in a very unique way.
Now I’m not saying thats what Pegg was proposing, I’m only making the point yes Star Trek has done a time travel story that doesn’t just erupts time going forward but ALSO backwards. And this was a story written over 20 years ago now and still holds up today.
So as I said earlier we watch a show where ANYTHING can happen. It doesnt mean what happened to Sulu make sense given their own rules, I agree I’m only saying you can’t rule out anything either if someone creative enough can make a sound explanation around it because Trek spends a lot of time making sound explanations for pretty absurd premises lol.
While I understand your point and agree, as I recall, ALL GOOD THINGS, took place in an alternate universe or universes. Whatever Picard did in the past had no affect on the present and the future he visited. And Q was involved as well, so I’m dubious that there’s any natural laws of physics at work in that episode.
Pegg is loosely basing his theory on some theoretical physics I’ve read about, the validity in which I’m not fully versed … But my objection is that Pegg is positing yet another theory about how the KT works, which is different from Orci’s explanation. If this were Pegg’s reboot, I’d say he could come up with any premise he wants, but to confuse Orci’s already confusing conceit, is just confusing. Add to that, there’s absolutely no proof in either film that were even in a new universe and aren’t using the traditional time travel rules the franchise has subscribed to for 50 years, with the KT overwriting the Prime Timeline. Indeed, CBS’ choice of a name for it — Kelvin Timeline suggests that’s exactly what’s happening. Orci told us it was an Alternate Universe. But an alternate timeline suggests it’s all happening in the same universe, overwriting the old timeline, just like in Back To The Future.
OK fair enough. I was simply pointing the idea the concept of time going backwards HAS been used on Star Trek before. But sure you’re right we don’t really know if it was a natural phenomenon or made by the Q to test Picard. But end of the day I guess the point being made is if a writer wants to REALLY explain something they can find a way but in this case I don’t think anyone is really all that bothered by it. Basically the gist is Sulus is now gay, its another ‘universe’, ‘reality’, ‘timeline’, ‘whatever’, accept it and move on. I’m saying thats what they are saying. ;)
And I sorry I don’t agree with your point the old universe is being over written. You mentioned this before but it just sounds like its a similar universe thats being over written. At the end of the day all this stuff is hokum. Writer says whatever they want it to mean and since reruns of TNG and TOS are still on the air in every part of the world I can just buy its just another universe along side the old one. Sure you can imagine it your way too but seriously if the new show takes place in the old universe and the first scene is Starfleet beaming down to Vulcan in the 24th century then it will all be much ado about nothing.
And as I ALSO always say they would never over write the old universe for financial reasons. They want us Trek nerds to know its still around to sell us merchandise from it. Once we are told it no longer exists as before then its like saying your entire TOS model collection no longer matters. I mean it does still matter,but you get my point. And finally I don’t understand why they would do something THIS convoluted if it was going to erase the old universe when they simply could’ve just done a straight reboot of it and start from scratch? What’s the point? Just to get Nimoy in the movie? This was all done to let people know the old universe isn’t touched at all….exception of Romulous being taken out lol. But Orci stated it right HERE clear as day, the only thing that happens in the old universe is Spock and Nero goes missing but it still carries on. I mean the writer has made it as clear as day and frankly thats really all need to be said. We can argue on HOW it functions as it does now but its suppose to be in a different universe and it makes complete since that it is.
Again though I think the new show will settle this once and for all in some ways, unless it takes place prior to TOS then we’re screwed again lol.
Oh and another thing, the old universe still has stories being written for it today, in novel form. Sure I know its not ‘canon’ but it be bizarre they are still churning out stories for characters in a universe that may not existed as before, especially another century in the future like DS9 and Voyager. Again what I’m saying is this is probably WHY they went with the alternate timeline in the first place because the old universe is still a pretty viable market and I don’t see them wiping all that away for a set of 2 or 3 films that couldve easily bombed. In fact, from a BUSINESS perspective having two universes now means they can sell you the same thing twice lol.
