Japan Today

'Star Trek' fan favorite Mr Sulu is gay in new film; Takei disapproves


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

Given his advocacy for LGBT causes, it's interesting that Mr. Takei is disappointed in this.

"To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before," indeed. :/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whats with this Capt Kirk stuff? The new Capt is Mohammad Al Zakawi. Spreading shariah where man has never gone before. Cool!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Farmboy, the "live long and prosper" hand sign that Vulcans make is actually part of a Jewish rabbinical blessing, if I remember correctly http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/06/the-iconic-live-long-and-prosper-hand-gesture-was-originally-a-jewish-sig. Leonard Nimoy learned it as a child and brought it to his role.e.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Making Sulu gay IS tokenism. There is no reason making him gay other than for the production team to doff their hats to the gods of diversity. I think the homage to George Takei is a bit of a red herring. I mean Spock isn't Jewish in honour of Leonard Nimoy is he?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Hollywood. Bringing people what they didn't ask for since 2015.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Farmboy: Kirk will also have to become openly Jewish too. He is also Jewish.

I think some alien Muslims would be cool too. They could try to change the auto food machines to make everything halal. And fish on Fridays for the Catholics.

A Star Trek religious event would be cool.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Jumin. even better - a transgender sikh! Its win-win!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Need a sikh character too. And not just a sikh in name only (khan noonien SINGH). A full-fledged turban and bushy beard sikh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sexy sulu sidles up to Spock. "Spocky", he breathes in his Vulcan ear, "come on, we both know you are hot for me...admit it. We can get it on any time you like!"

"Hmmm", Spock ponders. "It IS true I don't like girls..."

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm a strong supporter of LGBT rights. However, as far as the entertainment value of the content is concerned, I don't find shows/movies etc that focus heavily on LGBT characters appeal to me all that much as a viewer, same as shows/movies that focus heavily on female characters and what it means to be a female don't appeal to me.

Nothing wrong with such movies/shows, they just appeal to a different demographic than me.

If all the characters on Star Trek were LBGT, but it was a non-issue, I would probably watch the movies with the same enjoyment as I do now. If the story lines were focused around what it meant to be LGBT in the future, I probably would lose interest.

That's one thing that I find good about how they have made Sulu gay in the newest movie - from what I've read (and to be fair, I need to see the actual movie to know for sure), his being gay is a non-issue. So I don't see it detracting from my interest at all.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

at this rate in about ten years the entire crew of the enterprise will be a combination of LBGT and muslim.

I'd almost welcome that just for the satisfaction from the annoyance it would cause bigots.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

at this rate in about ten years the entire crew of the enterprise will be a combination of LBGT and muslim.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I didn't think it was such a bad idea at first. Then I read Mr. Takei's opinion and felt like an idiot. Mr. Pegg may have also felt like an idiot, but he can't say anything negative about his own movie obviously.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Yawn... Instead of broadcasting it before the movie is even released, how about just letting us be pleasantly surprised? "We're gonna make this character such and such!"

"Excessive progressive" thinking likes to broadcast what they're doing before it's done so they can get brownie points! Yeesh.

2 ( +2 / -0 )


There are many families out there with gay members, young and old. But don't let that force you to remove your blindfold and earplugs.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Another lost chance for movies to reach the family.

What do you mean?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Another lost chance for movies to reach the family.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

God, you don't need to gaydar to realize Sulu was always gay, from the start of the original series. Come on, Takei really camped it up.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Hollywood has done what Star Trek set out not to do, make as many of the populous feel good about the universe as possible. In the day, issues were controversial and thought provoking.

Scotty will soon shun alcohol as it portrays Scots as too fond of whisky, a dangerous cliche!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

As far as I recall Sulu was never identified as straight or gay before.

See Star Trek --the Motion Picture for reference (When Lt. Ilia enters the bridge).

4 ( +5 / -1 )


because to be in Starfleet means being able to put your personal beliefs aside. Also by then religions of all kinds should have probably died out due to massive cognitive dissonance

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I agree with Takei. There is no need to change an existing character from the creator's vision and what fans have come to expect. If the golden age of Star Trek was the old ones with Shatner and Nemoy, the characters struck me as asexual, so it would be weird to shoehorn plot lines in there to reveal the characters' sexualities. I think it will only create animosity with the "political correctness" crowd, not greater acceptance of LGBT as intended.

The same goes for a female James Bond. Make movies about a female spy character by all means, but she doesn't have to be Jane Bond. The lack of good female roles may indicate a general sexism, but James Bond being male in itself does not.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

And movies reflect what's going on in society.

So why no Muslim crew members?

5 ( +10 / -5 )

“I liked the approach, which was not to make a big thing out it, which is where I hope we are going as a species".

