Good morning from Montana! I’ve been here relaxing on vacation, but have noticed that many of you have been following the “gay Sulu” story and wanted to know why I’m being such a sourpuss. I’m writing to set the record “straight,” if you will.
When the news first broke, I gave a lengthy telephone interview, but the headlines have been misleading. Apparently, controversy makes for better sales! Let me be clear: I am not disappointed that there is a gay character in Star Trek. On the contrary, as I made clear, I am delighted that the Star Trek franchise has addressed this issue, which is truly one of diversity. It is thrilling to know that future generations will not see LGBTs go wholly unrepresented in the Trek universe.
On the specific question of Sulu being gay, when I was first approached with the concept, I responded that I hoped instead that Gene Roddenberry’s original characters and their backgrounds would be respected. How exciting it would be instead if a new hero might be created, whose story could be fleshed out from scratch, rather than reinvented. To me, this would have been even more impactful. While I understand that we are in an alternate timeline with the new Trek movies, for me it seemed less than necessary to tinker with an existing character in order to fulfill Gene’s hope of a truly diverse Trek universe. And while I am flattered that the character of Sulu apparently was selected as an homage to me, this was never about me or what I wanted. It was about being true to Gene’s vision and storytelling.
Gene had wanted long ago to include LGBT characters, and we spoke personally and specifically about the lack of them. Gene understandably felt constrained by the sensitivities of the time. Some fifty years ago, even TV’s first interracial kiss, between Kirk and Uhura, caused our ratings to plummet as the show was censored across much of the South for that scene. Gene made a conscious decision to make the main characters heterosexual, and worked within those parameters to tell incredible stories that still challenged many cultural values of the time. So the lack of gay characters was not some oversight by him; it was a conscious decision with which he grappled. I loved Gene as a friend, and I respected his decision and the context under which he created these stories. On this 50th year anniversary of Star Trek, my hope was to honor his foresight and bravery, as well as his ability to create discussion and diversity despite these constraints.
But Star Trek has always pushed the boundaries and opened new opportunities for actors, including myself. I am eternally grateful to have been part of this incredible and continuing family. I wish John Cho well in the role I once played, and congratulate Simon Pegg on his daring and groundbreaking storytelling. While I would have gone with the development of a new character in this instance, I do fully understand and appreciate what they are doing—as ever, boldly going where no one has gone before. Star Trek will live long and prosper.
— George Takei, taking to Facebook to clarify his views on the executive decision to make his iconic character Sulu gay in Star Trek: Beyond.
Related: After George Takei Protests, Zachary Quinto Defends Making Sulu Gay In New “Star Trek”
Related: Time-Traveling George Takei Lands On Broadway At Last
Related: George Takei Uses A Little Thing Called Reality To Take Down Donald Trump
Dave Downunder
Why is this still news? It’s done let’s move on.
JessPH
“Gene had wanted long ago to include LGBT characters, and we spoke personally and specifically about the lack of them.”
So clearly, the creator of Star Trek wouldn’t mind if Sulu is gay. So what is George Takei being such a Negative Nancy about this? He is no different from the sexists/misogynists complaining about the all-female cast of the new Ghostbusters.
alterego1980
@JessPH: Wrong. You shouldn’t lump Takei with any sexists or anyone else for that matter. He has done so much for gays. it’s disappointing at the least to see you resort to name-calling of such an icon.
That said, I think George is looking at this the wrong way. If he and Mr. Roddenberry had talked about the lack of gay characters, and he wanted to create some but couldn’t, then who’s to say, without those constraints, that Sulu wouldn’t have been a gay character to begin with? Or Scotty, or Kirk, or anyone else for that matter?
Paco
I think if the original characters were still featured in a weekly television format, then Mr. Takei’s argument would have some merit. It would be lazy to retroactively make a character gay rather than develop a new one, when an entire episode or episodes can be devoted to character development. But since the original characters are only doing 2 hour movies every few years, then developing a new character wouldn’t be viable when there is such limited screen time for each character.
SumSay
@alterego1980:
The character of Sulu was initially suppose to represent a peaceful answer to the conflicts that were going on in Asia during the 50s and 60s (Korean War, Vietnam, conflicts in the Philippines). Making Sulu(or any of the crew for that matter) the gay character at that time would have been too radical and viewership would have greatly suffered. Like George says, Gene struggled with that idea but it ultimately was for the best to continue going forward with the show to not purse that endeavor, at least not yet. I think Gene’s ultimate vision of Star Trek was to portray a utopian future, and it did a good job of doing that overall. It may not have hit on the LGBTQ issue, but it covers discrimination and oppression of minorities pretty well. I’d have to agree with George on this, a completely new character with a gay subtext (maybe even Asian as well) would have been a more interesting approach as oppose to completely changing Sulu’s past, despite the alternate timeline. It wasn’t really needed.
SumSay
@Paco:
Well since Abrams version of Star Trek is a new realization, time can be made for side character with that background, so long as it contributes to the story line. There are quite a few newer characters in Abrams’ previous versions that aren’t in the canon versions of the TV series or subsequent films.
martinbakman
I want to see John Cho in a loving lip lock as his gay Sulu character! But not holding my breath on that.
joeyty
Just shut up and go do another Taco Bell commercial, Takei.
Invert
@SumSay: Gene had a 30 year career and didn’t create one LGBT character…so I don’t think he was having much of a struggle.
maykasa
Takei is annoying. The world in general just doesn’t suit him, it seems – always complaining.
maykasa
@JessPH: He’s perpetually negative if people don’t agree with his way of thinking. I don’t like him.
Ukin
George darling, Sulu has Always been Gay. Yes dear, even as a confused little child I knew Sulu was gay. Remember that short tan cape you wore in one of the Star Trek movies? The one where you returned the reincarnated Spock to Vulcan? Well, no heterosexual man would ever be caught dead in that thing, really! That just confirmed to me my childhood fantasies where we could beem down behind a rock and get it on.