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?”)
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?
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.
Plenty of gay people have children now so the existence of a child really doesn’t mean anything.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.