We might if you and every other TV show and movie stopped blasting it in our faces.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Sometimes I wonder if anyone edits these articles. Why does it repeat itself at the end of the article?

Anyway, I think it's a good move. The movie wanted to have a character who's gay without having a "token" gay character. I don't see why some people are upset by this. Guess what, the world is going to change and evolve. And movies reflect what's going on in society.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

No matter the justification, it's just pandering and shoehorning for the sake of pandering. I'm sure Mr Takei didn't want Sulu to be remembered for what sexuality he identifies as but WHO he is as a character.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

comon in 500 yrs they'll have DNA therapy to correct the faults that causes the gay condition. Why would Mr Sulu or any other person from the future continue to suffer a condition that nature didn't intend? Homosexuality isn't a human evolutionary process. Youll be able to love and be attracted the opposite sex and produce children naturally as nature intended, why would anybody want to refuse a therapy that could correct your genetic faults.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Takei told the Hollywood Reporter that while he was “delighted” that “Star Trek Beyond” included a gay character, the new version of Sulu does not reflect the original vision of “Star Trek” creator Gene Roddenberry, who died in 1991 at age 70. "Sulu was conceived as a heterosexual character, Takei said. “Unfortunately, it’s a twisting of Gene’s creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it’s really unfortunate,” the 79-year-old Takei told the publication."

Takei is correct.

"Takei’s response came as a surprise to actor Simon Pegg, who plays Scotty in “Star Trek Beyond.” Pegg said in a statement to media outlets, “I must respectfully disagree” with Takei, and that by making a franchise staple gay, the character would not be defined by it."

So in other words Sulu will still be Sulu? But it's a major, well, deviation from the original character, is it not?

But I have no doubt John Cho will pull off the gay Sulu character with flair, and this will be a great movie.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Whenever I see John Cho I think of Harold from the Harold & Kumar flicks. Harold is far from gay with that hot chick.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Sulu and Chekhov are caught getting it on in the gay way in the engine room when they were supposed to be on duty. Captain Kirk wants to discipline them for dereliction of duty but is afraid of the storm of criticism he will receive by the pseudo liberal desk jockeys who infest Starfleet Command.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

If you want to pay homage than ask the guy's opinion first..

10 ( +11 / -1 )

SF has a much higher percentage of gays than the rest of the planet combined. So if Hollywood wants to up the percentage, it is in their right to sell more tickets.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why stop w/ a gay Sulu? Why can't Kirk where an Ensign Rand style uniform? Then he'd have a good reason to cross his legs when sitting in the command chair.

I'm not a real fan of the LBGW movement (major ick! factor) but I really don't care overall. We've got bigger, more important societal issues in the makings. So as long as the scenes are modest, I've got no problem.

BTW: Perhaps an overpopulated Earth's gov't encourage heterophobia. (cf: Ben Bova's Forever War.)

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Set in the future in a galaxy of all kinds of beings. Being gay is kind of lame in that context.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Ridiculous! Next you'll hear that Obi Wan Kenobi has come out or the new Mike Brady ... not to mention loads of Shakespeare characters. If they want to write in a gay character then fair enough but to change a character because the original actor is gay is gay.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Gay people and minorities aren't exactly the "flavor of the month" as they make up a significant proportion of the world's population. The film industry has come under significant pressure for being overwhelmingly hetro and white, so why not add a little diversity? Change has to start somewhere!

Gays make up a significant proportion? I'm not buying it, Yes, I believe there are a lot of gays out there but what the left try to peddle as a larger or growing minority to a possible majority is ludicrous. I'm all for diversity, but I don't believe that anyone should be mafia bullied into doing what another person wants by using threats and intimidations tactics. Hollywood can do what it wants when it wants and how they want. Gays shouldn't force the agenda or anyone for that matter because THEY feel, Hollywood should. It's absolutely absurd!

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

flavor is of the month

Gay people and minorities aren't exactly the "flavor of the month" as they make up a significant proportion of the world's population. The film industry has come under significant pressure for being overwhelmingly hetro and white, so why not add a little diversity? Change has to start somewhere!

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Politically correctness in full force and it's sad that Hollywood has to bow down to peer pressure otherwise they will be ridiculed, scorned and called out for being whatever the flavor is of the month that feels stigmatized. What a shame.

-1 ( +13 / -14 )

Well, I was only a fan of the Star Trek TV show in my youth (one of the first shows I tried watching in English using the English subchannel), but totally gay Gokai does not really think this is a good move. If they want diversity, they should have introduced a new gay character. Or how about a gay Klingon.

8 ( +8 / -0 )


5 ( +6 / -1 )

These Hollywood engineers just can't control themselves. I'll pass.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Turns out Takei is not a fan of the move to make the Sulu character gay. Terming the move unfortunate.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites