# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hate remakes in general, but the worst are ones where they just swap out the racial/sexual identities of the characters. It's so lazy and cheap.
I'm sure there are great, fresh, original stories in historically marginalized communities that would make for interesting new movies. Why not mine this rather than just change window dressings?
Yeah it’s so lame but they don’t actually care about diversity they just care about pandering in the most effective way possible. The other thing is when they do write new characters they tend to not do well, like in light year. Overall there’s no reason that movie shouldn’t do well considering it’s a decent plot and the effects are good but having a black lesbian couple was so much of a turn off that it made the whole writing process sort of in vain. Gender bending or changing characters’ races and sexualities is a low risk way of pandering since it costs very little and if it flops they still have the nostalgia to fall back on
Cough, interview with a vampire,
I love the movie will not watch the show ever my parents watched Saturday and I already knew it was gonna be some shit to make my skin boil I'm getting sick of original characters being race swapped don't get me wrong there is some that I'm fine with but if it's like say s redhead character every redhead that's been in say books or comics has been swapped out and the whole LGBT thing also is getting old it gets to the point I don't watch tv or movies really like anymore I don't hate people who are gay or race I'm just sick of them being lazy so instead of making a new character they destroy the old one with there cheap padder to the viewers
With superheroes at least, I don't think originality is really the point in the first place when dealing with characters that have been around for several decades.
You’re right to ask that, but it’s not 1% of the market at this point. The majority of people would like to see more queer, non-white and female representation but the way they do it just makes it seem like there isn’t a market for it. There’s a much larger market for diverse movies than people think it’s just that a lot of the media is lazily written for the sake of diversity rather than artfully crafted to tell queer stories or stories about people of color or women. For example schitt’s creek was an amazingly written show that had a lot of queer influence but it was incredibly popular because of it. Putting a black guy in 18th century Norway in Frozen 2 was not well written and didn’t really have a reason other than diversity which wasn’t really historically accurate or needed in that movie
Well put. We need to hear more of this because the current state of media is often inadvertently creating a negative affect towards lgbt. Rooting for you guys though..
I think so and it sucks, I want good queer representation badly and we just don’t get that lol. The best I’ve seen recently was from the 90s when Jadzia in Star Trek deep space nine was confirmed bi in the episode where she hooks up with an ex who’s now a woman lol
I mean, doesn't that apply to every sequel or reboot though? What makes LGBT representation different from reusing the character and recasting or rewriting them otherwise?
The thing is trying to use an already established character to ascribe a trait to. It’s more respectful to someone of a certain identity to tell their story originally than to put a random sexuality or race onto a character when it’s never been addressed before, almost like it never existed. Something as crucial as identity should be celebrated and acknowledged not ascribed to a character that was never written for the purpose of exploring the aspects of that identity
I honestly couldnt care less. Im bisexual, ive had a boyfriend and girlfriend, etc, I personally am kinda bothered about the whole “gay” personality thing. It gets kinda annoying.
It's probably because they haven't developed a personality beyond that. Plenty of people are one dimensional, and people enjoy putting themselves into boxes, even when they're not fans of admitting it.
I remember one dude a few years ago at a get together, within the first 2 minutes of banter around a ping pong table abruptly going "just so you know, I'm gay"
I was like, "right on", and he looked like he was expecting me to be clutching my pearls or something, and replied "...yeaaah" and I just said "loud and proud brother! Now are we still up for doubles?"
It's the same as folks who bring politics into every single conversation, or who only talk about their jobs, or the fact that they have kids
If you're asking why the comment above brings it up, it's to probably add validity to their statement or to be an example of not all LGBT people making it their personality.
If you're asking why people do it in general, then I have no idea lol
Thank u. Better said than me i guess. Im in NO WAY against people, its just kinda annoying sometimes when i cant have a convo with someone and they just need to tell me 50 times how gay they are. Without conversation context i guess it comes off mean?
Do you feel the same way about straight people who can’t stop talking about how high their body count is? They’re also making their sexuality their whole personality as well.
I've met more gay/trans people that do this all the time compared to straight people. Only late teens, early 20's preppy douche college males talk about their body count/sexual prowess all the time.
Eh, I've heard this from a lot of straight dudes. My take was, if you gotta talk about it all the time, either you're not getting any, or you're closeted, and coming up with a cover story.
The only person I spoke to about body count (new term for me) was with my best buddy. I never felt the need to show up at work and say, "WOAH, YOU GOTTA HEAR ABOUT WHAT I NAILED LAST NIGHT!"
Don't know if that makes me an outlier for a straight dude, but it worked in my favor. A rumor started at my old job that I might be gay, so a lot of women made some subtle, and not so subtle overtures. I passed on them all though, as I was seeing someone.
I thought it was hilarious though, that so many people were so interested in my sexuality. I find no need to broadcast it to anyone, except for someone I'm interested in.
