Huh? 
Your position is that since heterosexuality is more common, it should be assumed as the default. Therefore, a wife would not be new information to you, but confirmation of assumed information.
If he suddenly had a wife, that would be a retcon just as much as if he suddenly had a boyfriend. Understand that I have no objection to gay characters, but I do object to retcons. Sulu has never, to my knowledge, ever been implied to be gay. To make him gay now is a retcon in my book. If they do a new series with a gay character, I have no problem with it. Just don’t want them changing the “history” of the series because one of the actors recently came out.
I don’t know much about Star Trek, but I’ve been following this thread with interest. Suppose the powers that be decided to announce that Sulu was “officially” gay. My understanding is that the character is not featured in any current Star Trek movie or book franchise. So what would actually happen? Are there books that collect all known information about the canon, that would need to be revised? Would there be any attempt to alter or add to existing works to reflect the new reality, ala Star Wars?
It’s only “new” if you assumed he was straight before. Am I to take it, then, that you would object to new information which indicated he was straight?
And it wouldn’t be “because” the actor came out. It would be because Star Trek has no gay characters, and because straight actors so overwhelmingly don’t want to play gay characters that an openly gay actor is assumed to be the only candidate to do so.
There’s no way to make Sulu officially gay or straight unless it is addressed in a future episode or movie. Trek canon is only that what is shown on-screen (but is not animated).
That ain’t a storyline reason. That’s PC crap. You don’t retcon fiction for PC crap.
Look, it’s not up to us. The only people with the authority to declare H. Sulu gay are Roddenberry (who’s dead), Takei, & maybe the producer of a Trek movie or TV show about Captain Sulu. Mostly Takei at this point.
As I’ve said, I’m pretty sure Sulu was always implicitly straight (a distinction no doubt lost on Ensign Edison) so I don’t consider confirmation of hsi sexuality as straight or bi to be a retcon. Declaring him gay because Takei is would be insulting to Takei’s ability as an actor, I think.
Unless Takei, in & of himself, wants Sulu to be gay.
What would a “storyline” reason be?
Actually, of those three, the producer is the only one with any real ability to make him gay since he or she would be the only one with any kind of power over the finished product which, as mentioned in my previous post, is what determines Star Trek canon. Even if the zombified ashes of Gene Roddenberry somehow possessed George Takei and held a press conference announcing that Sulu is the gayest gay that ever gayed, it wouldn’t matter unless it made it was aired in a Trek movie or episode.
Anything confirmed by a cannon source. In Sulu’s case, I don’t think you’ll find one.
You have yet to establish that this would be a retcon. Once you do, you should please define “PC crap”. I assume it means something other than “narrative elements Oakminster doesn’t think are necessary” to you, but its enormous overuse has left it with a transient definition. If you can explain what PC crap is and why it’s bad, then we can talk about whether this qualifies.
I don’t think it does. I think the fact that the overall Trek narrative has no gay people in it is a serious artistic issue which should be addressed. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, the Vulcan slogan Gene loved, well represents the artistic intent at work behind the show in Sulu’s time.
I think there are certainly situations where adding a gay character would be tokenism, though I’m not entirely sure what the harm of tokenism is. This isn’t one of them. It’s not just that there are no gay people…it’s that this is supposed to be the ongoing story of humanity living in a semi-utopian future, and a significant subset of it appears to be completely absent. I’m sure someone will say ‘We never see clowns either, that doesn’t mean there aren’t any’, but that’s not an argument against including one now.
And now I’m sure someone will be along shortly with a list of episodes in which clowns appear.
I agree that it would be a shame if George Takei suddenly became typecast. It could be the death of his career.
I’m not saying Sulu should automatically be gay just because Takei is. However, as** levdrakon ** mentioned earlier, George Takei is such a well-known actor that his coming-out is bound to affect perception of the character he played to some degree-- the more so because Sulu ultimately never did get any romantic storylines like so many other regulars. My OP, in fact, was prompted by a recently published comic book spoof of **Star Trek **; it includes a scene of Sulu seeking help from Dr. McCoy for his --ahem-- “tribble impaction” problem. So the notion’s already out there in the ether.
At this point, Paramount has a couple choices: continue to evade details about the character’s life, which is certainly fair, as very little about their personal lives is known canonically. However, this would preclude Sulu ever having any sort of romantic entanglement, and I wouldn’t mind seeing the character again in a future movie or what not. Not to mention that people will still joke that Sulu is gay just because Takei is.
Alternately, Paramount could choose to depict Sulu as a happily married straight guy, but given that the actor’s own preference is now publically known, this could be seen as an attempt to distance the franchise from this fact, whether it genuinely is or not.
What I’m suggesting is:
-
since Takei is gay, and
-
**Star Trek ** hasn’t had a gay character yet, and
-
some people will inevitably think “Takei is gay = Sulu is gay” anyway, and
-
there’s no reason why Sulu couldn’t be gay…
—then why not just go ahead and make Sulu gay? It doesn’t even have to be anything earthshaking; perhaps a scene where he gets an emergency call from Starfleet at home. “Damn, I’ve got to go save the Universe again. Sorry, but it looks like we’ll have to postpone our weekend plans, Trent.”
Obviously anything like this assumes that George Takei himself would think it was a good idea. Maybe not; maybe he’d be dreadfully offended by the notion. “Hey, I spent forty years playing Sulu as a straight guy, and frankly I think I did so quite convincingly. Please don’t confuse me with the characters I play.” I could certainly understand that. But if he himself has ever thought about the apparent invisibility of gay relationships in Star Trek, he might be willing to give it a go.
And who knows, it might mean that he’d get the chance to repeatedly, “accidentally” flub a kissing scene like Shatner once did.
Eh? A distinction lost on me why?
It’s already been discussed that he was not “implicitly” straight at all. There is only one argument for that: Oakminster’s “straight by default”. As has been covered here, one reason the character is a candidate at all is his lack of romantic involvements, or even flirting.
Unless you count:
[ul][li]Tom Hanks[/li][li]Tony Gandolfini[/li][li]Antonio Banderas[/li][li]Anjelica Huston[/li][li]Hilary Swank[/li][li]Jonathan fucking Taylor Thomas, fer chrissake!*[/ul][/li]
And that’s just off the top of my head. The footnote on JTT is to suggest that anyone with issues about “gay in Hollywood–>typecast” should read his interview in The Advocate. The kid did more in fewer words to dispel anti-gay attitudes than almost anyone else has ever.
But the willingness of “name” straight actors to play gay is a relatively recent phenomenon, and they still get the questions about their sexuality and the interviews almost always include mention of their current or string of former cross-sex relationships to re-affirm their hetero-cred. I remember when the Rock Hudson bio-pic was on TV and TV Guide did an article about it. They mentioned the practice of heterosexualizing gay-playing actors and sort of deplored it, yet in the same issue they had an article abut Holly Robinson getting a lesbian kiss on 21 Jump Street and led a paragraph with “Robinson, who is married…”.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Unless you count:
[ul][li]Tom Hanks[/li][li]Tony Gandolfini[/li][li]Antonio Banderas[/li][li]Anjelica Huston[/li][li]Hilary Swank[/li][li]Jonathan fucking Taylor Thomas, fer chrissake!*[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Straight actors playing gay roles doesn’t mean much to me. How many openly gay actors playing straight roles can you name off the top of your head?
Tom Cruise will sue anyone who says he’s gay and if he ever did come out of the closet - even if he hadn’t already alienated people with his crazy scientology shenanigans - the studios would drop him like a hot potato. He’d go from multi-million dollar leading man roles to being lucky to get a part in an indy film. And his part would be a gay character.
Well, sure, Takei probably isn’t going to be playing romantic leads anyway. But my point is, nobody ever suggested that Sulu could be gay until Takei came out. Now, he’s out, and all of a sudden, it’s something that gets talked about. Even now, nobody’s saying, “What if they made Checkov gay?” or “What if they made Uhura a lesbian?”, even though both those characters had just about as many romantic relationships on the show as Sulu.
Like it or not, the whole gay actor=gay character stereotype is there, and doing this just reinforces it. In effect, we’re saying, “Lets decide that a character that was in a TV show 40 years ago was gay because the actor playing him just came out.”
Chekhov had at least one romantic interest presetned on-screen (in “The Apple”) and a former girlfriend who joined the space hippes. Uhura was clearly interested in a male crewman (who turned out to be the space salt vampire but oh well). Sulu had no such on-screen romances or backstory.