Sunday, July 10, 2016

Why only Sulu?

In the new Star Trek movie, Sulu comes out of the queer closet.

But since the movie is set in a more progressive, diverse future, why isn’t, oh, say 20 percent of the Enterprise crew queer? Or 25 percent? Why not 33 1/3 percent?

Surely by 2266 queers will have enough influence so as to convince or pressure an even larger percentage of people into homosexuality.

Shouldn’t Kirk be queer? Zachary Quinto, the guy playing Spock is queer, so why isn’t Spock? Some kind of non-logic said, “Since George Takei is homosexual, and he was the original Sulu, shouldn’t all subsequent Sulus be homosexual?” And somebody else in the room said, “Hey, sounds good to me.” Ergo, not only is Takei queer, but every actor who plays that character must be queer, too.

And where are the transgendered and bisexual Enterprise crew members? Don’t they get a fair shot?

In 1966, the first year of the first Star Trek, the cast was the most ethnically diverse group of actors on television, with even non-humans represented.

But no one on the Enterprise was queer or lesbian or confused about his/her sex, because in the Dark Ages, parts were parts. People played the hand dealt at birth.

Of course, we know the world of 2016 is so much more peaceful, with no conflicts over race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. The answer, to reach 2266 utopia, is to have more queers.

No comments:

Post a Comment