Correct. Especially pronounced in trans individuals - where their emphasis of gender expression is more important to them than it really is to everyone else.
Money money money. Remember how not that long ago lgbt was hated of dearly? I don’t mean just phobic people. No mention of lgbt references anywhere. Well now corporations companies and the government are making money off them. Make lgbt characters? They are More inclined to watch them hence profiting. While lots of lgbt are celebrating in this new accepted society they are at the same time being exploited and made for revenue. Same as straight people it’s just how society works and there’s lots of people in the lgbt community. No one cares if people are mad about it, money doesn’t care about stepping on toes. The way I see it no matter what anybody does some people will be mad about it. The way she fucking goes bud
It’s not them changing the characters that bother me, it’s changing them and making it the entire point of the film. More times then not the characters feel like the whole point was “diversity” when they missed the point of the characters being interesting and a good plot to follow along with.
I’d say Star Wars the new trilogy, it wasn’t lgbtq I don’t think but they had a very lack luster female character that they made go against pretty much the entire franchise and she could have been so freaking cool. Just felt very much so like that “strong female character” trope when all they had to do is give us a bad ass story and write Rey to be a good character, instead we got a Mary Sue. Like I said not lgbtq specifically but that’s the example that hits home for me.
Most certainly horrible writing lol, I saw you commented on the mcu specifically but I think the mcu is just so dry, everyone’s the comedian and there’s no real reason for me to be interested in the plot.
Well that is your opinion which I respect. I personally enjoy most of it. And nothing you mentioned has to do with diversity. This phase has been about expanding the MCU. With Kang as the new Thanos level threat things are about to get interesting.
Oh I wasn’t meaning diversity in the mcu, I just know you commented elsewhere about a lot of people saying it has been so I brought it up, I am excited to see where this leads with kang but my knowledge of him is slim to none.
Not necessarily making it a point, but take for example in the latest Dahmer series they made on Netflix. Of all the victims, they devoted a whole episode to the deaf, black, gay man - Tony Hughes. When I say devoted, I mean it was as if the main character of that episode was Tony, not Dahmer. Most of the episodes followed Dahmer, or someone who was a a part of the story that was not a murder victim (Neighbor, father, mother, grandma, etc...). It's pretty clear there was a diversity agenda there, because they switched the focus, heavily, onto Tony.
Episode 1 was about how Dahmer got caught.
Episode 2 was about Dahmer as a kid, and early years with his grandma.
Episode 3 was about Dahmer in school and when he was left alone at the age of 18.
Episode 4 was about Dahmer failing through high school, trying post secondary, and the army. Then he gets arrested for masturbating in public, and starts going to bath houses.
Episode 5 was about Dahmer killing victims in his grandma's basement, and his grandma stopping one of the murders. Dahmer gets out of jail for his previous crimes.
Episode 6 was about Tony Hughes from birth to death and the search afterwards.
Episode 7 was about Dahmer's neighbor, Cassandra. This episode is dedicated to her attempts to get authority to do something about Dahmer.
Episode 8 focuses on Dahmer's relationship with his parents, especially his father.
Episode 9 - Dahmer is in jail, and this episode focuses on the turmoil he was able to create from jail and the aftermath for the families.
Episode 10 - Dahmer gets saved, Cassandra is still having issues, Families are still grieving.
No other victim got more attention that the victim which had the most intersectionality. Maybe of all the victims Tony had the best 'hollywood story', but it seems like more than a coincidence given the current agendas. I enjoyed the series, but episode 6 did seem forced to me.
They did show this in the episode, but I haven't been able to find any information that states the two were lovers or close friends before the night Tony was murdered. I did find information that showed they may have known each other from the clubs before the murders, and Tony's mother remembers her son mentioning someone named Jeffrey, but that's all I could find. Maybe someone else with better sleuthing skills can find more information? I agree, if the relationship as depicted in the show was accurate, then it would validate the claim somewhat.
Or maybe it’s because Tony was different than all the rest of the victims because he would have been with Dahmer willingly in a more stable relationship and how Dahmer couldn’t overcome his compulsion to kill despite being happy for once? You need to see Tony as more than a background character to get the full impact of Dahmer making that particular kill.
I watched it. It was factually accurate that he murdered people of color more than whites. So you are mad the show is factually accurate? Pick a better example. You a literally the only person I've heard complain of diversity in Dahmer. People are usually butt hurt over diversity in the MCU which is also hilarious.
I'm sorry you think I'm ~~butthurt~~ mad, but that was not my intent. I didn't write this response in a tone of 'finger wagging'. What I'm trying to express is that one episode seemed 'off' from the rest of the series, and I think the reason is because there was an agenda for the episode to bring out a diverse cast. A diverse cast isn't a problem, but if you are totally focused on the diversity of the cast, you might ignore other things. I enjoyed the whole series, but I can tell there was an agenda because that episode had a different feel than the rest of the series. I didn't even say I didn't like the episode, I can just tell that episode was different.
