So Sulu is Gay Now: A Critical Look at the Star Trek Reboots

I know that I’m not yet known for doing these sort of issue driven articles, and usually I like to stay out of discussions that seem to me to be too full of drama, or politics. However, I couldn’t help getting wind of the recent announcement about John Cho’s Sulu, and his sexual preferences. I also found the discussion associated with this development interesting. However, I felt like there were a few facets of the issue that everyone was conveniently avoiding so here I am attempting to plug some gaps. I would like to say that I was going to wait until the new film released to post this, but I also want to weigh in while it’s still reasonable fresh in people’s minds.As such, I reserve the right to amend aspects of this article following a viewing of Beyond. It’s safe to say that you should just expect an update in a couple of weeks.

Recently, John Cho made the ‘groundbreaking’ announcement that his character Sulu in the Star Trek ‘Kelvin timeline’ was going to be openly homosexual in the most recent film Star Trek Beyond. Surprisingly, George Takei, a long time champion of LGBT rights, came out and shared his disappointment over the move stating that the decision was too fundamental a change and that it didn’t work with Gene Roddenberry’s original vision, which is what should be celebrated this year. Takei also suggested that the issue had been previously discussed and that he had suggested that Pegg write a new character to fill the role of the openly homosexual character.Simon Pegg then respectfully came back as said that while he kind of understood Takei’s point of view, writing in a new character simply to fill the role of the LGBT character would have lacked the weight of using Sulu for that purpose and would not have made the kind of impact that the writers were hoping to achieve. He also huffed that an alternate reality had been created for exactly this purpose and George Takei can STFU. Actually, I may have embellished that last part, but I can imagine that going on behind closed doors, and let me tell you, the ensuing imaginary cat fight that would result is beyond entertaining. But, I digress.

Ever the critical mind, let me tell you why this action does exactly the opposite of what Pegg was trying to do, and further, how this may well be an incredible representation of all that is wrong with the Star Trek reboots. Pegg stated that using a new character as the LGBT character would lack the kind of impact that he had wanted, and that using Sulu as the LGBT character would bring more weight. He goes out of his way, probably because he’s not quite as dumb as he looks, to avoid explaining exactly how he feels like these two assertions are true. But here’s the thing, the JJ verse has taken characters that were multidimensional, and thoughtfully developed over decades and boiled them down to the their lowest common denominator traits. They have turned rich, and well-seasoned characters into caricatures. Don’t get me wrong, I saw the 2009 film five times in theaters, and a really felt like the universe and the franchise held some promise at that point, but the follow up film just did nothing to build upon that foundation in a positive and meaningful way. Hence, the lack of weight argument over this decision really doesn’t hold, for lack of a better way to say it, a lot of weight. The assertion might have held up if adequate time had been taken to thoughtfully develop Sulu into a character with depth, but in two previous films, he’s had maybe a dozen lines total, and we saw him wield a sword. Ergo, the character already lacks the weight to offer the type of impact that Pegg was hoping to get because the only ‘traits’ we’ve been made aware of are ‘I drive the ship and I play with swords’. Sulu essentially became exactly what Pegg said he was trying to avoid, a character who is openly homosexual and whose homosexuality now defines his character because there’s nothing else offered to help further define the character anywhere in the films. He’s been made into the very token character that Pegg didn’t want any of the characters to be. If anything, LGBT supporters should feel a little disappointed that a viable opportunity was lost in the Star Trek mythos to actually do something that would have an impact on society.

Now, Pegg also asserts that the JJ verse was created specifically so that these types of changes could be made. That seems like a fair assertion until you look a little bit closer at what Pegg was saying. He was saying that he didn’t want fans to equate Cho’s Sulu with Takei’s Sulu because they’re two separate characters in two separate realities, but he’s also saying that he didn’t want to create a new homosexual character because that would lessen the weight of the commentary. He said that he wanted to use an established character that fans already knew and loved. There’s just one problem with his reasoning. First, reread the previous paragraph. The Sulu that John Cho plays has no development over time. Thus, we’ve already established that Cho’s Sulu essentially became the thing that Pegg claims he had wanted to avoid. But, he wanted to use a beloved character? One has to ask why the Sulu character is beloved in the first place. Based solely on cinematic merit alone, it’s probably not going to be because John Cho wowed audiences with his amazing performance, or because reboot Sulu had so many touching moments of meaningful character development in his previous two outings that people could latch onto. People love Sulu because of Takei’s performance, again, over decades. Thanks to brilliant writers, directors, and Takei, people got to know a man who was passionate about life, hungry to learn all that he could about the universe, competitive, and family centered. None of these qualities have even been hinted at in Cho’s portrayal. Thus this call for separation really doesn’t hold up because Pegg is essentially asking that we forget the Prime mythology, but only when it doesn’t serve his needs. He and everyone involved want us to love their creation based on the merits of everything that came before, but when that becomes inconvenient and contrary to their agenda, they want us to disregard anything that might contradict. Sorry, but you can’t really have it both ways.

This is where we can really get into what’s really wrong with the JJ verse, and the ironies abound. Star Trek has always been on the forefront of society. It’s always been looking at where we are as a species and where we could be headed that would make us better for the universe that we inhabit. I would argue that the JJ verse does this, but it does it in a way that merely shows how we’ve started to break down as a society. The JJ verse wants us to love it because it’s Star Trek, but then it wants us to take it seriously based on its own merits. But, it doesn’t want to put in the effort to build its own credentials. It simply wants to take the name Star Trek and benefit from that history. In much the same way, we as humans often get in this cycle. We want the thing, be it wealth, health, or any number of other things, but we don’t want to put in the effort necessary to gain these things. We look for shortcuts, or we try to live the lifestyle absent of the firm foundation we would have if we’d put in our dues, which usually leads to the collapse of that false sense of security and/or accomplishment. JJ Star Trek is knee deep in this cycle right now. Sure the films are making a lot of money, but fifty years from now, will people talk about Into Darkness with the same nostalgic fondness and reverence that they use in talking about Wrath of Khan? I doubt it. The people behind the ‘Kelvin timeline’ have sacrificed long term endearment for the temporary monetary gains associated with the glitz and the glam. They’ve made the message of Star Trek ring hollow in a way that it never has before and in context of this latest development, they’ve made light of one of the core principles of Star Trek at the expense of bringing lasting positive attention to a social issue just so they could get a little media attention and free advertising.

Please don’t get me wrong here, I am absolutely okay with having an openly homosexual character in the Star Trek mythology. However, I’m also a firm believer that if you’re going to do something positive for someone, it needs to come from the right place, and the right motivation, and also, it need to be handled with the right kind of tact. I don’t feel that this has happened in this case. I feel like this particular series of events has made light of the issue at hand a marginalized and entire community. And I think if people think about it for a few moments, they might come to the same conclusion. Like I said, I look forward to seeing exactly how this talking point is handled in Beyond, but as far as the lead up is concerned, I think this whole situation has been handle pretty poorly. Here’s hoping that opinion is swayed somewhat by the time I write my inevitable update to this piece.