Fun fact: George Takei himself complained that Sulu is portrait gay in the new movies. He said that even tho he himself is gay, he always played Sulu as a straight guy. But why would the headcanon of an actor be more important than any other
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
161 points (75.9% liked)
Risa
6878 readers
2 users here now
Star Trek memes and shitposts
Come on'n get your jamaharon on! There are no real rules—just don't break the weather control network.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean, if it informs the performance meaningfully, it's part of the end product. Doesn't mean it's necessarily canon or whatever, but it certainly has the potential to impact later performances if direction moves away from the actor's previous internal preparation.
I could see it being off-putting to work under a director or with writing that bleeds your public personality into your role, especially if it's one you've gotten to a certain place with.
Like even as a roleplayer, any character i might embody in the moment has a life of its own that's distinct from mine, and would make decisions that I wouldn't. If someone tried to push me into acting a way that's more typical of myself out of character or that's more in line with a different character I play, or if they reacted to the character based on that outside stuff, I'd certainly resist it.
True, I totally see your point. I think there are different ways to see this:
First, it's someone else who played it so he wasn't forced to do anything. It's just a role he played and now someone else does with different interpretations. You wouldn't blame a Hamlett actor for performing differently than their predecessor. Sure, it's different since Sulu was brought into existence by Takei and didn't really exist in a book or something but still a fictional character played by different people.
Since it's just one little scene I didn't even remember after the first time watching, it isn't part of his story or character building or something. He is just greeted by his husband (or partner) and daughter. In my eyes more of a homage or easter egg to Takei than forcing his personality into the character.
Lastly, HolLyWood goNe w0ke aNywAyS. I don't mean this negatively obviously. Media puts diversity into more and more places and it doesn't even have to do with Takei himself.
Even tho I started the last paragraph with lastly, let me add that I think it might even have more to do with losing control of your creation. Sure, Sulu started as the character played by Sulu but he developed further. It's like trying to force the genie back into the bottle. Sulu isn't Takei and Takei isn't entitled to control Sulu.
I can see how he'd be upset by it, and I don't think it's about lack of control. It's like the people writing the character said Takei is just SO damn gay that they have to make everything he's ever touched gay. Like the gay's contagious. He's contaminating characters with his gayness. Some people actually think that's the way it works. Given his age i'm sure he's seen enough of that to be upset by the implication. He's an individual who's lived a long and interesting life, not just some big gay caricature. Though he's definitely that too.
George takei aside, i'm all for making more characters gay. Dial it all the way up. Sure worked for the she ra reboot.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's not just how Takei played it, the first thing an inhibition-free Zulu does in The Naked Time is to go after Uhura - and Mirror Zulu obviously has the hots for her too.
Takei's Sulu always gave me bisexual energy.
Source: my wishful thinking (aka my ass)
To be fair, John Cho played Sulu straight until it was revealed that he was gay. And even then, there wasn't much gayness to his acting. Unless you count bringing a sword to a skydiving phaser fight, but I'd consider that more bad ass than gay.
And even then, there wasn’t much gayness to his acting.
Care to elaborate?
What is there to elaborate? Other than a brief embrace shown on screen, he didn't appear to play the role in any stereotypical gay manner. That's all...
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Why wouldn't the original actor be the authority on the subject? If they immersed themselves in the material and have a good memory, wouldn't that be "the truth"?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
With the debatable exception of Jadzia, all those characters were exclusively shown in heterosexual relationships.
Rejoined was a great episode.
all those characters were exclusively shown in heterosexual relationships.
That's not exactly evidence against them all being bi
This is where the wishful thinking, mentioned earlier, comes to play I guess.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Julian and Garak were clearly in a relationship. Just ask Garak.
Don’t get baited
I got suckered into arguing about this very topic some days ago, and only had my sexuality questioned when they ran out of arguments. Suffice it to say that there is plenty of wishful thinking involved
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not too sure what's debatable about Jadzia. Julian on the other hand... pretty debatable.
While she kissed a girl, it was never portrayed as a lesbian relationship, rather the post reincarnation resumption of earlier straight marriage.
Did Bashir ever pine after a guy? O’Brien doesn’t count.
If you've not noticed garak and Bashir.... well, it's worth a rewatch just for that.
Garak is a pleasure to watch, and Andrew Robinson said he’s intentionally coded as bi, but he’s not in this photo.
Julian has a relationship with garak, and while he's obviously a bit confused about what it is it's pretty evident garak is not.
While she kissed a girl, it was never portrayed as a lesbian relationship
That's what I told grandma when she walked in on me and Jenny Davis
Dang I know he was just a simple tailor but such shade as to ignore him entirely?
load more comments
(5 replies)
Sure, but that doesn't mean they were exclusively heterosexual.
The definition of canon is that which is shown on screen.
Any character that does not explicitly say they were hetero/homosexual is canonically bi until proven otherwise.
If they're not shown in explicitly sexual relationships, they're canonically ace.
if they are not shown going the the toilet, they're canonically in voluntary urinary retention
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Kira was a rebel at heart.
Bashir was in the "I've been genetically modified, which is illegal, so should I have kids?" camp, if I remember correctly.
Sisko loved his wife.
Odo was a gelatinous blob.
Jadzia was influenced by past multiple personalities, so she likely loved pans and pots.
O'Brien was a weeb. He only loved his waifu, the transporter room.
Jake was a reporter. He loved crawling into holes he shouldn't have been crawling into.
Quark was a businessman. He loved risky ventures.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Although it isn't really shown, Odo is nonbinary by definition isn't he?
Not necessarily. It'd be for how he views himself. While the shapeshifters kinda' explore the concept in some episodes, it may be fair to assume they identify as they present, because they can literally present how they want.
Granted, I could see Odo having some odd identity issues with presenting to please others or over duty to his job more than personal identity given his upbringing...
Did they explore his gender identity in that episode(s) or did they leave it all allegory? Ugh it was so long ago... Maybe time for a rewatch.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
Quark is a straight white male, or my name isn't Jeremiah Paxton
He's a straight green goblin.
This is acceptable
So what is your name?
Tim
There are some who call me.... Tim.
You can tell a lot about somebody by if they choose Monty Python or South Park
load more comments
(2 replies)
"I don't think so, Tim."
-Al Borland
Agreed on all points except Garak, the simple tailor.
Anybody who misses how shamelessly he flirts with Julian needs their head-canon checked on.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›