Should Sulu be gay?

[Terrifel]

Not the actor himself, of course; I'm sure Mr. Takei would agree that's probably not the sort of thing the fans should have a say in. But ever since he came out, it seems like every casual reference to his Star Trek character has included some joking allusion to homosexuality. While this seems kind of childish to me, it also makes me wonder if this might be a good opportunity to potentially address a longstanding issue: the apparent absence of gay characters in Star Trek.

On the one hand, it's maybe not a great idea to unnecessarily conflate a character with the actor playing him; I believe Leonard Nimoy has written a couple of books touching on this subject. On the other hand, if Mr. Takei were amenable to the idea, I think that it'd be a neat idea if such a detail could be incorporated into Trek canon. I don't recall anything from the series or films that would absolutely contradict the premise, although I could be wrong about that. I've also heard that there are fan-written works, unauthorized by Paramount, which explore these matters in more detail; however, I am unfamiliar with this subgenre.

After the Big Three, Sulu's arguably the Original Series regular with the most depth and complexity; he's also presented as the most dynamic and successful career-wise. I got the impression (admittedly, maybe from the novels) that Kirk regarded Sulu as his protege. If, after 40 years, the character were definitely established as gay, would it make a difference, one way or the other?


(Sorry if this seems like kind of a scatterbrained OP; I felt like hashing over something classic-Trek-related, and it was either this or "Were the warp nacelles on the Original Series Enterprise too large, aesthetically speaking?")

[Otto]

When it comes to nacelles, size doesn't matter. It wasn't until Voyager that nacelles could get it up anyway.

The only canon reference I can think of that might contradict Sulu's being gay is the moment from The Naked Time when a shirtless Sulu (swoon) comes to Uhura's "defense," calling her "fair maiden" (prompting one of the best lines ever, in ST or out, "Sorry, neither."). But that could be dismissed as drug-addled chivalry as opposed to any indication that he was attracted to her.

I would very much like for there to be an unabashedly, unambiguously gay character in the ST canon, if for no other reason that before he died Gene promised there would be. The creators since then have fallen back on the "by this time it shouldn't matter" line, but if it really doesn't matter then why not include one?

[Ephemera]

Demora Sulu, his daughter in Generations, would seem to indicate he's straight or, at the very least bisexual and I'm fine with that. It'd be nice to have a gay character in Trek but it's not something I really care about and, truth be told, a topic I'm a little tired of. I think the people that use the "it shouldn't matter by then!" excuse are using it as an excuse but, really, I agree with them. It shouldn't and I'm fine not knowing the sexual (or religious or political) proclivities of the characters.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Aesiron

Demora Sulu, his daughter in Generations, would seem to indicate he's straight or, at the very least bisexual and I'm fine with that.

Plenty of gay people have children now so the existence of a child really doesn't mean anything.

Originally Posted by Aesiron

I think the people that use the "it shouldn't matter by then!" excuse are using it as an excuse but, really, I agree with them. It shouldn't and I'm fine not knowing the sexual (or religious or political) proclivities of the characters.

But you do know the sexual proclivities of the characters, because almost every single one of them has at one time or another been involved in a romantic and/or sexual storyline with someone of the other sex.

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by Aesiron

It'd be nice to have a gay character in Trek but it's not something I really care about and, truth be told, a topic I'm a little tired of. I think the people that use the "it shouldn't matter by then!" excuse are using it as an excuse but, really, I agree with them. It shouldn't and I'm fine not knowing the sexual (or religious or political) proclivities of the characters.

I'm with Otto. You always know everyone's sexual, religious & political proclivities. The obvious absence of a Gay character is more distracting than the nonchalant inclusion of one, IMHO.

That's different than nonchalantly not including one because "it shouldn't really matter."

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Aesiron

I think the people that use the "it shouldn't matter by then!" excuse are using it as an excuse but, really, I agree with them.

Female officers shouldn't be wearing miniskirts by then, either.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

"it shouldn't really matter."