So yeah why I believe its suppose to just be an alternate universe, to keep the coffers open for both of them.
You’re not wrong. But just keep in mind, Orci may have been clear as day behind the scenes, but it’s muddy as a foggy night, as far as canon goes. And make no mistake, Nimoy was included in the film to legitimize the reboot. Prime Spock’s presence is no indication of anything. In fact his presence works in the same paradoxical way that time travel has always worked in Trek. Nimoy is there to make sure the fans embrace the reboot — a purely financial reason to ensure the success of the new films. The books and licensing continue on precisely because there’s money to be made in the Prime universe, particularly from the fans who have been left dissatisfied by the KT.
The only saving grace here is that canon is silent about it. There’s nothing that precludes there from being an alternate universe, but then again, there’s nothing that confirms it either. In fact Orci was so oblique about getting pinned down about the on-screen explanation, that together with the first draft of the screenplay, which depicted time travel as working the way it always had, and the Prime timeline being over written by the Kelvin timeline; I’m certain that as far as he and the rest of the Abrams team were concerned, that’s what was happening — but CBS didn’t want any part of it.
From the sound of it, the new series will indeed put this issue to rest once and for all.
But thats my point though, if money is to be made from the prime universe, why would they want to ‘erase it’ with these films when they can simply say its in another universe? I get your point too, it doesnt feel like its in another universe but then the fact that nothing looks like TOS including the Enterprise says it is different. And yeah we’re talking decades of differences I get that but once again probably why its not hard to buy they are in a different universe.
It just seems like an odd point because if Spock says they are in a different universe from Prime Spock, what does it change? Nothing. But yes why not just SAY that, I dont know. Orci did say they didnt want to confuse people basically but yes its working wonders now lol.
And yes the new show will put this to rest and in fact we may know pretty soon because Bryan Fuller will be at comic con in a few weeks where he is hosting a panel with William Shatner, Brent Spiner, Scott Bakula etc and I’m more than sure they will release more info about the show. ANd he knows everyone wants to now the premise details. So MAYBE we will learn about it in less than 2 weeks time. I know one thing will be a lot to talk about that weekend. ;)
Oh, you’re missing a piece to the puzzle. There’s a reason Abrams is focused on Star Wars now. CBS wants to keep the Prime Timeline around, because it makes a lot of money. But Abrams did not. He wanted CBS to stop competing with his reboot, and get on the same page with him. When they refused, and his reboot merchandising efforts didn’t sell well on their own, he picked up his toys (literally) and went home — to a galaxy far far away, where they understand merchandising.
That’s why I think Orci didn’t make it clear they were in a different universe, he was told not to. The original plan had been to overwrite the timeline all along, but Orci & Kurtzman probably convinced Abrams that wouldn’t work.
I don’t have a problem either way. The beauty of time travel is that you can always go back at any point before the change and fix everything. My personal theory on why that didn’t happen is that Marcus prevented Prime Spock the access to do it — the only reason he didn’t lock him up was because Pike, Kirk and Spock intervened on his behalf, so he was “sentenced” to New Vulcan where he could be closely watched (and protected).
I agree with you that Simon Pegg’s theory is just bizarre and probably unreasonable as well as illogical.
The “butterfly effect” could have propagated with increasing force backward and forward in time under Pegg’s theory. However, this really plays havoc with the idea of a “timeline.”
Think about it this way: If every difference means that the timeline changes both backward and forward, then every permutation of every event changes everything in every timeline’s past, present, and future. This isn’t a scientific theory or even a quasi-scientific theory. It’s fantasy.
If today’s breakfast selection of a bagel sandwich at Starbucks instead of my usual Sausage and Egg McMuffin means that something that happened yesterday suddenly changed, then this must also mean that something that occurred ten years ago happened even MORE. This is completely untenable because it denies causality. It makes sense only if multiple realities intertwine in an infinite number of ways that cannot be consistent within any one timeline. Fundamentally, it denies any consistent point of view.