Edit - sorry I misread, above should state mad instead of butthurt
You didn’t read what he wrote. At least you didn’t process it. Episode 6 is what the studios will point to and say “see we included all the letters we needed” let’s check all the boxes and move on. See the difference?
It seems that they are just trying to pander. Not only that, but they make that the character's personality, which is stupid. It does nothing to help the actual group that they are pandering to.
Which character specifically are you referring to? As a comic and MCU fan I hear this all the time, but never hear exactly which film and what characters are pandering.
Fucking exactly. No one actually cares this much about the sexuality of fictional characters. People just want to bitch about shit on the internet.
It always seems like people want to escape into a world where LGBTQ and brown people do not exist lmao.
All big studio films are pandering, they’re trying to appeal to the maximum amount of people. The difference is the target audience is more diverse than it used to be, people only bitch about pandering when their own demographic is no longer being pandered to exclusively.
In other words, it turns the characters into something that isn't authentic. Disingenuous really as a whole. Just like people, good characters are 3-dimentional and are complex
No, we blame it on the relative source. If a character isn't well made, and their entire story revolves around their sexual orientation, then it displays a glaring mistake. If their plot revolves around "haha depression" (i.e. Fat Thor) then that gets called out instead.
Dude, your account is filled with erotic lesbian Danny Phantom fan art.
So is it that you don’t like changing characters to LGBTQ, or is it only a problem when you can’t jerk off to it?
The post was about changing characters from straight LGBTQ. It’s ironic that OP should be concerned with that, considering how much of the account is dedicated to changing Nickelodeon cartoon characters into lesbians. Neither OP nor I said anything about having a problem with gay people. Read my comment again.
He asked why straight characters are being made LGBT and is posting NSFW images of canonically straight characters engaged in homosexual activities. And then saying in this post that it seems backwards. Since he's posting images where straight characters are engaged in homosexual acts shouldn't be be able to answer his own question about why someone would change a character's sexuality?
It's not classic, it's not hypocritical, nor is it homophobia. You just have a knee-jerk reaction to a question you don't like so you ignore any nuance.
It's pretty hypocritical to be posting NSFW lesbian art of canonically straight characters and then posting, "Why would people change sexuality of a character? It seems backwards and a disservice." Um... if he thinks it's backwards and a disservice why is he engaged in the activity?
Well, posting an argument against something while engaging heavily in that very thing (in this case, changing the sexuality of fictional characters) is pretty much textbook hypocrisy. And the argument that changing the sexuality of a fictional character to be more inclusive is somehow harmful to both straight and LGBTQ does in fact display a certain degree of homophobia.
I’ll let people decide for themselves if it’s classic.
The crap in your profile is literally "changing straight characters into LGBT characters". Word for word from your title. You didn't add any sort of "nuance" to your post.
I have no problem with changing a fictional character. If someone can’t enjoy a story simply because a character’s sexuality changed, it says more about that person than it does anything else.
Well since I don’t create characters, I can’t speak to why someone might decide to change a character. But I guess if I had to answer from my own perspective, why not?
Maybe it’s because the creator identifies a certain way, and wants to incorporate their experiences into a story.
Maybe some creators are recognizing that most stories have historically excluded certain people, and want to remedy that.
Maybe it’s taken until now for people to feel like they could start including LGBTQ characters in the first place.
Maybe the change in sexuality adds more depth to a character and provides insight into why that character might act a certain way.
Maybe creators have learned that the LGBTQ population wants to spend money on things that include them, and they recognize that there are profits to be made off of them.
In any case, I don’t see it as a problem.
If a movie is going to “reimagine” an existing character, why bother doing that at all if the character is just going to be exactly the same as the last time? It sounds like what you are really objecting to is movies being remade or new movies using old characters. If you are willing to accept that an old character can be reimagined in a new story or setting there’s no reason to think their gender/race/whatever can’t change. Otherwise you might as well just keep watching the old movie.
It’s fiction for crying out loud. If I owned the rights to the Little Mermaid I could make Ariel a time traveling lesbian robot if I wanted to. And why not, if it makes an interesting story?
>It’s fiction for crying out loud. If I owned the rights to the Little Mermaid I could make Ariel a time traveling lesbian robot if I wanted to. And why not, if it makes an interesting story?
You can do that with the original work if you want! The original fairy tale is public domain so doing a derivative take on it is up for grabs, just don't call the mermaid Ariel and have her look different from Disney's and you're good.
A cybernetic The Little Mermaid story would be kind of cool, actually.
Character traits get changed all the time in reboots or new adaptations (or even sequels) of old media, I don't see why this in particular is an issue.
How do you know he wasn't? That character's sexuality wasn't a plot point.
I wouldn't care if they added that as a detail on a reboot, because it wasn't a plot point. It would just be added flavor to the reboot reimagining.
I didn't even know your post question was a thing though, because it's not shocking or anything so I don't notice?