I thought that was Roddenberry's argument dealing with the David Gerrold thing.

[Ephemera]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Female officers shouldn't be wearing miniskirts by then, either.

Yes. And?

[Oakminster]

Why retcon Sulu's preference at this point? It ain't like they'll be filimg another movie where Sulu saves the universe by sucking cock...

[Loopydude]

Nice.

Anyway, one of the things I hate about Trek is the absurd amount of retconning going on. By all means, have a gay character, but have it be a new character.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Female officers shouldn't be wearing miniskirts by then, either.

Well by the 23rd century male officers had the option of wearing miniskants.

[Ephemera]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

Anyway, one of the things I hate about Trek is the absurd amount of retconning going on. By all means, have a gay character, but have it be a new character.

Absurd amounts? I honestly don't remember that much retconning. Can you give some examples?

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Why retcon Sulu's preference at this point? It ain't like they'll be filimg another movie where Sulu saves the universe by sucking cock...

Yes, because that's how Sulu would save the universe.

By sucking cock.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Otto

Yes, because that's how Sulu would save the universe.

Naw, he's save it whatever his preferences, by flying the Excelsior apart if need be.
^ ^

[Loopydude]

Originally Posted by Aesiron

Absurd amounts? I honestly don't remember that much retconning. Can you give some examples?

Oh, gosh, it's everywhere, but one especially horrific example was some kind of bizarre storyline where Klingons were originally some kind of crustacean or something. I'm serious. So when they first encountered humans, they were so impressed they genetically altered themselves, and through some freak accident, wound up looking just like humans. That's when Kirk ran into them. So, at some point between the last episode of TOS and the films, they've somehow introduced some measure of atavism, and instead of being really foul-tempered shrimp or whatever the fuck they were, they ended up with boney forheads. So, you know, that's why the look different in TOS than they do they do in other Trek films or series. I kid you not.

[Ephemera]

I don't consider that a retcon but a hamfisted attempt at reconcilliation, i.e., fanwank. There's a difference.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Otto

Yes, because that's how Sulu would save the universe.

By sucking cock.

My point being that if he ain't gonna save the universe by sucking cock, it makes zero sense to retcon him being gay. You do a retcon where there is a story driven reason to do so. That doesn't exist here.

[Loopydude]

Originally Posted by Aesiron

There's a difference.

Does that fine semantic point have a purpose for this discussion? Fanwank then? OK, would it not be kind of fanwanky to make Sulu gay at this point?

[Ephemera]

It's completely irrelevant to the discussion of Sulu's sexuality, actually; I was just curious about your perception of the prevalence of retconning in Trek.

That said, yes, it'd be wanky on a few different levels.

[Terrifel]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

Anyway, one of the things I hate about Trek is the absurd amount of retconning going on. By all means, have a gay character, but have it be a new character.

The series never actually depicted Sulu with a romantic interest of any kind, so who's to say that he hasn't always been gay? Star Trek IV finally gave the character a first name and birthplace, neither of which had been addressed in the original series run; was this an unacceptable "fanwank?" If, next year or the year after, a movie were to feature Captain Sulu and establish that he has a committed, longstanding relationship with another fellow, just as George Takei evidently does... how would that detrimentally affect the character?

Contrariwise, it would neatly address Gene Roddenberry's apparent concern, and affirm it in the most positive way imaginable, with a person from the series that started it all. Hikaru Sulu, one of the original and most enduring Star Trek characters; a talented, intellectually formidable man whose diverse interests encompassed such areas of study as physics, botany, and the martial arts; helmsman of the Enterprise during her legendary voyages, later captain of the Excelsior... and gay.

[Terrifel]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

Oh, gosh, it's everywhere, but one especially horrific example was some kind of bizarre storyline where Klingons were originally some kind of crustacean or something. I'm serious. So when they first encountered humans, they were so impressed they genetically altered themselves, and through some freak accident, wound up looking just like humans. That's when Kirk ran into them. So, at some point between the last episode of TOS and the films, they've somehow introduced some measure of atavism, and instead of being really foul-tempered shrimp or whatever the fuck they were, they ended up with boney forheads. So, you know, that's why the look different in TOS than they do they do in other Trek films or series. I kid you not.

Didn't Enterprise propose an entirely different solution to that conundrum? I don't remember the killer shrimp version.

Personally I'd never had a problem accepting that TOS Klingons "really" looked like the movie version, or would have except for budget constraints. But for whatever reason, the franchise instead decided to tackle the discrepancy head-on (so to speak, har har). Given that fact, I thought the answer they came up with was as plausible as could be reasonably expected.

[Loopydude]

Originally Posted by Terrifel

The series never actually depicted Sulu with a romantic interest of any kind, so who's to say that he hasn't always been gay?

Eh. I think with Demora, the banter between Kirk and Scotty about Sulu starting a family and so forth, I'm leaning pretty heavily towards Sulu being straight, but I guess there's no way to know, since any of that content could imply a number of things.

[Terrifel]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

Eh. I think with Demora, the banter between Kirk and Scotty about Sulu starting a family and so forth, I'm leaning pretty heavily towards Sulu being straight, but I guess there's no way to know, since any of that content could imply a number of things.

Exactly, which is why I think it's a reasonable idea; there's really no huge burden of canonicity that would have to be accomodated or overthrown in this case. As has been mentioned, gay people can have kids too, so that's not an obstacle. It doesn't take anything away from the character; it adds something that wasn't fully explored in the first place. If that's an unacceptable retcon, then logically Sulu can't have a romantic interest of any kind at this point, since his preferences weren't plainly and unambiguously established in the series. What, he's suddenly interested in girls after four decades? How likely is that?

Making Kirk gay at this point would be somewhat problematic, but the series didn't really bother to establish Sulu's romantic proclivities one way or the other. If the proposed "prequel" film elects to depict the young Sulu canonically as a relentless womanizer, I suppose that would be a serious obstacle. I'm not sure what George Takei would think about that, though.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

Should Captain Kirk be Jewish?

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Biffy the Elephant Shrew

Should Captain Kirk be Jewish?

You mean he's not?

Originally Posted by Kirk

Why does God need a starship?

[Ethilrist]

Why should Sulu be exempt from the same treatment all the other Star Trek characters got? Because he's the only actor who's openly gay, and now we have to assume his character was really straight? Please.

[Loopydude]

I think there's something to be said for simply leaving the old material alone and stop the bloody retconning! Should a Star Trek character be gay? If they decide to extend the franchise, absolutely! But for Og's sake, now they're going to make a movie about the Kirk's and Spock's teen adventures, or some fucking thing. Sure, one can do this, and idiocy along these lines has been perpetrated before, but is it so wrong to decry the practice in general, even if there's precedent?

[Loopydude]

Originally Posted by Terrifel

But for whatever reason, the franchise instead decided to tackle the discrepancy head-on (so to speak, har har). Given that fact, I thought the answer they came up with was as plausible as could be reasonably expected.

I needed a memory jog, so this is what the wikisphere says. In sum, Klingons looked like regular people with bad haircuts because that's all they could afford while producing TOS. The Klingon's bumpy appearance was introduced later because budgets allowed Roddenbury to realise his "original" vision (I'd call bullshit on that claim, given the paper trail from the 60s). Whatever, no reason to be any more bothered by the appearance of the Klingons than the radical changes in the appearance of Starfleet vessel interiors. Then you get that lovely picture of Worf, the very angry-looking, venom-spitting crab or whatever the Hell he is. They should have stopped dead on that path so as not to compound the problem, but no. They had to do a Tribble homage in DS9, and forced the costume discrepancy into becoming an unavoidable continuity issue. Worf says "we don't like to talk about it". Sadly, the Voyager writers had far less decorum. Hence the inane garbage about the Agments, influenza gone bonkers, and so forth.

Why didn't they just CGI some bony foreheads into the scenes from TOS, if it was that much of a problem, for frick's sake? How ironic, if they worried about fan's objection to altering canon, or were limited by budget constraints.

[Loopydude]

Oops! Forgot the link.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

I think there's something to be said for simply leaving the old material alone and stop the bloody retconning!

But, as has been noted, if Sulu's sexual orientation was never established in canon, then having him be gay in upcoming material would not be a retcon. If Sulu had been shown whoring his way through the galaxy with space-chicks, then yeah, retcon (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). But he has no established sexual orientation at this point, so having him be gay isn't really a retcon. Your assumption of his heterosexuality doesn't mean that his being made gay is a retcon.

[Loopydude]

Again, according to the wikisphere, a recton is "the adding of new information to "historical" material, or deliberately changing previously established facts in a work of serial fiction." If Sulu's orientation is left unknown, not retconning would be to leave it that way, because it was irrelevant to the story being told. We've already got him having kids in Generations (along with all the other foolishness in that flick), but that's now canon, so it's too late to do anything about it. But why compound the error over and over again?

I just think the whole retconning practice has produced so many dubious or outright laughable results, I'd really prefer they just put a permanent moratorium on all the backfilling and start looking foreward again.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

Again, according to the wikisphere, a recton is "the adding of new information to "historical" material, or deliberately changing previously established facts in a work of serial fiction."

Well good on wikisphere for deciding that "adding new information to 'historical' material" is retconning. I don't agree 100% with that portion of the definition. If a fact is unknown, then revealing it later isn't necessarily a retcon. Like for example Worf was established early in Next Gen as having a foster brother, but nothing else about him was mentioned. So when the foster brother showed up and was given a name and a face, that's a retcon? According to the sages at wikisphere it is. Ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Loopydude

But why compound the error over and over again?

Because "retcon" =! "error."

[Loopydude]

Well, I give up, then. Meanwhile, whatever redeeming value the Trek franchise ever had has been almost completely squandered, and among the worst of it has been the backward-looking material, as Generations and the Enterprise series amply demonstrate. Have fun at STXI with teen Kirk, I guess, as that kind of crap must be what the fans want, or they wouldn't be doing it. When out of good new ideas, just retcon, right, and brew stale water with the old ones!

[Ethilrist]

I thought Star Trek was over?

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

Originally Posted by Otto

You mean he's not?

Well, I used to see him working every Friday night...

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

Again, according to the wikisphere, a recton...

A retcon is changing fictional history.

A recton is a particle that emanates from Uranus.

[Troy McClure SF]

Originally Posted by Terrifel

Star Trek IV finally gave the character a first name and birthplace...

"San Francisco... I was born there."

I trust this issue is resolved.

[Loopydude]

Originally Posted by Ethilrist

I thought Star Trek was over?

I may be, but the info. we have thus far suggests rather strongly an 11th film is at some stage of development, and will not involve actors from any of the Trek series produced thus far. The hints we have are that a proposed concept for the film will involve the adventures of Spock and Kirk in their Academy days. There have been conflicting statements made by those involved in some capacity with the franchise, but I believe the latest news is STXI is a go.

[BMalion]

I always thought he was a little too interested in studying the Captain's log.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

The hints we have are that a proposed concept for the film will involve the adventures of Spock and Kirk in their Academy days.

Which, since Spock was an officer under Captain Pike 15 (?) years before Kirk took command of the Enterprise, would be a retcon and a near-irreconcileable one.

[The Dumbest Guy in the Room]

Originally Posted by Otto

Whilst not a fan of the premise myself, why is this so? For the time Spock was rising the ranks on Enterprise why couldn't Kirk rise to be Captain on a less prestigous ship, then get a "sideways promotion" to the flagship, like Picard?

This may be contradicted by other material, but I don't remember enough of the minutae to be aware of any problems.

