-
[QUOTE=Midvillian1322;4834075]Well in a now deleted interview an actor on Eternals said he plays Phatsos husband. They are married have kids and filmed a kiss scene. If this is true I'm sure it will be contained and Phastos personal life wont bleed out into the main story. That way they can easily cut it out for China. Question is Bryan Tyree Henry gay in real life? Seen some interviews hes done that made me wonder.[/QUOTE]
Hopefully they don't JUST tack it on. Alot of studios have a bad habit of including LGBTQ representation when it doesn't fit the situation or the character. When that happens the scenes feel clunky, not cohesive, and it tends to have the opposite effect that they were wanting. I don't think I've seen a recent movie yet get praised for the LGBTQ moment in a film. Heck I think Star Wars just got bashed for it to because the scene didn't make sense.
-
[QUOTE=ComicJunkie21;4835926]Hopefully they don't JUST tack it on. Alot of studios have a bad habit of including LGBTQ representation when it doesn't fit the situation or the character. When that happens the scenes feel clunky, not cohesive, and it tends to have the opposite effect that they were wanting. I don't think I've seen a recent movie yet get praised for the LGBTQ moment in a film. Heck I think Star Wars just got bashed for it to because the scene didn't make sense.[/QUOTE]
Star Wars got bashed for it because it was a blink or you'll miss it moment. Said moment was cut from the international showings of the movie.
-
[QUOTE=ComicJunkie21;4835926]Hopefully they don't JUST tack it on. Alot of studios have a bad habit of including LGBTQ representation when it doesn't fit the situation or the character. When that happens the scenes feel clunky, not cohesive, and it tends to have the opposite effect that they were wanting. I don't think I've seen a recent movie yet get praised for the LGBTQ moment in a film. Heck I think Star Wars just got bashed for it to because the scene didn't make sense.[/QUOTE]
No. This logic is never applied to str8 romances/sexuality. In [I]Thor: Ragnarok[/I] the entire motivation for Valkyrie was linked to the loss of her lover. It was story relevant. Yet it got cut. Hawkeye's family was not needed in [I]Age of Ultron[/I]. The American soldier loving the French ladies was not relevant to [I]Captain America: the First Avengers[/I]. Falcon's sexuality was not relevant. Yet those all get added. So no, this logic is a double standard that is not acceptable.
-
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;4836299]No. This logic is never applied to str8 romances/sexuality. In [I]Thor: Ragnarok[/I] the entire motivation for Valkyrie was linked to the loss of her lover. It was story relevant. Yet it got cut.[/quote]
To play devil's advocate, Valkarie's motivation was tied into being the sole survivor of her squad's attack on Hela; the idea that she had lost a lover was Tessa Thompson's own idea for how she played the scene. Even in the "uncut" version, the bit establishing her sexuality was a "throwaway" scene that didn't really impact the plot much.
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;4836299]Hawkeye's family was not needed in [I]Age of Ultron[/I]. The American soldier loving the French ladies was not relevant to [I]Captain America: the First Avengers[/I].[/quote]
Not sure the latter adding anything, although I did like how Hawkeye's family expanded on his character.
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;4836299][B]Falcon's sexuality was not relevant. [/B] Yet those all get added. So no, this logic is a double standard that is not acceptable.[/QUOTE]
Where was that?
-
I'm in the camp who loved the Hawkeye family farm scenes in AOU.
-
are we just talking MCU or Disney as a whole?
because I think they could pull of a gay family sitcom...be it something like Good Luck, Charlie or similar
-
[QUOTE=WebLurker;4836367]To play devil's advocate, Valkarie's motivation was tied into being the sole survivor of her squad's attack on Hela; the idea that she had lost a lover was Tessa Thompson's own idea for how she played the scene. Even in the "uncut" version, the bit establishing her sexuality was a "throwaway" scene that didn't really impact the plot much.[/QUOTE]
[B]a) [/B]doesn't need to be plot relevant, no such standard exists for str8 characters
[B]b)[/B] it makes WAYYYYYYY more sense why she goes into an alcoholic spiral of depression for centuries losing a lover, than comrades. Way more sense.
[QUOTE=Jokerz79;4836387]I'm in the camp who loved the Hawkeye family farm scenes in AOU.[/QUOTE]
A statement you only get to make because showing heterosexuality in film is okay (even when completely irrelevant to the plot). ;)
[QUOTE=WebLurker;4836367]Not sure the latter adding anything, although I did like how Hawkeye's family expanded on his character.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying I didn't like it, I did, but it was entirely irrelevant to the plot. And a perfect example of a side-segment that "isn't needed" but is still added. THAT SAID... it was the perfect chance to have an LGBT+ character, and they missed it. Have Hawkeye take them to his house, where his husband is looking after the kids. And it adds a nice subversive layer of 'why didn't you ever tell us'... there's a good reason why.
[QUOTE=WebLurker;4836367]Where was that?[/QUOTE]
Three times within the first meeting of him running around that big water pond/thing in Washington; he kept on talking about the ladies, about Cap setting him up with Black Widow (I think?). It's so 'normalised' to have heterosexuality 'ping' in a film, so many don't even notice it, yet that same privilege is not extended to LGBT+ people without having to hear "but is it plot relevant?/it should only happen if organic/often it seems distracting, like they just shoved it in when we didn't need it".
