StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Correction: meant Cho for the new Sulu.

Gender and race changes generally do cause some consternation. Notable recent examples include the rebooted Battlestar Galactica (Starbuck and Boomer now both women, Boomer being Asian, Adama Hispanic, Tigh going from black to white) and the casting of Idris Elba as Heimdall. Despite the hue and cry, though, it all turned out well. Why? Because of the writing and acting being well done.

And let's not forget the inevitable fan-whine that occurs whenever Doctor Who re-casts the lead character. Holy crap, it's only happened a dozen times now, get over it! Not to mention re-casting of the Master and a couple cross-gender regenerations now (one off screen, one on).

If this change in sexual orientation is pulled off equally well then it, too, will turn out well and in retrospect the fuss will seem ridiculous. If it turns out poorly then it will be a black mark against the rebooted Trek.

bilateralrope wrote:

Adam Reynolds wrote:Sulu was portrayed as straight in the original series, why is that now changing?

Was Sulu ever shown in a hetrosexual relationship ?

One of the movies Kirk met Sulu's daughter, who was conceived off screen, so presumably he had a hetero relationship.

bilateralrope wrote:

Adam Reynolds wrote:Sulu was portrayed as straight in the original series, why is that now changing?

Was Sulu ever shown in a hetrosexual relationship ?

ST: Generations introduced Demora Sulu, Sulu's BIOLOGICAL Daughter

As for why change it, why not ?
Do you have an objection to Star Trek acknowledging that gay people exist ?

Canonically Sulu was straight, the presence of BIOLOGICAL offspring driving that point home.

HOWEVER...this is a different timeline....somehow the Kelvin incident turned him gay. Perhaps different Academy roommate...a little "college experimentation" goes a tad too well...Demora's now erased from the timeline.

Except that in the new movie he and his husband are raising a kid - no reason Demora Sulu couldn't be that kid, and no reason Demora couldn't still be Hikaru's biological child. Heck, homosexuals have been producing biological children since forever, these days they don't even have to have heterosex to do it, and in the Star Trek future with cross-species hybrids it wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Which is probably one of the points any Sulu+family scene is likely to make.

mr friendly guy wrote:

bilateralrope wrote:

Adam Reynolds wrote:Sulu was portrayed as straight in the original series, why is that now changing?

Was Sulu ever shown in a hetrosexual relationship ?

One of the movies Kirk met Sulu's daughter, who was conceived off screen, so presumably he had a hetero relationship.

To be pedantic, he didn't have to have any kind of relationship; it was never said whether Demora was a natural child, after all, hence she could be adopted. Even if she came from Sulu by the, ahem, traditional method, it only means that he was with a female of his own species for long enough to transmit the necessary genetic material.

The implication was obvious that Sulu was in a relationship, of course.

FedRebel wrote: ST: Generations introduced Demora Sulu, Sulu's BIOLOGICAL Daughter
Canonically Sulu was straight, the presence of BIOLOGICAL offspring driving that point home.

They never said she was his biological daughter. I don't know why you keep putting it caps as if to emphasise the point.

Now, wait, are they making Sulu gay? Or are they making him have a relationship with a man? Because those are not the same thing. It's quite possible he was always bisexual in both timelines.

Does it matter?

 
I'd like to think that in a society in which inter-racial-relationships are possible - and hopefully not frowned upon any more - at least not on Earth or in Starfleet - such petty differentiation - as homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality - have lost its (stigmatising) meaning.

You simply love who you love - regardless the sex, gender or race - regardless if the other comes from a species which has no distinct gender (e.g. the J'naii (Riker - Soren)), which is hermaphrodite (e.g. the Tholians), transgender or has more than two sexes or genders (e.g. the Vissians with their Cogenitor or Species 8472 with five sexes) - and regardless if the other partner is a biological lifeform or not (Zefram Cochrane - Companion; Natasha Yar - Data; Jenna D'Sora - Data; Borg Queen - Data).

Insofar - in-universe - it's bad luck that we haven't seen what we would call homosexual relationships - out-of-universe - it's a shame that even all inter-racial-relationships that were shown were relationships between what we would regard as male and female or at least relationships that we would not regard as homosexual.