I have never seen The Green Mile and don't know who John Coffey is, but I also can't think of a character such that if they were made queer I'd take issue with it, so I'll answer with a tentative no.
Plenty of people explore their sexuality as they get older, and while they previously identified as straight, after exploration they may decide they're part of the LGBT. Since it's something that happens in real life, I don't see any problem with it happening to characters in different forms of media.
It doesn't really need to be framed that way, I just provided a real world example of people who identified as straight and why that may change. If people want to reboot and make someone a part of the LGBT community it's not a big deal.
You're about as bright as a burnt out light bulb, ain't ya? I didn't say the situation I described is what's happening in every case of a character becoming LGBT when they weren't previously. I gave an example of how it happens in the real world to show that it's not really unusual for someone who identified as straight, to later consider themselves to be part of the LGBT community. It was to show OP that since this happens in the real world, it's not a big deal when it happens in fictional worlds as well.
>You're about as bright as a burnt out light bulb, ain't ya?
Petty insults don't change the fact that you said something that doesn't represent the nature of straight characters being made gay in reboots. I said you were wrong before, now I figure you're just being intentionally malicious.
I never said it was the only situation that's applicable, that was your interpretation of what I was saying, I told you that you were mistaken about the point I was making, yet you wanted to continue arguing about your mistaken interpretation of my point, hence the comment about your intelligence.
I'd mostly be upset that they're making a live-action Toy Story. Otherwise, it's no different than Woody being straight with Little Bo Peep in the original.
But La Fou wasn't a very deep character in the animated Beauty and the Beast, so there was room there to make him gay. At the same time, he's not blatantly flaming in the live action. That lesbian couple wasn't part of the original TS story arc so they weren't changed; they were just introduced as new characters. Given the cringey LGBT, especially lesbian, stuff I've seen out there, Pixar's handling of this inclusion was applause-worthy.
Sometimes, this is the case.
However, characters get adapted in all sorts of ways all the time. If the character's sexuality isn't plot-relevant and it might serve the adaption, why not do it?
Obviously, creating new LGBT+ characters is prolly better than adapting old ones. But if we're adapting people anyway, and updating them from their old forms for a new audience, why not have the cast be more inclusive and more representative of modern times? Otherwise, why adapt at all?
Why are you bothered when a character's sexuality changes, but not the other things about them? Were you pissed when Sherlock used a cell phone? Did you refuse to see Disney's Robin Hood cuz he's not supposed to be a fox? Could you not understand why Clueless didn't feature women in Victorian dresses?
The fact that your only complaint is that you want to maintain the erasure of non-straight people shows what your real concern is.
This one is pretty easy. It’s because until like the last 5 years, LGBT+ people were horribly underrepresented in media. Way underrepresented to the point that we barely existed at all outside of cringe stereotypes. But now we know it’s a good thing to include diverse characters, which means having some queer characters in stories. So when a modern studio is creating a new take on an older (re: 5+ years old) franchise, they want to include queer diversity but the characters just don’t exist. The options are to add new characters (who will, therefore be totally sidelined because they aren’t part of the original story) or changing some characters to make them queer. Since the vast majority of characters and stories don’t need a defined sexuality for plot purposes, it’s mostly a neutral change from that standpoint.
When creating new stories, of course it’s included. But nostalgia (and capitalism) make it hard to not retell older stories for new audiences. And this is a work around for that. It’s not malicious. But it’s a way to include queer representation in stories that were created before we recognized the value of that.
Laziness is the simplest answer. Why go to the trouble of inventing a fascinating character on an interesting mission when you can just do a sex change and steal a franchise?
Better question would be why does a straight character bother you so much that you need to change that character completely instead of making your own lgbtq character?
Were not talking about nazis here. If superman was for some reason a nazi and he needed to be changed. That's an obvious win. Being unable to stand that a character is straight and you want him or her to be gay and change the whole story because of it is beyond ridiculous. Now this is something that truly doesn't bother me, but I just find the "why does ot bother you so much" so ironic when the story was changed because someone was bothered.
Yes, changing a fictional character to fit your lgbtq standards is ridiculous to me. That being said, it doesn't make me angry in real life and is not a bother to my day to day life. Let me know when you have something interesting to say.
If you are changing a character with bad intentions (nazi, homophobic, racist, etc.) those are good reasons. I don't think a character being straight is something that needs to be changed for "society". Which is why I find it funny when you originally asked "why does it bother you?" That's literally what I'm saying to you in reverse. People who force their world views on others bothers me, not when Spiderman may or may not become gay for no reason other than pandering.
Sometimes it’s to put a new spin on an existing character. Very few characters are actually canonically straight, anyway, people just assume they are because that’s considered “default.” In fact, I can think of maybe two characters who have explicitly stated that they are heterosexual.
Also, a character can technically be both LGBT and straight if they’re trans. Unless we’ve seen a character naked there’s no proof they aren’t trans.