This means that given enough events, I could causally (within own preferred “timeline”) relate back to my status as the direct descendent of untold infinities of possible ancestors — including of aliens, perhaps, that didn’t exist before I ate my bagel sandwich. This makes sense only in fantasy. It is completely unrooted in anything like science of science-fiction. It is simply unbelievable — as unbelievable as it is utterly irrational.
And if it is utterly irrational, it’s very far apart from “science” fiction.
(Correction:)
If today’s breakfast selection of a bagel sandwich at Starbucks instead of my usual Sausage and Egg McMuffin means that something that happened yesterday suddenly changed, then this must also mean that something that occurred ten years ago changed even MORE
HatRick, you must admit that much of Trek does border on Fantasy/SciFi.
Yes, it does. But usually not to this explicit extent. The introduction of the Q is an example of what you refer to, and to be frank, “All Good Things…” and the way that the TNG series arc was tied together was admittedly rather non-scientific. However, the fantastic elements were in service of great stories, and had a tinge of science about them: Q was outside of our spacetime continuum, not of it, for example.
And, it bears note, some of the even more fantastical stories, such as the Voyager story in which everyone turned into a salamander at the achievement of Warp 10, were indeed pretty absurd. But those were the rare exceptions.
Even “Catspaw” had its science-y explanation, such as it was.
Pegg’s explanation is ludicrous, unscientific, fantastical, and arbitrary, and served very little purpose other than to allow him to retcon via the most incredible of technobabble a feature of a character that did nothing but draw attention to a currently fashionable cause. Worse, by doing so, he devalued the Abrams universe by highlighting its distance from the Classic universe. It was the cinematic equivalent of the much-derided “Valentine to the fans” that ended Star Trek: Enterprise, except, if possible, even more fundamentally off-putting and unnecessary.
Really, what other unpleasant and cringeworthy surprises can we unsuccessfully avoid from the producers of this film?
Pegg should have it written into his contract he can only speak when spoken to as everything he says seems to upset faans. Its why he stopped posting on his own twitter feed!! The guy does not know when to shut up either!! London premiere today should be fun …… wonder if he will even show up for it!!
Thank you, thank you, Simon Pegg!!!
So… did he just try to explain White Khan too? Multidimensional rifts that make gay babies. Star Trek has come up with some silly contortionist explanations for continuity problems and we fans have often had to do the same when the plot holes persist, but these are pretty rich.
Nothing makes gay babies gay. Simple explanation is that in one timeline, you are defined this way, and, in another, you’re that way. Don’t over think your sci-fi.
Maybe the explanation can be used to explain a transporter than can beam people from Earth to Kronos as well. And why no one else seems to use it for interplanetary travel.
Maybe RED MATTER causes mutations, like Chernobyl
Pegg’s explanation doesn’t work, according to Mr. Spock himself in ST 2009.
From the Memory Alpha website, the very website that Pegg used as a reference for the ST: Beyond screenplay”
Spock: “Nero’s very presence has altered the flow of history, beginning with the attack on the USS Kelvin, culminating in the events of today, thereby creating an entire new chain of incidents that cannot be anticipated by either party.”
Sulu shouldn’t be different if he was conceived before Kirk, or, at the very least, before news of the Kelvin’s disaster got out.
Afterwards, again, it’s possible that the character could be gay since he wouldn’t necessarily genetically be the same person, as Curious Cadet pointed out (and assuming a big enough “butterfly effect”).
I agree Pegg’s explanation doesn’t work based on how Orci explained his concept of QM MWI. The problem is Orci carefully avoided making QM MWI part of canon. So there’s absolutely no way to know from KT canon exactly what rules of time travel apply. For all we know, the KT could be overwriting the Prime timeline based on every example of time travel depicted in ST canon until ST09. Either way, if Sulu was conceived after Kirk, then he’s a different person.
Thats not happening though. One of the reasons why I’m so happy we are getting a new show, to finally clear this up once and for all IF its set in the prime universe. If not, then yeah more of the same fighting lol.
@ Tiger
The new series will make the ultimate social acceptance statement — it will be a historic Star Trek first when they beam a transexual person across space using transwarp beaming. ;-)
Yea, it’s a weird and unnecessary explanation.
Canon in TOS leave plenty of room for Sulu to be gay — this complex reason was not needed.
Well, I get what they’re basically saying though – this is not TOS and things are different.
If the Kelvin Universe characters are different than their TOS counterparts, how is it that Spock Prime saw them exactly as he remembered? Spock instantly recognized Kirk and Scott. If they are the same physically, then Kelvin Sulu would have all the attributes of Prime Sulu. That’s where it breaks down? Physically the same but mentally different? If that’s the case, logically Prime Spock could not trust any of them to behave in a manor predictable by his own memory.
Kirk and Scott were not affected by Nero as they were conceived prior to Nero arriving. As were Spock & McCoy. Sulu, Uhura, & Chekov were all changed. Since Prime Spock never knew any of those three at the age he is now encountering them, he’s not likely to be that thrown off, considering he has no interaction with them until the end of the movie anyway (if at all).
From the article above by Pegg
“Spock’s incursion from the Prime Universe created a multidimensional reality shift. The rift in space/time created an entirely new reality in all directions, top to bottom, from the Big Bang to the end of everything. As such this reality was, is and always will be subtly different from the Prime Universe.”
…and yet, apparently Kirk was affected – as were McCoy and Spock’s mother Amanda Grayson. How else do you explain the difference in eye colour between the Prime and Kelvin Timeline versions?
“and yet, apparently Kirk was affected – as were McCoy and Spock’s mother Amanda Grayson. How else do you explain the difference in eye colour between the Prime and Kelvin Timeline versions?”
Um, Kirk was played by a different actor?
Seriously, I think we can let the cosmetic and superficial elements have a pass. Orci tried to explain away the difference in the Enterprise’s appearance by saying the telemetry that the Kelvin survivors got gave Starfleet a leg up technologically, but that explanation never worked for me and it’s not necessary either. It’s like Enterprise giving an explanation for the different Klingon makeup that premiered in Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
Um, Kirk was born the day of Nero’s incursion. Scotty was born before it, as were Spock and McCoy.
Possibly Spock recognized Kirk and Scott because of their personalities and resulting body language, or his own telepathic abilities.
Marja,
Well, the eye color thing is something that can happen after birth and if Kirk’s 8 mos of gestation prior where identical to his Prime counterpart’s I suppose in my rethinking on their fingerprints, which patterns are determined by environmental factors during their formation and not the genes’ directly, could be identical which we know Spock as a student of Doyle would be able to recognize as Kirk’s on sight alone.
I think it has to be asked – why couldn’t the big E and the crew be allowed to fire back and last more than 30 seconds without being crippled in three Star Trek movies? Kind of sad to think that this super Enterprise never got the change to prove herself. I think the set up in Beyond is fantastic, I think it’s more sad that Into Darkness didn’t give the crew a fair strategic battle with the super dreadnought. Gay or straight why can’t all these new Enterprises take a pounding and fire back? Any chance they start Beyond with a Bond style teaser where Enterprise and crew defeat a Klingon D-7 to give her some credibility before going down in flames? I wonder if we will ever get to see a Connie take on a D-7 battlecrusier in an even fight.
No. There is no chance. If that’s what you’re hoping for, I can’t tell you how dissapointed you’re going to be by the Ewok/Trolls.
Wow and here I was moaning about the fact no one ever just pointed out the reality that they are two DIFFERENT Sulus, with Takei’s in his universe and Cho in his. And Pegg laid it out beautifully. Not only remaking that they are two different entities that we should also not think of time as linear when comparing the two. This was exactly what so many have been arguing. And its good to hear him say that. Now you can still about the fact that Sulu is gay but as he made it clear its NOT the same Sulu from the other universe, so its utterly valid which is why its much ado about nothing.