It's like that age old joke of [I]Star Wars[/I]; a franchise that is more comfortable showing incest than homosexuality ;)
-
[QUOTE=ComicJunkie21;4835926]Hopefully they don't JUST tack it on. Alot of studios have a bad habit of including LGBTQ representation when it doesn't fit the situation or the character. When that happens the scenes feel clunky, not cohesive, and it tends to have the opposite effect that they were wanting. I don't think I've seen a recent movie yet get praised for the LGBTQ moment in a film. Heck I think Star Wars just got bashed for it to because the scene didn't make sense.[/QUOTE]
It's not tacked on it was the plan from the beginning. They show the etenrals and how they have blended into society Kumails character is a Bollywood actor supposedly. Then apparently Phastos married a man. Adopted a couple kids and according to the actor they filmed a Kiss scene that had people on set crying(Sounds like an exaggeration but who knows). But it's almost 100% guaranteed that all Phastos personal life stuff will be cut from China and other markets. They will probaly just have a scene where he says hes married and has two kids. Failing to mention that it's to a man.
-
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;4836548][B]b)[/B] it makes WAYYYYYYY more sense why she goes into an alcoholic spiral of depression for centuries losing a lover, than comrades. Way more sense.[/QUOTE]
She was a sole survivor among a crew that was mostly slain during their duty through unexpected failure. Her depression shouldn't carry less weight in this situation than it already does.
-
[QUOTE=Midvillian1322;4836626]It's not tacked on it was the plan from the beginning. They show the etenrals and how they have blended into society Kumails character is a Bollywood actor supposedly. Then apparently Phastos married a man. Adopted a couple kids and according to the actor they filmed a Kiss scene that had people on set crying(Sounds like an exaggeration but who knows). But it's almost 100% guaranteed that all Phastos personal life stuff will be cut from China and other markets. They will probaly just have a scene where he says hes married and has two kids. Failing to mention that it's to a man.[/QUOTE]
As long as it's planned, relevant, and woven into the storyline so it doesn't come across out of place and out of character then it's fine. My main point is that in recent films, directors have thrown in a LGBTQ scene just to say it was there. The scene or moment itself has had zero impact or reason to most storylines in recent films. For example as someone stated earlier the Star Wars moment was so quick that if you blinked you missed it. If it's that quick why have it at all. I'd say that about if it was straight couple too.
The only decent moment i can remember in recent films was in Shazam. When we found out about one of the foster kids sexuality. It was revealed at a moment that made sense, had impact, as well as added to the characterization of the person.
-
[QUOTE=Jokerz79;4836387]I'm in the camp who loved the Hawkeye family farm scenes in AOU.[/QUOTE]
I enjoyed the farm scenes too. I'll take anything that gives MCU Hawkeye character.
[quote=Kieran_Frost ]b) it makes WAYYYYYYY more sense why she goes into an alcoholic spiral of depression for centuries losing a lover, than comrades. Way more sense.[/quote]
Losing comrades is equally as devastating. A sister in arms is a sister in life. You expect a soldier to not feel like **** when they lose their unit?
-
[QUOTE=Immortal Weapon;4836762]I enjoyed the farm scenes too. I'll take anything that gives MCU Hawkeye character.[/QUOTE]
A statement you only get to make because showing heterosexuality in film is okay (even when completely irrelevant to the plot). ;)
[QUOTE=Speed Force League Unlimited;4836735]She was a sole survivor among a crew that was mostly slain during their duty through unexpected failure. Her depression shouldn't carry less weight in this situation than it already does.[/QUOTE]
Meh. The longevity of it is much easier to believe when love is involved. Centuries in mourning when it's just "my comrade in arms"? I find harder to believe.
[QUOTE=ComicJunkie21;4836758]As long as it's planned, relevant, and woven into the storyline so it doesn't come across out of place and out of character then it's fine. My main point is that in recent films, directors have thrown in a LGBTQ scene just to say it was there. The scene or moment itself has had zero impact or reason to most storylines in recent films. For example as someone stated earlier the Star Wars moment was so quick that if you blinked you missed it. If it's that quick why have it at all. I'd say that about if it was straight couple too. [/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://media.giphy.com/media/qmfpjpAT2fJRK/giphy.gif[/IMG]
-
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;4836765]A statement you only get to make because showing heterosexuality in film is okay (even when completely irrelevant to the plot). ;)[/QUOTE]
It's a statement I can make because I'm a fan of the character and I'm always up to see him get some shine. I don't care if it's relevant to the plot. I like stuff that's made to get me invested in the characters.
-
[QUOTE=Immortal Weapon;4836810]It's a statement I can make because I'm a fan of the character and I'm always up to see him get some shine. I don't care if it's relevant to the plot. I like stuff that's made to get me invested in the characters.[/QUOTE]
It's a statement you can make because he's heterosexual. If he was homosexual, that scene would never have happened. It's a privilege, so enjoy it. :)
-
i think the most prominent lbtqg-char in modern blockbuster movies has been brad pittīs achilles. ofc they did not admit that, cause patrokles was his cousin.
i canīt see why something like that wonīt work in a newer blockbuster if it is fleshed out more explicitly.
eternals seems like the perfect opportunity, given their olympic themes.
i just hope it will feel more natural than the POC exposition in thor rags, which was mocking white characters to showcase POC.
fandrall and volstagg insta killed like in scream movie or something. ofc hogun has his epic stand while the army of asgard melts around him.
then heimdall does all of amazing stuff.
i wonder when we can highlight minority characters without demeaning other characters