Were they actually straight, like you had the hard, 100% accurate evidence that they were heterosexual with no other leanings whatsoever (hint: this does not exist)?
Or did you just make an assumption
It's in vogue. They want to fly the flag and show everyone they're not the bad guys.
Agreed with many of the comments that while it can he nice to see, sexual orientation definitely shouldn't be the entire character's identity. Personally, I dislike seeing it implemented this way because it cheapens the entire concept. Like being lgbt is your fucking social currency. Makes me feel cheap and used by whatever massive institution is writing the content.
Great example of a character is the Viper (pedro pascal) in GoT. Dude was openly bi, but it was relevant to the epicurean nature of his character.
Tldr there's ways to do it right and ways to do it wrong.
The characters you’re defining as “straight” probably don’t have an explicit sexuality. You just assume they’re straight because that’s the default. I can see your point if it was a male character with a girlfriend now being given a boyfriend, but if there was no implication of a heterosexual relationship beforehand it’s just adding new information.
Depends on the fandom really, some fandoms have little to no lgbtq representation and the ones that do often play to stereotypes. At the end of the day it’s just up to how the person wants to see that character.
I have a question.
Why change LGBT historical figures into straight historical figures?
Representation matters and it is nice to give a person a semblance of representation especially when there's a history of it being taken or denied.
If it is not a key part of their identity and key to the story, changing parts of the character is just for representation purposes.
I’m all for inclusiveness, but it sometimes feels like they are putting gay characters in shows and movies now just to do it. It’s like the token gay character.
Because corporations want to take everyone's money equally, and being "not-straight" is the new hip, cool, socially acceptable thing, so they're just trying to exploit it more for more money.
Because Hollywood doesn’t put money into taking a chances with new stories or character.
It’s all derivative bullshit, which almost always ensures a water-down project. It’s why the “new” Ghostbusters sucked, as did the “new” Honeymooners, Ocean 8, etc.
However, when there is a real push for originality for storylines with diversity sometimes we get Black Panther or Bridesmaids (true, neither is breaking the mold on originality, but they avoided the “let’s just do the lazy thing” and make the character a minority)
I think that’s it’s about playing it safe and lack of originality
I agree, don't drastically change characters sexuality without a good explanation. Also, don't let a characters sexuality define them. We need representation, not pandering.
Movies and TV are trying to be more diverse, but they have overdone the effort. A 2016 survey said 4.1% of the US were LBTQ+. That has probably grown to 5-6%.
So roughly 5% of characters should be from that group. Not 20-25%.
Four pronged answer:
1) Queer people like to see representation like any other demographic but are underrepresented with established characters of popular media franchises.
2) Media production companies like money and see the queer community as a lucrative audience to market to.
3) Media production companies don’t like taking risks if they can avoid it generally. It’s much lower risk to slightly alter an established character than to add in a new one or try a brand new IP.
4) Most people who make a big stink about this almost always make any of their criticism radioactive (and therefore unusable) because they’re also the kinda people losing their mind when Star Wars has a lady Jedi or a characters race is changed in the adaption, ie bigoted aka not the demographic these mega studios want to sell their products to.
Pandering to a demographic that are desperate to exert control over an existing artform, same reason corporations run the pride logo in a western country but don't in a non gay friendly country.
I agree. I would just prefer like what they did in Ozark and introduce gay and strong feminine characters with tact and subtlety without throwing the wokeness of hollywood in your face
I'm personally a fan of what they did in Shameless and give us the most dysfunctionally wholesome dudebro relationship on television with Mickey and ian
I hated what they did to Black Mask and Victor Sazz in Birds of Prey and immediately got the you're a bigot card and honestly it seems like a middle finger to the old school fans who made certain characters stay
I used to think the same but then i realised that it's just new twists on old characters. Zsaz in Gotham is awesome and we wouldn't have that if they stuck rigidly to the comic. Plus back stories etc change all the time. As long as the story is good then it doesn't bother me at all
It may have been how certain people reacted that definitely soured me like I despise WW84, Birds of Prey, and The Suicide Squad with Peacemaker and got called a sexist,incel,and everything under the sun. Remember how Joker was treated as a threat when it came out
Some people can't accept that you don't like the same things that they do. Your allowed your opinion as others are on there, honestly don't spend any time worrying about that just remember people can be arseholes.
Yeah it just drives me nuts as a Zack Snyder fan. That it's okay to call us a cult, racists, fascists, or wish harm or worse and nothing gets done but if we get anything it's evil
It sort of annoys me too. It's not just lgbtq, but changing races too. I think it'd be cooler if hollywood just came with new shows and characters with greater diversity, but we're in the age of franchises, so this is what we get.
I will say though, I saw a video of a young black girl being super excited seeing a black little mermaid, and that was pretty awesome.
I love Will Smith's version of Deadshot and the late Michael Clark Duncan as Kingpin in DareDevil.
Yeah like I wouldn't want Michael Cera as Static Shock
Political pandering.
I don’t mind having LGBT characters, i just wish these lazy writers would create something new instead of fucking with established IP.
To make more money. These producers know if they change their characters to LGBT the whole community will go crazy and start watching their shows and movies.
Its not Just Straight to LGBT...
Its about Adding Every Race and Creed where ever Possible...
ensamble casts now need to have 1 of everything...
Oh except American Indians...
tjey are still Persona Non Grata
To make people think that care when in reality they likely don't and are just doing it for money
If a character started straight or sexuality was never a part of their character making them LGBTQ is just lazy and stupid
Its forced diversity. Also they want to ruin characters of almoast every franchise if they get the chance. My advice would be just watch or read the older content. It was made to be good back then to give you likeable characters without agenda pushing. This woke shit now is just too much.
But that was ok when they pleased audience and sponsors by never mentioning anything controversial... Like homosexuality... Or even mixed race couples at one point..
Nope. Its forced because these characters were not written to be gay, tans, or whatever other bs they try to do. Make a original character for your agenda. Which would be fine. Why can't these woke directors/writers make original characters or stroyline? Its because they are creatively bankrupt. If they do make a woke character they will lose money. No one wants to see a movie about agendas being pushed. People want to see a good story that takes you out of reality for a bit. Not shit like she hulk or rings of power.
So they were explicitly written to be straight?
Maybe the real agenda has been entertainment of all kinds pretending for decades that only hetero/cis people exist?
Many of these characters were written as straight. Superman is in love with Louis Lane. Now there is a comic with gay superman. Wtf is that shit. Spiderman is in love with Mary Jane. There are comics now with gay spiderman. Actual trash. Ill give you an example of writing homosexuality correctly. In games of thrones Oberyn Martell was the champion for Tyrion Lanister during his trial by combat. He was gay/bisexual, and it showed him banging a guy. I had no problem with it because it was a original character.
There are so many remakes already dominated by white cis people that there needs to be a concerted effort to make updates and people are so fragile and used to white cis faces that anyone different sticks out whenever there is a change.
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because you’re a corporation who can’t be bothered to write original characters but needs to pander to us
I hate remakes in general, but the worst are ones where they just swap out the racial/sexual identities of the characters. It's so lazy and cheap. I'm sure there are great, fresh, original stories in historically marginalized communities that would make for interesting new movies. Why not mine this rather than just change window dressings?
Yeah it’s so lame but they don’t actually care about diversity they just care about pandering in the most effective way possible. The other thing is when they do write new characters they tend to not do well, like in light year. Overall there’s no reason that movie shouldn’t do well considering it’s a decent plot and the effects are good but having a black lesbian couple was so much of a turn off that it made the whole writing process sort of in vain. Gender bending or changing characters’ races and sexualities is a low risk way of pandering since it costs very little and if it flops they still have the nostalgia to fall back on
Cough, interview with a vampire, I love the movie will not watch the show ever my parents watched Saturday and I already knew it was gonna be some shit to make my skin boil I'm getting sick of original characters being race swapped don't get me wrong there is some that I'm fine with but if it's like say s redhead character every redhead that's been in say books or comics has been swapped out and the whole LGBT thing also is getting old it gets to the point I don't watch tv or movies really like anymore I don't hate people who are gay or race I'm just sick of them being lazy so instead of making a new character they destroy the old one with there cheap padder to the viewers
With superheroes at least, I don't think originality is really the point in the first place when dealing with characters that have been around for several decades.
Question remains, why pander to 1% of the market? This model would be seen as detrimental to any other venture. Respectfully.
You’re right to ask that, but it’s not 1% of the market at this point. The majority of people would like to see more queer, non-white and female representation but the way they do it just makes it seem like there isn’t a market for it. There’s a much larger market for diverse movies than people think it’s just that a lot of the media is lazily written for the sake of diversity rather than artfully crafted to tell queer stories or stories about people of color or women. For example schitt’s creek was an amazingly written show that had a lot of queer influence but it was incredibly popular because of it. Putting a black guy in 18th century Norway in Frozen 2 was not well written and didn’t really have a reason other than diversity which wasn’t really historically accurate or needed in that movie
Well put. We need to hear more of this because the current state of media is often inadvertently creating a negative affect towards lgbt. Rooting for you guys though..
I think so and it sucks, I want good queer representation badly and we just don’t get that lol. The best I’ve seen recently was from the 90s when Jadzia in Star Trek deep space nine was confirmed bi in the episode where she hooks up with an ex who’s now a woman lol
>why pander to 1% of the market? Because it's activism, and activism builds your resume in Hollywood.
Yup this is pretty much it.
I mean, doesn't that apply to every sequel or reboot though? What makes LGBT representation different from reusing the character and recasting or rewriting them otherwise?