But sadly I wish they explained it that well in the films as they always do outside the films so people could grasp this better. Anyway, happy he said it even if people still dont like it. As Pegg said they can all go (colorful metaphor) themselves. ;)
Pegg doesn’t really make any sense. He’s conflicting with Orci’s theory as presented for ST09, and making up his own interpretation, which actually suggests the KT is overwriting the Prime timeline in keeping with traditional paradoxical time travel depicted in TOS. So you’re lucky a better explanation was never included in the previous films if you like what Pegg is peddling.
The reality is, fans can have their cake and eat it too, no matter how they view the time travel that created the KT. As long as Sulu was born after Nero’s incursion, Sulu can be gay in one reality, and straight in another. Just like Sulu can be good in the Prime universe and evil in the Mirror universe. We didn’t need Pegg to explain that to us. Now if someone is brave enough to explain it in the next movie, we’ll really have something to start the fans up …
Dude Orci has bent over backwards saying that ISN’T happening. Its not over writing the Prime timeline because its in a freakin different universe. The guy has explained it over and over again.
Orci talking about it in this interview:
ORCI: If she says that, I think she’s wrong. We can do whatever we want. However, the rule that we have for ourselves is that it has to harmonize with canon. This is going to get way too geeky, and I apologize ahead of time… Quantum mechanics, which is how we based our time travel, is not just simple time travel. Leonard Nimoy didn’t just go back and change history (as Spock Prime in the 2009 film), and then everything is like Back to the Future. It’s using the rules of quantum mechanics, which means it’s an alternate universe where there is no going back. There is no fixing the timeline. There’s just another reality that is the latest and greatest of time travel that exist. So, on the one hand we’re free. On the other hand, these same rules of quantum mechanics tell us that the universes that exist, they exist because they are the most probable universe.
http://www.startrek.com/article/exclusive-orci-opens-up-about-star-trek-into-darkness-part-1#sthash.Y0WnpdNJ.dpuf
The guy says it right there. This ISN’T Back to the Future. He didn’t just travel back in his universe and rewrote his own. He went to another universe similar to his own and rewrote THEIR timeline. No more than when Kirk went to the Mirror Universe in TOS and rewrote THEIR timeline and then we see the effects of that 30 years later on DS9.
The writer of the film has said its an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE! Why is this still so hard for people to grasp?
And yes once they brought out white Khan in STID, they overwrote themselves a long time ago lol. Pegg isn’t doing anything that wasn’t already violated in the second film that Orci himself wrote.
Actually, the explanation for Khan’s Caucasian appearance in STID was given by Mike Johnson, with input from Orci, in the IDW comics.
Essentially, he was captured by Section 31, given a new face and mind-wiped. Later, I guess he got his memory back.
That of course is not canon, nor is it good writing, or rather it might have been when they did it first in Mission Impossible back in the 1960s. It was also stated in that comic that Marcus knew Khan would regain his memory at some point, yet Khan was not under constant surveillance for some reason, allowing him to steal his crew and stow them away inside torpedoes, and then escape. STID was a mess of half baked ideas and PC ideologies strung together into a linear story hoping that nobody would catch on if they threw in enough action and violence.
I have no problems with his explanation. But I was not on the side of George. I felt what they did by using Sulu as a nod to LGBT and to Takei was nice and yet subtle. I agree that if they would of had to create a new character that characters background would take away from the focus of the story and movie in favor of the characters sexuality which is what we don’t need. This is supposed to be a future where we don’t care if you are gay or straight. What you do in the bedroom is your own business. So I see nothing wrong with it. I don’t mind that it shows Sulu and his Love and his Daughter. I don’t think it should matter in the future if his spouse is guy or girl or some alien from another planet. As long as they are happy then that is all that matters. So I say thank you Simon for the way you introduced this into Star Trek. I believe Gene would of been proud of how you handled such a touchy topic in today’s world.