• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George Takei on Gay Sulu: Doesn't Like the Idea

Good Gawd, its fantasy entertainment, who cares? what, are some people worried a "Gay Sulu" is going to lisp
"Bone me Up Scotty". :roll:
 
Zyphlin said:
What's been funny with this is the "We can say that word but you can't" mentality towards Takei.

Because he's gay, because he's generally in favor of LGBT rights openly, it's perfectly acceptable for him to simply have his opinion and it 's entirely reasonable even if you don't agree with it.

However, what he's saying is no different than the notion that a Norse God shouldn't be played by a black guy. Or a character who was repeatedly described as being pretty much a carbon copy for Clint Eastwood and who's most striking feature are his blue eyes shouldn't be played by a black guy. (coincidentally, both played by the same badass actor). Or that Iceman shouldn't suddenly be gay. Or hell, that the Doctor shouldn't be a female or shouldn't be a American.

However typically the assumption right off the bat is that anyone suggesting such things aren't doing so because of an eye to tradition/originators intent/consistency of story/etc but rather that they're doing it because they're racist/bigoted/xenophobic/homophobic/etc.

But since Takei is well known within the SJW scene, he gets a pass and his words/arguments are simply believed to be true. Doesn't mean they agree with him, but the vitriol and mind reading of what people "really mean" isn't done with him.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that, because a story just came out about how Takei is taking a tremendous amount of flak on this issue from the SJW crowd in spite of his bona fides as a gay man and a supporter of LGBT issues.

The story is "Takei learns what it's like to be a conservative."

Heh.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I guess you're not supposed to like him because he's gay?
Click to expand...
I felt like she was testing me to see if I was hypocritical, or something. Testing to see if my reaction might catch me in a "Got'cha!" moment.

While I like her a great deal, even though her politics are way too leftist for me, I was disappointed in that exchange.
 
LowDown said:
Funny you should say that, because a story just came out about how Takei is taking a tremendous amount of flak on this issue from the SJW crowd in spite of his bona fides as a gay man and a supporter of LGBT issues.

The story is "Takei learns what it's like to be a conservative."

Heh.
Click to expand...

Heh, weird. I had seen very / heard very little about his stance, with most responses being in the "that's his opinion but he's wrong" mold at worst. Perhaps I was just missing it if he's getting the typical vitriol for such an opinion
 
radcen said:
In a similar vein, I was having a conversation with a good friend regarding old tv shows and I mentioned that I like to watch Perry Mason. Into our conversation she, being something of an SJW herself, says, "You know Raymond Burr was gay in real life, right?"

I was actually speechless for a second, which is rare. I finally replied, "Yes, I have known that for quite some time."

Inside I was thinking, "What the eff does that have to do with watching and liking old tv shows? :shrug:"
Click to expand...

Nothing, but it would be nice to gay viewers to see an actual gay character now and then. There's been 0 (yes zero) gay characters in the top 200 grossing sci fi and action movies, ever. I'm not saying it should be forced on old characters like Sulu, but i have to wonder, was there this much objection when the recent superman vs batman had a black perry white? Is that not a betrayal of the character or the creator's vision, or they just want to pretend america wasn't way more racist back then?
 
Well, it's a legitimate point that when things are taking place in the 23rd century, then Sulu shouldn't have felt any pressure to stay in a closet. Society should have progressed farther than that by then.
 
chromium said:
Nothing, but it would be nice to gay viewers to see an actual gay character now and then. There's been 0 (yes zero) gay characters in the top 200 grossing sci fi and action movies, ever. I'm not saying it should be forced on old characters like Sulu, but i have to wonder, was there this much objection when the recent superman vs batman had a black perry white? Is that not a betrayal of the character or the creator's vision, or they just want to pretend america wasn't way more racist back then?
Click to expand...

Star Trek has been an incredibly progressive series.
Their characters were not stereotyped representations of various people around the world.
Including the the first televised PDA between 2 deferentially raced people, Ohura and Kirk.

An Asian character not doing Kung Fu and swinging a samurai sword.
A Russian character, during the cold war, not depicted as evil.

I think I'd make a new Trek character, that happens to be gay.
Takai's Sulu is fine as is.
 