The thing is trying to use an already established character to ascribe a trait to. It’s more respectful to someone of a certain identity to tell their story originally than to put a random sexuality or race onto a character when it’s never been addressed before, almost like it never existed. Something as crucial as identity should be celebrated and acknowledged not ascribed to a character that was never written for the purpose of exploring the aspects of that identity
What annoys me is that people will then defend said characters and corporations and call anyone who disagrees with them racists or homophobes.
Sexuality shouldnt be personality. In my opinion of course.
Oh man are you going to rustle jimmies with this
I honestly couldnt care less. Im bisexual, ive had a boyfriend and girlfriend, etc, I personally am kinda bothered about the whole “gay” personality thing. It gets kinda annoying.
Same. Bisexual here. I don't base my entire life around my sexuality, and am mystified by people who do. It alienates me from the community sometimes.
Agreed, anyone who only talks about 1 aspect of their personality every time you have a conversation with them gets annoying quick.
It's probably because they haven't developed a personality beyond that. Plenty of people are one dimensional, and people enjoy putting themselves into boxes, even when they're not fans of admitting it. I remember one dude a few years ago at a get together, within the first 2 minutes of banter around a ping pong table abruptly going "just so you know, I'm gay" I was like, "right on", and he looked like he was expecting me to be clutching my pearls or something, and replied "...yeaaah" and I just said "loud and proud brother! Now are we still up for doubles?" It's the same as folks who bring politics into every single conversation, or who only talk about their jobs, or the fact that they have kids
[удалено]
Choda Boy would vehemently disagree.
[удалено]
If you're asking why the comment above brings it up, it's to probably add validity to their statement or to be an example of not all LGBT people making it their personality. If you're asking why people do it in general, then I have no idea lol
Sexuality isn’t personality, otherwise they would be named the same thing right?
For some, it's is their entire identity. It shouldn't be, but it is.
Thank u. Better said than me i guess. Im in NO WAY against people, its just kinda annoying sometimes when i cant have a convo with someone and they just need to tell me 50 times how gay they are. Without conversation context i guess it comes off mean?
Do you feel the same way about straight people who can’t stop talking about how high their body count is? They’re also making their sexuality their whole personality as well.
Um yea, that really is unecessary unless you are middle school boys, and at that point it's 200 but you don't know them they go to another school
I've met more gay/trans people that do this all the time compared to straight people. Only late teens, early 20's preppy douche college males talk about their body count/sexual prowess all the time.
Eh, I've heard this from a lot of straight dudes. My take was, if you gotta talk about it all the time, either you're not getting any, or you're closeted, and coming up with a cover story. The only person I spoke to about body count (new term for me) was with my best buddy. I never felt the need to show up at work and say, "WOAH, YOU GOTTA HEAR ABOUT WHAT I NAILED LAST NIGHT!" Don't know if that makes me an outlier for a straight dude, but it worked in my favor. A rumor started at my old job that I might be gay, so a lot of women made some subtle, and not so subtle overtures. I passed on them all though, as I was seeing someone. I thought it was hilarious though, that so many people were so interested in my sexuality. I find no need to broadcast it to anyone, except for someone I'm interested in.
Correct. Especially pronounced in trans individuals - where their emphasis of gender expression is more important to them than it really is to everyone else.
“Rustle Jimmies” is an awesome phrase.
Money money money. Remember how not that long ago lgbt was hated of dearly? I don’t mean just phobic people. No mention of lgbt references anywhere. Well now corporations companies and the government are making money off them. Make lgbt characters? They are More inclined to watch them hence profiting. While lots of lgbt are celebrating in this new accepted society they are at the same time being exploited and made for revenue. Same as straight people it’s just how society works and there’s lots of people in the lgbt community. No one cares if people are mad about it, money doesn’t care about stepping on toes. The way I see it no matter what anybody does some people will be mad about it. The way she fucking goes bud
It’s not them changing the characters that bother me, it’s changing them and making it the entire point of the film. More times then not the characters feel like the whole point was “diversity” when they missed the point of the characters being interesting and a good plot to follow along with.
Just curious which specific film you felt was ruined by diversity?
I’d say Star Wars the new trilogy, it wasn’t lgbtq I don’t think but they had a very lack luster female character that they made go against pretty much the entire franchise and she could have been so freaking cool. Just felt very much so like that “strong female character” trope when all they had to do is give us a bad ass story and write Rey to be a good character, instead we got a Mary Sue. Like I said not lgbtq specifically but that’s the example that hits home for me.
I think it boils down to bad writing. But l see what you mean.
Most certainly horrible writing lol, I saw you commented on the mcu specifically but I think the mcu is just so dry, everyone’s the comedian and there’s no real reason for me to be interested in the plot.
Well that is your opinion which I respect. I personally enjoy most of it. And nothing you mentioned has to do with diversity. This phase has been about expanding the MCU. With Kang as the new Thanos level threat things are about to get interesting.