[The Dumbest Guy in the Room]

Gah, whilst adding a stacked quote I must have deleted the part I was actually replying to:

Originally Posted by Otto

Which, since Spock was an officer under Captain Pike 15 (?) years before Kirk took command of the Enterprise, would be a retcon and a near-irreconcileable one.

[Dr. Rieux]

Originally Posted by Ethilrist

I thought Star Trek was over?

"It's not over! Was it over when the Germans bombed Khitomer?"

[Miller]

I think Loopydude has a valid point that is being lost in arguing over what is and is not a retcon. Namely, that we've had more than enough about Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the original cast. The question isn't wether or not Sulu is gay, the question is, do we really need to see more of Sulu? Or Uhuru? Or any of these characters? For a show that's ostensibly about the future, Star Trek is dismayingly obsessed with its own past.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Otto

But, as has been noted, if Sulu's sexual orientation was never established in canon, then having him be gay in upcoming material would not be a retcon. If Sulu had been shown whoring his way through the galaxy with space-chicks, then yeah, retcon (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). But he has no established sexual orientation at this point, so having him be gay isn't really a retcon. Your assumption of his heterosexuality doesn't mean that his being made gay is a retcon.

I look at it this way: Straight is the default orientation. Gay is a minority orientation. A character is assumed to be straight unless otherwise indicated. Since Sulu was never portrayed as gay, doing so now is a retcon. It also adds nothing to the existing story. The fact that some people want a gay character for PC reasons is irrelevant.

[Caffeine.addict]

At this point, would it really matter? As far as I know, they aren't planning on making any new episodes of Star Trek: TOS. Where would such a change appear?

If you want to introduce a gay crew member to Star Trek, shouldn't it be done in a new series?

[Spatial Rift 47]

Miller, I couldn't agree more. Kirk and company have had their stories told many, many times over. I think Star Trek needs to get back to its roots, yes, but not in such a superficial way. They need to go back to the themes and story elements that made TOS and TNG such great television. In other words, jump forward another 100 years, put a crew on the newest flagship, and have them go exploring. And, most importantly, have them deal with issues our society currently faces.

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Female officers shouldn't be wearing miniskirts by then, either.

Blasphemer!

[Eonwe]

Originally Posted by Terrifel

Didn't Enterprise propose an entirely different solution to that conundrum? I don't remember the killer shrimp version.

How does that reconcile with the Next Generation episode where they piece together the secret code in a multitude of races' DNAs and discover that all the races we generally know were seeded by another race? I think the Klingons were a part of this, so how could they have been killer crustaceans?

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Miller

I think Loopydude has a valid point that is being lost in arguing over what is and is not a retcon. Namely, that we've had more than enough about Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the original cast. The question isn't wether or not Sulu is gay, the question is, do we really need to see more of Sulu? Or Uhuru? Or any of these characters? For a show that's ostensibly about the future, Star Trek is dismayingly obsessed with its own past.

There was talk for a while of having an Exclersior series with Captain Sulu. would have been interested in seeing that show, whether it involved seeing any of the other TOS crewmates or not. A series set following the events of Undiscovered Country would have been interesting to me. And if Sulu or one or more of the other characters on that series had been gay, it would've made it more interesting to me. Certainly a damn site more interesting than Enterprise was to me, which I bailed on after less than half a season I disliked it so much.

Originally Posted by Oakminster

I look at it this way: Straight is the default orientation. Gay is a minority orientation. A character is assumed to be straight unless otherwise indicated. Since Sulu was never portrayed as gay, doing so now is a retcon.

Scripting something that challenges the unbased-in-fact assumptions of the audience is not a retcon.

Originally Posted by Oakminster

It also adds nothing to the existing story. The fact that some people want a gay character for PC reasons is irrelevant.

I obviously disagree that it would add nothing to the existing or the ongoing ST story to have Sulu or some other pre-existing character, who had not been explicitly established as straight, to be portrayed as gay. I also think it's... I'm in CS, how can I say this without violating the new rule? odd... to dismiss the desire for including gay characters as "PC."