• • • • Spoiler
        Sarek (Vulcan) - Amanda (Human) => Spock
        ??? (Romulan) - ??? (Vulcan) => Saavik
        Ian Andrew Troi (Human) - Lwaxana Troi (Betazoid) => Deanna Troi
        ??? (Klingon) - ??? (Human) => K'Ehleyr
        John Torres (Human) - Miral (Klingon) => B'Elanna Torres
        Natasha Yar (Human) - ??? (Romulan) => Sela
        Tokath (Romulan) - Gi'ral (Klingon) => Ba'el
        ??? (Talaxian) - ??? (Mylean) => Neelix's great-grand-ancestor
        B'Elanna Torres (half-Klingon - half-Human) - Thomas Eugene Paris (Human) => Miral Paris
        K'Ehleyr (half-Klingon - half-Human) - Worf (Klingon) => Alexander Rozhenko
        Nikolai Rozhenko (Human) - Dobara (Boraalan) => ???
        Samantha Wildman (Human) - Greskrendtregk (Ktarian) = Naomi Wildman
        
        Deanna Troi (half-Betazoid - half-Human) - Riker (Human)
        Rike (Human) - Soren (J'naii)
        Deanna Troi (half-Betazoid - half-Human) - Worf (Klingon)
        Jadzia Dax (Trill) - Worf (Klingon)
        Ezri Dax (Trill) - Bashir (Human)
        
        Zefram Cochrane (Human) - Companion
        Natasha Yar (Human) - Data
        Jenna D'Sora (Human) - Data
        Borg Queen (???) - Data

Prometheus Unbound wrote:Does it matter?

the thing is that "Kelvin Timeline" is suppose to be identical to the "Prime timeline" up until the destruction of the USS Kelvin, obviously that happened the same time as Kirk's birth so it's probable that Sulu wasn't born yet (while I don't think they ever stated the exact age for the TOS crew (except for Bones in TNG) Sulu was depicted as Junior member of the crew so he is probably younger then Kirk). In this matter it shouldn't be that big of a deal as it's not really changing parts that are "set" so to speak.

With the Kelvin timeline you got thing that are essentially set in stone (all of ENT and events after that up until the destruction of the Kelvin) and things they can change that are the events after seperation point in the prime timeline.

Personally I don't mind if Sulu is gay or straight as long as he character is writen reasonbly well.

The fact that it's Sulu annoys me because it's so hamfisted. It's perfectly reasonable for Sulu to have a male partner (although this would make him bi, not gay; he's clearly attracted to women in TOS), and I concede that it's possible that they just randomly selected a main character with an ambiguous sexuality. But the fact that it's Sulu as the first and only same-sex relationship in Trek points to "Takei is gay so Sulu should be gay" as the reason. And that is an intensely stupid reason for anything.

Not really a big deal, but still, it feels forced and cheap.

Possibly off-topic, but... Is it just me, or does it say something unpleasant about our society that Sulu being changed to be in a same-sex relationship is international news, but Kirk being changed from an inspiring leader to an occasionally heroic but usually pathetic man-child doesn't seem to bother anyone other than big-time Trekkies?

Possibly off-topic, but... Is it just me, or does it say something unpleasant about our society that Sulu being changed to be in a same-sex relationship is international news, but Kirk being changed from an inspiring leader to an occasionally heroic but usually pathetic man-child doesn't seem to bother anyone other than big-time Trekkies?

I think it's because making Sulu gay is about as pointless as making the new Ghostbusters all female. Nothing wrong with being gay in itself, and nothing wrong with female scientists either. But (and this is just my own opinion) both changes were done for no good reason. It's like they just flipped a switch and did it "just because". There's no plot justification for it and it just seems (as you said) hamfisted.

Let's take Ghostbusters as an example. If they had done the sequel route rather than the reboot, why not have the old cast reprise their roles as the Ghostbusters and train a new group, half of whom are women? Then give the women some of the bigger parts in the story. Bam, done. It's not shoe-horned in and you get what you want...strong leading women.

With Star Trek, snapping your fingers and making one of the existing characters gay "just because" is a very poor way of doing things. The best course of action would be to introduce a new character with a central role in the movie (who just happens to be gay), and then allow this character to become a permanent part of the franchise in the next movies after this one. Unfortunately, this requires good writing (which they don't have) and the possibility of more sequels to continue the story (which is in doubt at this point).

Borgholio wrote:

Possibly off-topic, but... Is it just me, or does it say something unpleasant about our society that Sulu being changed to be in a same-sex relationship is international news, but Kirk being changed from an inspiring leader to an occasionally heroic but usually pathetic man-child doesn't seem to bother anyone other than big-time Trekkies?

I think it's because making Sulu gay is about as pointless as making the new Ghostbusters all female. Nothing wrong with being gay in itself, and nothing wrong with female scientists either. But (and this is just my own opinion) both changes were done for no good reason. It's like they just flipped a switch and did it "just because". There's no plot justification for it and it just seems (as you said) hamfisted.

Let's take Ghostbusters as an example. If they had done the sequel route rather than the reboot, why not have the old cast reprise their roles as the Ghostbusters and train a new group, half of whom are women? Then give the women some of the bigger parts in the story. Bam, done. It's not shoe-horned in and you get what you want...strong leading women.