I'm upset in general that they took TOS and reinvented it. They should have just made a new Star Trek.
 
Zyphlin said:
What's been funny with this is the "We can say that word but you can't" mentality towards Takei.

Because he's gay, because he's generally in favor of LGBT rights openly, it's perfectly acceptable for him to simply have his opinion and it 's entirely reasonable even if you don't agree with it.

However, what he's saying is no different than the notion that a Norse God shouldn't be played by a black guy. Or a character who was repeatedly described as being pretty much a carbon copy for Clint Eastwood and who's most striking feature are his blue eyes shouldn't be played by a black guy. (coincidentally, both played by the same badass actor). Or that Iceman shouldn't suddenly be gay. Or hell, that the Doctor shouldn't be a female or shouldn't be a American.

However typically the assumption right off the bat is that anyone suggesting such things aren't doing so because of an eye to tradition/originators intent/consistency of story/etc but rather that they're doing it because they're racist/bigoted/xenophobic/homophobic/etc.

But since Takei is well known within the SJW scene, he gets a pass and his words/arguments are simply believed to be true. Doesn't mean they agree with him, but the vitriol and mind reading of what people "really mean" isn't done with him.
Click to expand...

Not at all like a black norse god, wtf. As eco warrior pointed out, Sulu was never seen with a female romance, so he could've been gay all along. Takei's criticism is a lot more nuanced than yours, that Sulu would never have been in the closet the whole time, that's not in alignment with his character. I am certainly far more willing to listen to this complaint than the usual bitching from known homophobes. Of course they will be dismissed as they will hate any gay character. An infinitely better analogy would've been piece brosnan's blathering about a gay james bond. I mean, bond is only the biggest womanizer ever
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think I'd make a new Trek character, that happens to be gay.
Takai's Sulu is fine as is.
Click to expand...

I agree. But I still don't have a problem with this.

If the creator's themselves choose to make one of their character's gay, or add diversity in their movies, then I'm fine with it. The problem I have is when people try to demand/force them to do this.
 
Northern Light said:
I'm upset in general that they took TOS and reinvented it. They should have just made a new Star Trek.
Click to expand...

or made their own space exploration saga, instead of stealing others' ideas and efforts, god forbid. But original movies happen so rarely that inevitably any gay character will have been 'not gay' in the iteration that was ripped off
 
TheGoverness said:
I agree. But I still don't have a problem with this.

If the creator's themselves choose to make one of their character's gay, or add diversity in their movies, then I'm fine with it. The problem I have is when people try to demand/force them to do this.
Click to expand...

With series like this, I tend to disagree, unless like NL said, they start a new crew and timeline.
Sulu had already been established as a straight character, although not widely known.

The movie makers are trying to run on nostalgia of the past characters and entering social politics into, at the same time.
I think they should of tried a new crew.
We need a fresh look on a lot of series, like Star Wars and Star Trek.
The first Star Trek crew is legendary, but it's old now.
 
sanman said:
Well, it's a legitimate point that when things are taking place in the 23rd century, then Sulu shouldn't have felt any pressure to stay in a closet. Society should have progressed farther than that by then.
Click to expand...

Yes, but how many star trek characters pursued the opposite sex on screen either? Not Sulu. That doesn't mean they were all asexual of course. They were on duty and with limited options and limited screen time, that's all
 
TurtleDude said:
Good Gawd, its fantasy entertainment, who cares? what, are some people worried a "Gay Sulu" is going to lisp
"Bone me Up Scotty". :roll:
Click to expand...

A lot of people can't stand it when people edit the identity of beloved characters rather than making new ones. I like Miles Morales, the new Spider Man. However, if they'd just decided to turn Peter Parker into a gay black kid, that would've been a textbook case of tokenism, and an insult to the original creators and the fans alike.

Granted, this is far more like writing in something that was left blank rather than editing a character, but it still irritates some fans and can be percievd as making Sulu a token character.
 
Last edited:
Jesse Booth said:
A lot of people can't stand it when people edit the identity of beloved characters rather than making new ones. I like Miles Morales, the new Spider Man. However, if they'd just decided to turn Peter Parker into a gay black kid, that would've been a textbook case of tokenism, and an insult to the original creators and the fans alike.
Click to expand...

