Will Disney ever have true LGBTQ representation in their movies?

[WebLurker]

a) doesn't need to be plot relevant, no such standard exists for str8 characters

Sorry, thought you were saying it was.

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.

No, don't think so. Would it add to the tragedy? Yes, of course. However, PTSD, losing friends, feeling like you sacrificed everything for a king who didn't deserve it, yeah, that could lead anyone into a life of depression and just living for the next drink.

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.

It's character work, fine enough. As far as why Hawkeye has a nuclear family, that is how it is in the source material, just like it is for Valkyrie being LGBT.

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?).

Don't remember the Black Widow bit (although she did flirt a lot with Cap, even if it wasn't serious on her end). Now that you mention it, I do recall Falcon wondering if Cap would visit him at his job, since it would impress the women there. Thought it was simple way to set up Cap visiting him later in the movie and injected a little humor. Wouldn't've changed any had it been a gay character in the scenario, IMHO.

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".

Don't see the difference between the two in regards to character world, "relevance," etc., and I'd always argue that "organic" writing serves anything better then not (e.g. pick one and write it well, not "using the claim of "bad writing" to argue against something you didn't want). Heck, did Life is Strange need a possible boyfriend character when all the narrative drive was in the relationship between the female lead and her female best friend/love interest (depending on the player's choices)?

It's like that age old joke of Star Wars; a franchise that is more comfortable showing incest than homosexuality

Uh, the franchise has done that quite a bit across the board?

[Kieran_Frost]

i think the most prominent lbtqg-char in modern blockbuster movies has been brad pitt´s achilles. ofc they did not admit that, cause patrokles was his cousin.

Ugh, that movie. The fact they even changed Patrocolus to "his cousin" says it all. One of the most famous gay couples of literature, and they make the movie about his love for a woman. Visually the film is great, story wise it's terrible.

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.

POC and female characters are allowed to kick ass without it being anything other than... they're kicking ass. I didn't feel anything in Ragnarok was mocking white characters. The same way when Thor or Hulk kicked ass, I didn't think "wow, way to insult the POC heroes." It's absurd how many complained about the "forced" nature of all the female heroes coming to kick ass in the Avengers films, when we've constantly had male only moments like that, but only one is labelled as "forced." It's a huge double standard.

Now that you mention it, I do recall Falcon wondering if Cap would visit him at his job, since it would impress the women there. Thought it was simple way to set up Cap visiting him later in the movie and injected a little humor.

Again, doesn't really matter whether it was story relevant or not, only reason it happened at all (relevant or not) was because it was a 'ping' for heterosexuality. He could have invited Cap to his office, without a nod to his attraction to women, it wasn't needed, yet got put in anyway.

Wouldn't've changed any had it been a gay character in the scenario, IMHO.

But it wouldn't have happened. THAT is the key point.

Don't see the difference between the two in regards to character world, "relevance," etc., and I'd always argue that "organic" writing serves anything better then not (e.g. pick one and write it well, not "using the claim of "bad writing" to argue against something you didn't want). Heck, did Life is Strange need a possible boyfriend character when all the narrative drive was in the relationship between the female lead and her female best friend/love interest (depending on the player's choices)?

Again, the justification of "but is it organic" is never applied to str8 characters. Black Widow and Hulk came out of no-where in Age of Ultron. There was nothing organic about it, they just did it. Hawkeye's family... not organic, they just did it. Sharon Carter SUPER not organic, they just did it. And no-one cared that it wasn't organic.

Uh, the franchise has done that quite a bit across the board?

(speaking of Sharon Carter) The MCU does it too, I found the whole Cap/Sharon Carter thing super yucky. That's your "one true love's" granddaughter. Eeeeeewwwww. It felt incestuous.

[Jokerz79]

Ugh, that movie. The fact they even changed Patrocolus to "his cousin" says it all. One of the most famous gay couples of literature, and they make the movie about his love for a woman. Visually the film is great, story wise it's terrible.


POC and female characters are allowed to kick ass without it being anything other than... they're kicking ass. I didn't feel anything in Ragnarok was mocking white characters. The same way when Thor or Hulk kicked ass, I didn't think "wow, way to insult the POC heroes." It's absurd how many complained about the "forced" nature of all the female heroes coming to kick ass in the Avengers films, when we've constantly had male only moments like that, but only one is labelled as "forced." It's a huge double standard.


No it isn't, unless Hawkeye has a wife and kid suddenly that I'm unaware of???


Again, doesn't really matter whether it was story relevant or not, only reason it happened at all (relevant or not) was because it was a 'ping' for heterosexuality. He could have invited Cap to his office, without a nod to his attraction to women, it wasn't needed, yet got put in anyway.


But it wouldn't have happened. THAT is the key point.


Again, the justification of "but is it organic" is never applied to str8 characters. Black Widow and Hulk came out of no-where in Age of Ultron. There was nothing organic about it, they just did it. Hawkeye's family... not organic, they just did it. Sharon Carter SUPER not organic, they just did it. And no-one cared that it wasn't organic.


(speaking of Sharon Carter) The MCU does it too, I found the whole Cap/Sharon Carter thing super yucky. That's your "one true love's" granddaughter. Eeeeeewwwww. It felt incestuous.

In the Ultimate Comics Hawkeye had a wife Laura and kids and the MCU took some inspirations from the Ultimate Books.

[numberthirty]

In the Ultimate Comics Hawkeye had a wife Laura and kids and the MCU took some inspirations from the Ultimate Books.

Yep.

Wife/Three Kids

[Kieran_Frost]

In the Ultimate Comics Hawkeye had a wife Laura and kids and the MCU took some inspirations from the Ultimate Books.

Ahhhhhh, always forget the Ultimate comics happened. I stand corrected, thank-you. (posted edited)

[WebLurker]

Again, doesn't really matter whether it was story relevant or not, only reason it happened at all (relevant or not) was because it was a 'ping' for heterosexuality. He could have invited Cap to his office, without a nod to his attraction to women, it wasn't needed, yet got put in anyway.

Honest question: I follow that it's a bad situation to take a LGBT character and erase that element from an adaptation. However, how is it bad to write a non-LGBT character as a non-LGBT character?

But it wouldn't have happened. THAT is the key point.

Maybe?

Again, the justification of "but is it organic" is never applied to str8 characters. Black Widow and Hulk came out of no-where in Age of Ultron. There was nothing organic about it, they just did it. Hawkeye's family... not organic, they just did it. Sharon Carter SUPER not organic, they just did it. And no-one cared that it wasn't organic.

Funny, but the very het Hulk and Black Widow pairing was (rightfully) slammed for not being an organic development. Complaining about bad romance stories is hardly limited to being used as a smokescreen to justify homophobia.

I don't get all the harping on Hawkeye's family, given that there was nothing wrong with it from a writing standpoint or otherwise. Cap and Sharon Carter, I will give them credit for trying to set it up, but the Powers That Be chose to abandon it rather then committing to it once set in motion, which I think was the wrong decision; if they were always going to go back to Peggy, Sharon should never have been introduced period, and once she was introduced and set up, Peggy should've have been left in the past.

Look, I hate the "it's not organic"/"out of character"/"forced"/whatever claims that people like They Who Must Not Be Named, but I've found that generally examining what is actually being said often shows if the critic is arguing in good faith vs. using criticism as a smokescreen for their bigotry. Does that make any sense? (In other words, can there be a badly-written story r.e. diversity and how does one critique that without attacking the fact that it was trying to be progressive in the first place?)

(speaking of Sharon Carter) The MCU does it too, I found the whole Cap/Sharon Carter thing super yucky. That's your "one true love's" granddaughter. Eeeeeewwwww. It felt incestuous.

I actually meant that the franchise has been using LGBT characters long before TROS had a couple onscreen (although if you thought Leia kissing Luke in ESB not knowing they were related to make Han jealous was bad, do not read Splinter of the Mind's Eye!).

As far as the MCU went, I would point out that Cap met Sharon years after his and Peggy's relationship was over and did express interest in her before knowing who she was (she was also a niece, not a granddaugher). I've seen worse situations in fiction, actually.

[Kieran_Frost]

Honest question: I follow that it's a bad situation to take a LGBT character and erase that element from an adaptation. However, how is it bad to write a non-LGBT character as a non-LGBT character?

No-one is saying it is...

Funny, but the very het Hulk and Black Widow pairing was (rightfully) slammed for not being an organic development. Complaining about bad romance stories is hardly limited to being used as a smokescreen to justify homophobia.

Missing the point, mate.

I don't get all the harping on Hawkeye's family, given that there was nothing wrong with it from a writing standpoint or otherwise.

I think you're seriously missing the point. The issue is not Hawkeye's family! The issues are a) it's not plot relevant, b) it came out with no development, c) everyone's okay with that. YOU are okay with that. And yet the second anyone mentions LGBT+ characters all we hear from the peanut gallery is "but is it really plot relevant?" or "it has to be organic, if it's going to be done". It's hypocritical. It's a double standard. Period. THAT is why Hawkeye's family is the Holy Grail of proof about how this works, and how clear the double standard is... because EVERYONE'S OKAY with Hawkeye's family.

Valkyrie, Loki, Korg... it's not like the MCU didn't have LGBT+ characters in them, it's just they never said they were LGBT+. But random American soldier pings his sexuality and it's TOTALLY fine.

Look, I hate the "it's not organic"/"out of character"/"forced"/whatever claims that people like They Who Must Not Be Named, but I've found that generally examining what is actually being said often shows if the critic is arguing in good faith vs. using criticism as a smokescreen for their bigotry. Does that make any sense? (In other words, can there be a badly-written story r.e. diversity and how does one critique that without attacking the fact that it was trying to be progressive in the first place?)

I really do mean this constructively... ask yourself this: "if I'm using the very same arguements bigots use (those were your words, not mine)... should maybe I take a second and think about that?"

I actually meant that the franchise has been using LGBT characters long before TROS had a couple onscreen (although if you thought Leia kissing Luke in ESB not knowing they were related to make Han jealous was bad, do not read Splinter of the Mind's Eye!).

Not on film they haven't, and that's where it counts (comics and books aren't the same thing). Harry Potter is the same (in books too actually, hilariously considering JK Rowling is "an ally" -- which she totally isn't, by the way -- side note). Star Trek was until very recently. MCU too.

As far as the MCU went, I would point out that Cap met Sharon years after his and Peggy's relationship was over and did express interest in her before knowing who she was (she was also a niece, not a granddaugher). I've seen worse situations in fiction, actually.

a) if you are attracted to a woman not knowing it's your sister, then find out it's your sister and THEN kiss her passionately; the excuse "but when I first felt that attraction I didn't know" wouldn't work, would it? b) Niece is still icky! COME ON! Can you not see that? It's pretty incestuous. They needed to put a pin through it ASAP; the moment he found out that should have been it over. The fact he goes back to Peggy makes it ten times worse.

[Midvillian1322]

No-one is saying it is...


Missing the point, mate.


I think you're seriously missing the point. The issue is not Hawkeye's family! The issues are a) it's not plot relevant, b) it came out with no development, c) everyone's okay with that. YOU are okay with that. And yet the second anyone mentions LGBT+ characters all we hear from the peanut gallery is "but is it really plot relevant?" or "it has to be organic, if it's going to be done". It's hypocritical. It's a double standard. Period. THAT is why Hawkeye's family is the Holy Grail of proof about how this works, and how clear the double standard is... because EVERYONE'S OKAY with Hawkeye's family.

Valkyrie, Loki, Korg... it's not like the MCU didn't have LGBT+ characters in them, it's just they never said they were LGBT+. But random American soldier pings his sexuality and it's TOTALLY fine.


I really do mean this constructively... ask yourself this: "if I'm using the very same arguements bigots use (those were your words, not mine)... should maybe I take a second and think about that?"


Not on film they haven't, and that's where it counts (comics and books aren't the same thing). Harry Potter is the same (in books too actually, hilariously considering JK Rowling is "an ally" -- which she totally isn't, by the way -- side note). Star Trek was until very recently. MCU too.


a) if you are attracted to a woman not knowing it's your sister, then find out it's your sister and THEN kiss her passionately; the excuse "but when I first felt that attraction I didn't know" wouldn't work, would it? b) Niece is still icky! COME ON! Can you not see that? It's pretty incestuous. They needed to put a pin through it ASAP; the moment he found out that should have been it over. The fact he goes back to Peggy makes it ten times worse.

I think the reason people always say they hope its plot relevant is becuase if it's just tacked on for no reason is feels like pandering and inauthentic. There is defiently and double standard since they do that for Straight characters all the time and no one complains unless it's just blatantly bad(Hulk/Natasha). I think its just a matter of time before seeing LGBTQ characters will become normalized, hopefully sooner rather then later... Chinas and other places are a different story. But the MCU is so big they dont need China to make a profit, so maybe they will start taking risks with Mid tier budget films. Dinsey+ seems like a good place to explore it aswell. Maybe make Loki Pansexual, Ms Marvel could be a gay/Muslim/POC easily.

Anyway Eternals has almost every underrepresented group in one film. Asian,Indian,Latin, Gay Black man married to a Muslim man with two mixed kids. So I think inclusion is a priority for Marvel, but they are making 200m movies. So you have to expect them to have versions of the movie they can play in China,Russia, or parts of the middle east. So yea I hope Marvel diversifies and starts making smaller budget films, where they can take more risk without having to pander to socially conservative countries. Maybe even Start doing Smaller budget films for Disney+ instead of just big series.

So yea I understand being upset at how unfair things may be right now. But things are clearly moving in the right direction, just a matter of how many speed bumps gonna slow us down along the way.

[skyvolt2000]

Honest question: I follow that it's a bad situation to take a LGBT character and erase that element from an adaptation. However, how is it bad to write a non-LGBT character as a non-LGBT character?

Look, I hate the "it's not organic"/"out of character"/"forced"/whatever claims that people like They Who Must Not Be Named, but I've found that generally examining what is actually being said often shows if the critic is arguing in good faith vs. using criticism as a smokescreen for their bigotry. Does that make any sense? (In other words, can there be a badly-written story r.e. diversity and how does one critique that without attacking the fact that it was trying to be progressive in the first place?)

Frost's point is why is it okay for Hawkeye to have his wife and kids mentioned and no one goes NUTS but doing the same for a LGBTQ person has the pitch forks out.

What he is asking is if there is LGBTQ folks in this-lets get onscreen confirmation. Because I am going to tell what will happen-it might get verbally said and then DUBBED over for other places. Like we saw with Sailor Moon-Neptune & Uranus say HI. So does Zeolite. Along with all those flat chested Yellow Rangers in Power Rangers.

Someone arguing in good faith is NOT going to care about LGBTQ folks in the film. They are going to stick to story line and probably praise the LGBTQ scenes.

That other group as we have SEEN A) Have not seen the movie B) Do NOT care to see the movie C) Have rage to get youtube hits. The fact the movie HAS LGBTQ is enough for them to go off like they did with Black Panther & Cap Marvel & Birds of Prey & Star Wars. They saw something they did NOT approve of and they went off.

A badly done story can be discussed. That They Who Must Not Be Named-do not GAF about story. It's why they can NEVER tell you anything about the film or book.

Was Star Trek Beyond a failed movie because Sulu was gay? I have yet to see that article. If someone is screaming being progressive is the reason a film bombs-they were looking for something to fuss about.

If a guy couple in Eternals can make a film flop-that is criticism on the public. Because where was that for Moonlight-a OSCAR WINING film and there is STRONG homophobia in the black community. So much that a lot of black neighborhoods never saw it in theaters.

[lowfyr]

It could be Asylum like bad, but if it Flops for certain People the reason would be the gay couple. And they would make one Youtube Video after another to make a buck out of it.

[Midvillian1322]

Frost's point is why is it okay for Hawkeye to have his wife and kids mentioned and no one goes NUTS but doing the same for a LGBTQ person has the pitch forks out.

What he is asking is if there is LGBTQ folks in this-lets get onscreen confirmation. Because I am going to tell what will happen-it might get verbally said and then DUBBED over for other places. Like we saw with Sailor Moon-Neptune & Uranus say HI. So does Zeolite. Along with all those flat chested Yellow Rangers in Power Rangers.

Someone arguing in good faith is NOT going to care about LGBTQ folks in the film. They are going to stick to story line and probably praise the LGBTQ scenes.

That other group as we have SEEN A) Have not seen the movie B) Do NOT care to see the movie C) Have rage to get youtube hits. The fact the movie HAS LGBTQ is enough for them to go off like they did with Black Panther & Cap Marvel & Birds of Prey & Star Wars. They saw something they did NOT approve of and they went off.