With Star Trek, snapping your fingers and making one of the existing characters gay "just because" is a very poor way of doing things. The best course of action would be to introduce a new character with a central role in the movie (who just happens to be gay), and then allow this character to become a permanent part of the franchise in the next movies after this one. Unfortunately, this requires good writing (which they don't have) and the possibility of more sequels to continue the story (which is in doubt at this point).

There's also the thing that you can kind of see the Old Kirk in the New Kirk, only the New Kirk didn't have the life experiences that made Old Kirk a less reckless person. I mean Old Kirk (or Kirk-prime) could be borderline reckless at times we got remember that Kirk-prime was what about a decade older when he got the command of the Enterprise the first time thus being a lot more mature person.

Lord Revan wrote:There's also the thing that you can kind of see the Old Kirk in the New Kirk, only the New Kirk didn't have the life experiences that made Old Kirk a less reckless person. I mean Old Kirk (or Kirk-prime) could be borderline reckless at times we got remember that Kirk-prime was what about a decade older when he got the command of the Enterprise the first time thus being a lot more mature person.

In particular, the Geneverse Kirk had also been through the experiences of Tarsus IV and the Farragut before he got command, whereas the Abramsverse Kirk, prior to STID, hadn't had an equivalent.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:There's also the thing that you can kind of see the Old Kirk in the New Kirk, only the New Kirk didn't have the life experiences that made Old Kirk a less reckless person. I mean Old Kirk (or Kirk-prime) could be borderline reckless at times we got remember that Kirk-prime was what about a decade older when he got the command of the Enterprise the first time thus being a lot more mature person.

In particular, the Geneverse Kirk had also been through the experiences of Tarsus IV and the Farragut before he got command, whereas the Abramsverse Kirk, prior to STID, hadn't had an equivalent.

There's also the fact that in Prime-timeline the USS Kelvin completed its mission without any issues and George Kirk snr. died much later (and therefore could raise his son James Kirk) while in the Kelvin Timeline George Kirk snr. was one the many people lost when the USS Kelvin was destroyed and therefore had no influence on the raising on that timeline's James T. Kirk.

basically the essence of Prime-Kirk is in the new-Kirk but the lack of his father's influence and different life path had lead this Kirk to be more reckless.

basically the essence of Prime-Kirk is in the new-Kirk but the lack of his father's influence and different life path had lead this Kirk to be more reckless.

Which is unfortunate, because I really wanted to see how Prime Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru. New-Kirk's way was really crude and not very clever at all.

Borgholio wrote:Which is unfortunate, because I really wanted to see how Prime Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru.

Spoiler

1. The spoiler tags still don't work.
2. We KNOW he cheated. What we don't know is how and how much. NewKirk essentially used God Mode.

Yeah, specifically I wanted to see the method by which he cheated. In ST-2, he just mentioned he reprogrammed it. When it was shown on screen in New-Trek, it seemed like a cheap hack which everybody in the room noticed (and amazingly, didn't think twice about it once the lights came back on). I always envisioned Kirk doing something sneaky and clever like inserting a few subtle lines of code that brought in a squadron of Romulans to engage the Klingons while he rescued the crew of the ship, or something like that.

It should be noted that Beyond isn't the first Star Trek work to feature homosexuality- DS9 "Rejoined" had a lesbian kiss between 2 joined Trills.

Lord Revan wrote:Personally I don't mind if Sulu is gay or straight as long as he character is writen reasonbly well.

What I'd like is a scene that would work equally well if Sulu's partner was female.

Borgholio wrote:The best course of action would be to introduce a new character with a central role in the movie (who just happens to be gay), and then allow this character to become a permanent part of the franchise in the next movies after this one.

I've heard that one of the reasons that Uhura's station was behind the captains chair in TOS was so that racist networks couldn't edit the episodes to remove her. Lets think about making it hard to remove the gay character from future movies/series

If they make Sulu gay (or at least bi), then he will stay no matter how many people whine about it. Remove him from future movies/series and it will be an obviously homophobic move, bringing unwanted publicity.

If they bring in a new character, people will complain that the character is gay. Other people will see this character as one that exists purely to have a gay character in Star Trek. Others will complain about him taking attention away from the main cast. So the character stands a high chance of not being in future movies/series, and there might be good reasons to do so that don't involve homophobia. Lessening the negative publicity over it.

If you want a gay character to be in Nu-Trek permanently, you need one that is hard to remove. Which means one of the main cast because removing them will bring a bigger PR backlash. As for which member of the main castto pick, picking Sulu to honour George Takei is probably the best reason you're going to get.