Feels like that with Sulu.
"Hey, hey everyone, we're making Sulu gay, because Takai is gay."
"Buy our movie!"

Instead of creating a new series/character, don't announce it but let it emerge in the story naturally.
Feels like Tokenism and a cash grab.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Feels like that with Sulu.
"Hey, hey everyone, we're making Sulu gay, because Takai is gay."
"Buy our movie!"

Instead of creating a new series/character, don't announce it but let it emerge in the story naturally.
Feels like Tokenism and a cash grab.
Click to expand...

I agree with the sentiment, although I will admit that the lack of previous romantic interests for the character does slightly soften the possible insult, as it isn't really changing any established characteristics.
 
Jesse Booth said:
I agree with the sentiment, although I will admit that the lack of previous romantic interests for the character does slightly soften the possible insult, as it isn't really changing any established characteristics.
Click to expand...

Sulu has a daughter, she was in one of the previous films.
He had a relationship with a female, I think Takai even said as such.

While she (his romantic relationship) wasn't out front, it's established already.
I think the new writers are trying to make a different timeline based on the old characters, which to me screams cash grab.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sulu has a daughter, she was in one of the previous films.
He had a relationship with a female, I think Takai even said as such.

While she (his romantic relationship) wasn't out front, it's established already.
I think the new writers are trying to make a different timeline based on the old characters, which to me screams cash grab.
Click to expand...

Ah. I did not know that Sulu had a family. I never was a big ST guy; SW is where it's at, if you ask me.

As for alternate timelines, those aren't always cash grabs. Take The Force Awakens, for example. With how much stuff the Expanded Universe included, there was barely a lightyear of unmapped galaxy left to build a story in, for about five decades in either direction on a timeline. Disney practically HAD to set up two SW canons to make a new movie without dedicated fans knowing the entire plotline before they even got a ticket.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Ah. I did not know that Sulu had a family. I never was a big ST guy; SW is where it's at, if you ask me.

As for alternate timelines, those aren't always cash grabs. Take The Force Awakens, for example. With how much stuff the Expanded Universe included, there was barely a lightyear of unmapped galaxy left to build a story in, for about five decades in either direction on a timeline. Disney practically HAD to set up two SW canons to make a new movie without dedicated fans knowing the entire plotline before they even got a ticket.
Click to expand...

Yea she was played by Jacquelyn Kim, in Generations.

Honestly, I thought the Force Awakens was meh.
Entertaining, but without all the good stuff that made the first 2 great.
As an adult, for me, the others besides 4 and 5 were mediocre to ****.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yea she was played by Jacquelyn Kim, in Generations.

Honestly, I thought the Force Awakens was meh.
Entertaining, but without all the good stuff that made the first 2 great.
As an adult, for me, the others besides 4 and 5 were mediocre to ****.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm in Star Wars for the Expanded Universe, and I could never forgive the Force Awakens for being a repeat of episode 4. After a certain point, though, the entire franchise starts to feel like the Marvel comics: there's always a bad writer waiting to ruin a good story, there's always a villain building a doomsday device somewhere in the Unknown Regions, and every movie is somehow the worst thing ever, in someone's opinion. :lol:
 
Jesse Booth said:
Oh, I'm in Star Wars for the Expanded Universe, and I could never forgive the Force Awakens for being a repeat of episode 4. After a certain point, though, the entire franchise starts to feel like the Marvel comics: there's always a bad writer waiting to ruin a good story, there's always a villain building a doomsday device somewhere in the Unknown Regions, and every movie is somehow the worst thing ever, in someone's opinion. :lol:
Click to expand...

I played SW RPG when I was a teenager, undercover of course, had to keep my street cred.
The source books are full of incredible movie ideas, that'll never make it to film.
Makes me a sad panda.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I played SW RPG when I was a teenager, undercover of course, had to keep my street cred.
The source books are full of incredible movie ideas, that'll never make it to film.
Makes me a sad panda.
Click to expand...

I've been waiting to see Grand Admiral Thrawn get his own movie since I was nine. I know how you feel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom