July 08, 2016

George Takei takes stand against diversity for diversity's sake, never wanted Sulu to be gay in Star Trek Beyond

Rebel Staff
 

George Takei, who has been very vocal about gay rights on social media for years now, defended the cannon of Star Trek by calling the news that his Sulu would be gay in the upcoming Star Trek Beyond movie.

The news came as John Cho, who is playing Sulu in the rebooted franchise, told Australia's Herald Sun that his character is gay in the new movie.

Say 'no' to the SJW agenda: Luke Skywalker isn't gay, James Bond isn't black, and Batman isn't a transsexual

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the idea came from Simon Pegg who plays Scotty and director Justin Lin who wanted to pay homage to Takei's legacy in both sci-fi and LGBT activism. In the new film Sulu is pictured with a male spouse raising their infant child.

Takei, however, isn't fond of the idea. “I’m delighted that there’s a gay character. Unfortunately, it’s a twisting of Gene’s creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it’s really unfortunate.”

He then explained how Gene Roddenberry had always envisioned Sulu as heterosexual and was extremely detailed when characters were conceived. Sulu being gay would not have slipped under his radar.

When Takei learned that the character of Sulu would be gay last year when Cho called him, Takei tried to convince him to make a new character gay instead.

“I told him, 'Be imaginative and create a character who has a history of being gay, rather than Sulu, who had been straight all this time, suddenly being revealed as being closeted.'”

Takei, who clearly has a great deal of respect for character continuity, something many in the sci-fi world hold dear, maintained his position after Justin Lin confirmed the news.

“I said, 'This movie is going to be coming out on the 50th anniversary of
Star Trek, the 50th anniversary of paying tribute to Gene Roddenberry, the man whose vision it was carried us through half a century. Honor him and create a new character. I urged them. He left me feeling that that was going to happen.”

Where do you stand on this? SOUND OFF in the comments.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-07-10 00:51:48 -0400
Why not create a new character and make him gay? Simple. Because the Alphabet Agenda (and all lefties ) is about corrupting what already exists. That is why they have a mania for renaming existing parks and bridges and streets ad nauseum. Why not name a new park instead of changing the name of Vimy Park? Because that would not destroy our history and brainwash our children. Just as the Communists rewrote history to suit them so do the fascists of all stripes up to our own times. When Hitler went into Memel/Klaipeda he removed Lithuanian names of streets to push his leftist agenda of promoting fascism. Today only the names have changed- not the tactics.
commented 2016-07-09 19:03:00 -0400
Nnaumbua Farrell,

Do you care what your neighbors are doing behind closed doors.

Um, because it’s animal cruelty. What the fuck is wrong with you? Did the horse give consent?
commented 2016-07-09 17:54:50 -0400
Whatever floats your boat Michael. I am comparing practices which have traditionally been viewed as immoral and the reasons why they have been viewed as immoral in our culture. I do this to show that allowing one to be viewed as normal will open the door for the others to be viewed as normal also. You may not like the comparison, your feelings don’t matter. There is nothing logically inconsistent with homosexuality being considered moral so long as there is consent between adults and incest and polygamy being moral so long as there is consent between adults.

And again, if you truly believe that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, how can you prohibit someone from having intercourse with an animal?
commented 2016-07-09 17:52:09 -0400
Just can’t get worked up over this one. Aside from being somewhat a fan of the Star Trek franchise, I couldn’t care less who the characters are. A movie is simply entertainment, somewhere to park your brain for a couple hours and go along for the ride. Nothing more, nothing less…………… B.T.W. There are some good fan made films on line as well. Star Trek: The next phase being one of them…………
commented 2016-07-09 15:10:56 -0400
Nnaumbua Farrell,

Your problem is that you equate being born gay to someone who wants to fuck a goat or their daughter or a child?

Homosexuality has been a constant through out history and people have fought for gay rights for many many decades. There is no Harvey Milk for bestiality or incest. No one is making movies to tell the story of incest or bestiality rights. And there is no movement demanding rights.

It’s simply laughable that you equate homosexuality with some redneck that hasn’t had sex in decades, so he comes up with the idea of letting his horse fuck him in the ass.
commented 2016-07-09 13:53:44 -0400
It’s Simon Pegg’s idea to make Sulu gay.

He even published a refutation of George Takei’s well-considered response to the news.

I remember a ST movie where the running joke was that Sulu had a family and a daughter. In fact, to Kirk’s surprise, Sulu’s daughter, Ensign Demora Sulu, operated the helm on the latest version of the Enterprise. Kirk turns to McCoy and says, “I didn’t know Sulu had a daughter. I didn’t even know he was married.”

So, it was Simon Pegg’s idea. Why is Scotty the one who’s gay? Anyone who knows their ST lore, Scotty was a loner, never did marry, totally dedicated his life to Star Fleet, and had no strong bonds with women. Scotty is perfect. But Pegg doesn’t want to play the gay character, of course.
commented 2016-07-09 13:04:57 -0400
MICHAEL MANN;
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha ha …
What a retard, you’re so predictable, thanks for the good laugh…now f**k off.
commented 2016-07-09 11:56:31 -0400
LOL Oook Michael. It’s gonna be alright.

You do acknowledge though Michael that there is a danger to loosening the criteria of what constitutes a moral sexual relationship right? Traditionally a moral sexual relationship was between one consenting man and one consenting woman of appropriate age who are married to each other and not married or engaged to anyone else and who are not too closely related. This prohibited polygamy, bestiality, rape, homosexuality, pedophilia, fornication, adultery, and incest. So traditionally, to determine the morality of a sexual relationship, a minimum number of relevant criteria concerning number, species, consent, sex, age, marital status, and family relationship of partners had to be met.

Now, to allow for gay marriage, we have reduced the relevant number of criteria to determine the morality of a sexual relationship. They are now number (for now), species (for now), and age (for now). Two consenting adults is all that is required.

Well how can you possibly be against polygamy and incest if there is consent? And why prohibit bestiality if the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation?
commented 2016-07-09 07:44:17 -0400
Dan,

So how do you explain reasonable conservatives or opposed to batshit crazy conservatives like you that also support gay marriage – simply because it’s a human rights issue and they believe that gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else. Nothing lefty about them.

I am not hiding behind anything – I would gladly meet up with you and tell you to your fucking face that you are a bigot. Leave some contact info like an email address and we can arrange it.
commented 2016-07-09 00:09:12 -0400
MICHAEL MANN;
A homophobe and a bigot eh? For daring to express an opinion contrary to the cultural Marxists ideology and social engineering narrative, that you’ve obviously bought into…and after being prompted by THEREBEL to do so:
“Where do you stand on this? SOUND OFF in the comments.”
Well thank you for another fine example of a delusional lefty suffering from the malaise of many today – the mental disorder of liberalism, where name calling, demonizing labels and character assassination are the debating tools of your ilk – from behind a computer monitor and a fake name. LOL, I guess you also completely lack any objectivity…to realise how trite, immature and ridiculous you sound.
Whereas I do admit to being a thinking man, I’m sure I have no idea as to what you mean by “an archaic way of thinking”… do you?
So, don’t go away mad…just go away…
commented 2016-07-08 23:47:07 -0400
There is even agroup called gays against islam , but lets not tell Michael everyone , his small mind would explode.
commented 2016-07-08 23:45:59 -0400
Michael Mann -http://www.plagal.org/ are these people archaic? Or did you even know groups like this existed, since they do not fit your bigoted version of certain groups?
commented 2016-07-08 23:44:09 -0400
Michael Mann your BS is showing as usual , none of us would care if their was a new gay character , of course bigots like you would have a cow if a gay character were changed to straight. LMAO! Now go be a good hate filled bigot and realize not all gays are the helpless mindless drones you think you need to protect and speak for. Funny how you lefties speak on behalf of others all the time, what makes you qualified to do so?
commented 2016-07-08 23:15:58 -0400
George Takei is 100% right on this. But he won’t be listened to.
commented 2016-07-08 23:01:30 -0400
Michael Doll,

I know your position on everything. The bullshit you spew on here constantly makes it so easy.
commented 2016-07-08 22:59:40 -0400
Dan,

Thanks for coming out to admit that you are a homophobe and bigot with an archaic way of thinking. How brave of you.
commented 2016-07-08 21:14:35 -0400
Sounding off…
Ang Lee and the rest of these homosexual-agenda-social-engineers are the enemy of film, like the filthy ‘Colourizers’. They are bullies and destroyers and should have their artistic license revoked. Homo-eroticizing the Western genre was despicable, immoral and obscene. May the production crew of that filth – that I have not seen and will not name – all rot in hell – the DVDs which I get occasionally at the pawn shop for a buck and use at the range for target practice with my single action .45…
But homoeroticizing Star Trek!? That’s criminal, as well as despicable, immoral and obscene . Gene should sue the bastards from the grave!
It seems appropriate to let Gary Cooper tell it…
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtymi7_the-fountainhead-1949-gary-cooper-famous-courtroom-speech_shortfilms
commented 2016-07-08 19:51:47 -0400
Sulu will not be the first lgbt character in star trek. Odo and his people were. They were born without a sex, but could choose or change it at will if they felt like it. They could be in relationships with either. And some of them choose not to go with either one while in humanoid form. Seems like they will not be happy unless changes are made to others people’s work instead of making an effort to create something new.
commented 2016-07-08 19:35:41 -0400
“and it had to be Trek. all the good little trekies knew luke skywalker was gay. "

LOL To be fair, Skywalker was a whiny teenager which can resemble gayness. OK?

And besides, he was more into consensual incest with Leia like one unnamed Rebel commentator whose name rhymes with Bikle Crann. Please do NOT form any insulting acronyms from my purely coincidental choice of first letters for this commentators first and last name.
commented 2016-07-08 19:26:43 -0400
“It’s funny that people seem to avoiding Takei’s comment that yes, there should be a gay character in Star Trek, but have it be a new character as opposed to making Sulu gay.

If there was a new gay character in Star Trek, you would all be crying about that and saying that you are going to boycott Star Trek from now on. "

Target this predictable bull crap and fire!
commented 2016-07-08 19:10:54 -0400
It’s funny how Michael Mann can be both a mind reader and totally clueless at the same time. You don’t speak for me, and you’re not smart enough to correctly identify my take on any issue.
commented 2016-07-08 15:29:49 -0400
It’s funny that people seem to avoiding Takei’s comment that yes, there should be a gay character in Star Trek, but have it be a new character as opposed to making Sulu gay.

If there was a new gay character in Star Trek, you would all be crying about that and saying that you are going to boycott Star Trek from now on.
commented 2016-07-08 15:25:43 -0400
Robert Dick:

Exactly….can we not just live our lives without incessantly feeling it necessary to let everyone know your sexual preference?
commented 2016-07-08 13:13:44 -0400
Way to go George Takei. Lesson to all modern-day LGBT overstepping wacko activists … you can be gay AND be “normal” and fit in with the rest of society at large WITHOUT making you gayness a perpetual issue. Just be.
commented 2016-07-08 13:10:31 -0400
and it had to be Trek. all the good little trekies knew luke skywalker was gay.
commented 2016-07-08 12:43:26 -0400
Can’t wait to see how they portray the klingons circling uranus in this preachy PC disaster.
commented 2016-07-08 12:36:38 -0400
there goes the Klingon moon Praxis imploding again…
commented 2016-07-08 12:30:02 -0400
I always enjoyed Takei’s portrayal of Sulu on the original series and the subsequent movies. His personal ‘gayness’ was never an issue with his work. In fact, he seems to have worked hard to make his ‘gayness’ as invisible in the presentation of his character Sulu as possible. It is most unfortunate that the producers of this next movie have chosen to ignore Takei and his efforts in favour of a P.C. attempt at relevancy. I have a new found respect for Takei. I have far less than that for the producers of the next movie.
commented 2016-07-08 12:29:03 -0400
The Star Trek series as envisioned by Roddenberry, considering the characters’ behavior and especially their outfits, certainly DID acknowledge that in that future the eternal differences between men and women were certainly clearer than in these muddled times.
commented 2016-07-08 12:24:46 -0400
A play by Terrence McNally, childishly entitled Corpus Christi (It is set in the Texas city of the same name, but is meant as a blasphemous pun…some “gays” really do have to grow up!), portrays Jesus Christ as a homosexual in a love relationship with Judas.
As I said in parentheses earlier, some “gays” really have to grow up.
The LGBTQ-ETC. activists are so puerile. Take their childish rainbow flag, for instance.
When some Christians expressed their disapproval of Jesus Christ being portrayed as an active homosexual, some commentators referred to the letters of Christian concern as … wait for it … hate mail.
This is our Brave New World.