Will LGBT characters become an overused trend?
-
mx334 — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 04:45 AM)
It is a way of saying they have a diverse cast in the movie without going out and having a off white cast in some part. I don't think gay people is a larger paying audience than a minority audience.But I guess the poles say people is unconfortable around someone darker than Taylor Swift. Me I'm uncomfortable around the Taylor Swifts in think which one is going to get up and go postal in the theater.
-
Teflon_Boy — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 06:36 AM)
I somewhat agree with this sentiment in that it seems like a cop-out to attribute sub textual homosexuality to a character (after-the-fact) than to actual create a rounded gay character or cast a non-White actor in a leading role. But I also disagree with the idea that gay characters are ONLY ever introduced to pander to a liberal agenda. Sexuality can be used to add nuance to an otherwise bland character.
-
mx334 — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 08:04 AM)
I would hardly think that any bring up in the movie of her telling the guy of her past relationships is brought up. The movie doesn't come off with a pg-13 rating a bed thing and him asking her if he is her first. I just it is to get a audience attention and no where a thing to say it is.
-
Hassan_Scarborough — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 08:50 AM)
Strange that George Takei would not like the idea of more gay representation or a character he played, being gay.
I don't mind as long as it makes sense.
Diana makes sense because in Azzarello's series she says she loves everyone. Makes sense she would find women attractive.
I do agree that changing Ice Man and other characters that have already had hetero relationships to gay is a bit much.
Both companies have characters that were pretty much gay from the very beginning and should just push those characters. -
mddwbsst — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 09:57 AM)
I'm not a fan of rewriting characters sexualities just to appear more diverse.
But at the same time I'm not going to object to including more LGBT characters. They have kind of been marginalised for a couple of thousand years by this point.
I agree, its best if you create your own characters rather than altering existing ones. But really I doubt it will ever as you say become overused, it will just sort to settle down after a period of time and people will hopefully just stop caring, and focus on more important things. -
sul-uddin96 — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 01:06 PM)
"I'm not a fan of rewriting characters sexualities just to appear more diverse"
Nor am I, they should always be new and original. It's just way more interesting that way instead of a risk of jeopardising a fan-base, not due to homophobia, but because they accepted a character for how they first see them. -
-
ThisGuy4000 — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 06:29 PM)
Having LGBT characters isn't a "trend" anymore than having heterosexual characters. That being said, it's a bit annoying how people on social media still make a huge deal out of this stuff. We've progressed to the point where American children's television shows are finally starting to embrace LGBT themes, and people are making a fuss out of Wonder Woman being revealed to be bisexual (which has already been hinted at before), when plenty of other female comic book characters are already bi?
Hell, Harley Quinn is currently DC's best selling character outside of Batman, and she just so happens to be bisexual. -
whenforeverisnt — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 08:25 PM)
There have been 26 mainstream superhero films alone since 2010, with exactly two of them having an lgbtq character as a main character. And those are Deadpool and Harley, both characters that aren't actually lgbtq
on screen
. So no, it's not overused because it's flat out
not
used. Get your homophobic head out of your ass. -
Destructo_Dude_Reborn — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 09:02 PM)
The loudness of the proclamation is usually the problem. Sulu being casually represented in a way that doubled back on how Kirk doesn't have anything other than the mission was a nice character developing moment for both of them.
Strangely, the loud examples are a little necessary.
I wonder if audiences in the mid-80s had the same reaction to so many action films suddenly having Black guys in them. It's surreal to think about those movies being that way, because they don't seem loud at all now showcasing Black stars like Eddie Murphy as being outliers of the status quo.
Perhaps movies like Beverly Hills Cop were "those" kinds of movies, where the demographic of the hero represented a change in overall American culture. And it's pretty much unimpressive now if a Black man leads an action-comedy film that doesn't shy away from racial humor. -
Aniki21 — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 12:42 AM)
sigh Here someone goes again with the false lbgtqz*/black comparison again. Never mind that sexuality doesn't have the slightest thing to do with race in a meaningful way. These situations are completely different because for the most part these "few" black characters in starring/ co starring roles were a by product of the actors themselves and were not just there to be black or suddenly seeing well established characters suddenly being announced by this or that writer as black.
Basically in the 80-90s and even today it was still largely never a case of some writer declaring "Hey everyone! You know this popular iconic white character you've known about for decades? Well they're black now. With increased frequency this is u007f what's whats going on with the lbgtqx# stuff with Wonder Woman apparently being the latest casualty to this trend.
Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
u007f
https://goo.gl/fZ0xWS -
mx334 — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 01:16 AM)
No because in my thinking but maybe some it was a total ban of a minority. But changing Wonder Woman identity instead of adding a new character is wrong. It is all the studio or who holds the rights to her in it is cheaper to change someone instead of promote a new character to keep away the people in saying this stuff is just to white. It won't work,its like them or in Marvel thinking they just say Scarlett Witch is gay now to get extra audience instead of bringing in a cast like War Machine and Falcon.But as always DC will side on the cheap and be just the white trash hacks they have always been.
-
Destructo_Dude_Reborn — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 08:40 PM)
Yeah, that's fair to say.
The couple known attempts to make certain characters Black were usually a change of clothes to characters like the Punisher and Lois Lane. I think the only fetishized race change that held was Psylocke (more so than Ultimate Nick Fury).
Sexuality being subtext and not outwardly on the surface makes it harder in the regard of having a character be gay or bi or "non-hetero-normative," so the loudness has to be overstated for it to be noticed at all.
So come the genius idea of gay weddings in comics.
Big celebrations of homosexuality to get everybody over that hump. "Northstar's marrying a Black dude. Who? I don't know. We drew a character as best we could that you wouldn't think he was kissing his brother."
Marvel's been at it a lot with characters like Shatterstar and Iceman being thrown into the small group, where characters tip-toeing the margin as bisexual (Hercules, Daken, Rictor) were dumped over. Does Daken need to have exactly one woman and one man in his bed at all times to define his sexuality? I guess he does. Subtext needs that extra boost, which is why I can understand proclaiming that Wonder Woman is bi.
But honestly, if any of the trinity was going to be bi I would've gone with Batman. -
dpcole7 — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 07:39 AM)
Yeah, the 2009-2016 movies could have had Spock being gay but for some reason they had Spock going at it with Uhura instead. Sulu being gay feels like a cheap shot, and George Takei handled it very fairly.
The new Star Trek Discovery has a female lead character (first officer or lower rank) and GLBTAQQ alphabet soup issues are going to be mentioned. I'd bet real money that it will be a lesbian relationship.
Star Wars - if they handle it as peripheral as the Han/Leia subplot was, then why not? It's not intrusive and can add to a series, making ANY relationship a focal point, regardless of orientation, won't do any favors.
As for "alphabet soup", the gay, lesbian, bi, trans, associated, questioning, queer, and others of newly made up terms, why not just go and stay with ABPH - "anybody but pure hetero" instead? I'm not even hetero and know the constant changing of the special interest group wore out even before they juggled the order of the letters to LBTG.
Ideally, a show should do relationships in moderation and not scream it at the audience - show, not tell. 4th wall breaking rarely works. Are modern day audiences so timid that showing others as equals (with tact, not like the porno "Sens8" is) is more offensive than telling?