A badly done story can be discussed. That They Who Must Not Be Named-do not GAF about story. It's why they can NEVER tell you anything about the film or book.

Was Star Trek Beyond a failed movie because Sulu was gay? I have yet to see that article. If someone is screaming being progressive is the reason a film bombs-they were looking for something to fuss about.

If a guy couple in Eternals can make a film flop-that is criticism on the public. Because where was that for Moonlight-a OSCAR WINING film and there is STRONG homophobia in the black community. So much that a lot of black neighborhoods never saw it in theaters.

I dont think a Gay couple could make a film flop here or other western countries. It will turn some people away, but it will also draw some people out. Similar to Black Panther but maybe not on that scale. The issue is losing something from Foreign markets like China, and Russia to a lesser extent. MCU is doing so well now though they will be profitable without those markets regardless. The problem is a huge company like Disney isnt gonna leave all that money on the table. I feel like Disney+ and maybe a future where we get smaller budgeted MCU films is where they can start experimenting with less risk. Untill then we will probably get a scene here all about Phastos and his family. Then later maybe a glimpse of them again nd a couple references. But you know any scene where he says anything about being gay they filmed twice. Once where they dont specify the gender of who hes married too. And then they cut the family scene out entirely. But they cast 2 big actor in China for this film. So maybe Phastos cut scenes will be filled with more scenes of the Chineese actors. MCU has filmed things just for China before.

[Username taken]

i think the most prominent lbtqg-char in modern blockbuster movies has been brad pitt´s achilles. ofc they did not admit that, cause patrokles was his cousin.
i can´t see why something like that won´t 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

I genuinely don't understand how you can watch Ragnarok and come away with this.

The main character- white
The main villain- white
The supporting protagonist- white
The other superhero movie in the movie (the Hulk)- white

The only prominent person of color in that movie was Valkyrie. Heimdall did next to nothing in the movie besides guide the Asgardians to a starship.

Suggesting the movie demeaned the white characters isn't grounded in any reality whatsoever.

By extension of this logic, Hulk or Thor or Loki shining is demeaning to minority characters. This doesn't make any sense....

[Username taken]

Anyway, I'm with Kieran on this topic.

Straight relationships don't have to justify their existence and really neither should gay characters. Granted, Eternals having a gay couple could hurt it in some foreign markets like Russia and China but the MCU is actually due for LGBT characters at this point.

If for anything, just to see the talking heads on youtube explode in inauthentic, fake and manufactured rage to take advantage of people for clicks.

[kjn]

One additional factor that complicates the life of queer characters in fiction is that most readers (and viewers) haven't been taught to see the markers for queer romance. For some, they have been taught to unsee it.

The result is that below a certain level such interactions are invisible, and can be easily dismissed as just friends or wholly ignored. In order to break through that level of obliviousness, the queer romance has to be blatant in a way that straight romances don't have to be. This opens it up for criticism of being forced or coming out of nowhere.

It's the same bind that a lot of minority representation has to deal with. If it can possibly be ignored or downplayed, it will be. And if it can't be ignored or downplayed, it's deemed forced upon the narrative, when the "white moderate" (as Martin Luther King aptly named him) confusedly looks upon the people being angry at him for not seeing them for to long.

And then we have the trouble that the corporate suits usually are more ready to hear the bigots than any oppressed group. Second-hand (or passive) homophobia is most certainly a thing.

[Username taken]

One additional factor that complicates the life of queer characters in fiction is that most readers (and viewers) haven't been taught to see the markers for queer romance. For some, they have been taught to unsee it.

The result is that below a certain level such interactions are invisible, and can be easily dismissed as just friends or wholly ignored. In order to break through that level of obliviousness, the queer romance has to be blatant in a way that straight romances don't have to be. This opens it up for criticism of being forced or coming out of nowhere.

It's the same bind that a lot of minority representation has to deal with. If it can possibly be ignored or downplayed, it will be. And if it can't be ignored or downplayed, it's deemed forced upon the narrative, when the "white moderate" (as Martin Luther King aptly named him) confusedly looks upon the people being angry at him for not seeing them for to long.

And then we have the trouble that the corporate suits usually are more ready to hear the bigots than any oppressed group. Second-hand (or passive) homophobia is most certainly a thing.

Quoted for truth.

Especially the bolded.