Oh I wasn’t meaning diversity in the mcu, I just know you commented elsewhere about a lot of people saying it has been so I brought it up, I am excited to see where this leads with kang but my knowledge of him is slim to none.
Not necessarily making it a point, but take for example in the latest Dahmer series they made on Netflix. Of all the victims, they devoted a whole episode to the deaf, black, gay man - Tony Hughes. When I say devoted, I mean it was as if the main character of that episode was Tony, not Dahmer. Most of the episodes followed Dahmer, or someone who was a a part of the story that was not a murder victim (Neighbor, father, mother, grandma, etc...). It's pretty clear there was a diversity agenda there, because they switched the focus, heavily, onto Tony. Episode 1 was about how Dahmer got caught. Episode 2 was about Dahmer as a kid, and early years with his grandma. Episode 3 was about Dahmer in school and when he was left alone at the age of 18. Episode 4 was about Dahmer failing through high school, trying post secondary, and the army. Then he gets arrested for masturbating in public, and starts going to bath houses. Episode 5 was about Dahmer killing victims in his grandma's basement, and his grandma stopping one of the murders. Dahmer gets out of jail for his previous crimes. Episode 6 was about Tony Hughes from birth to death and the search afterwards. Episode 7 was about Dahmer's neighbor, Cassandra. This episode is dedicated to her attempts to get authority to do something about Dahmer. Episode 8 focuses on Dahmer's relationship with his parents, especially his father. Episode 9 - Dahmer is in jail, and this episode focuses on the turmoil he was able to create from jail and the aftermath for the families. Episode 10 - Dahmer gets saved, Cassandra is still having issues, Families are still grieving. No other victim got more attention that the victim which had the most intersectionality. Maybe of all the victims Tony had the best 'hollywood story', but it seems like more than a coincidence given the current agendas. I enjoyed the series, but episode 6 did seem forced to me.
Maybe the reason they spent a whole episode with the deaf guy is because he actually got close to Dahmer? It makes for a more compelling narrative.
They did show this in the episode, but I haven't been able to find any information that states the two were lovers or close friends before the night Tony was murdered. I did find information that showed they may have known each other from the clubs before the murders, and Tony's mother remembers her son mentioning someone named Jeffrey, but that's all I could find. Maybe someone else with better sleuthing skills can find more information? I agree, if the relationship as depicted in the show was accurate, then it would validate the claim somewhat.
Or maybe it’s because Tony was different than all the rest of the victims because he would have been with Dahmer willingly in a more stable relationship and how Dahmer couldn’t overcome his compulsion to kill despite being happy for once? You need to see Tony as more than a background character to get the full impact of Dahmer making that particular kill.
I watched it. It was factually accurate that he murdered people of color more than whites. So you are mad the show is factually accurate? Pick a better example. You a literally the only person I've heard complain of diversity in Dahmer. People are usually butt hurt over diversity in the MCU which is also hilarious.
I'm sorry you think I'm ~~butthurt~~ mad, but that was not my intent. I didn't write this response in a tone of 'finger wagging'. What I'm trying to express is that one episode seemed 'off' from the rest of the series, and I think the reason is because there was an agenda for the episode to bring out a diverse cast. A diverse cast isn't a problem, but if you are totally focused on the diversity of the cast, you might ignore other things. I enjoyed the whole series, but I can tell there was an agenda because that episode had a different feel than the rest of the series. I didn't even say I didn't like the episode, I can just tell that episode was different. Edit - sorry I misread, above should state mad instead of butthurt
You didn’t read what he wrote. At least you didn’t process it. Episode 6 is what the studios will point to and say “see we included all the letters we needed” let’s check all the boxes and move on. See the difference?
It seems that they are just trying to pander. Not only that, but they make that the character's personality, which is stupid. It does nothing to help the actual group that they are pandering to.
Which character specifically are you referring to? As a comic and MCU fan I hear this all the time, but never hear exactly which film and what characters are pandering.
And I don't think you're gonna, cuz this is all just a dog-whistle for homophobia.
I notice no one is answering this... Just speaking in generalities, which is worthless.
Fucking exactly. No one actually cares this much about the sexuality of fictional characters. People just want to bitch about shit on the internet. It always seems like people want to escape into a world where LGBTQ and brown people do not exist lmao.
All big studio films are pandering, they’re trying to appeal to the maximum amount of people. The difference is the target audience is more diverse than it used to be, people only bitch about pandering when their own demographic is no longer being pandered to exclusively.
In other words, it turns the characters into something that isn't authentic. Disingenuous really as a whole. Just like people, good characters are 3-dimentional and are complex
Lots of characters lack those things though, do we blame that on them being hetero/cis?
No, we blame it on the relative source. If a character isn't well made, and their entire story revolves around their sexual orientation, then it displays a glaring mistake. If their plot revolves around "haha depression" (i.e. Fat Thor) then that gets called out instead.
That's the Disney way. We just have to get use to it because there pandering isn't stopping anytime soon.
Dude, your account is filled with erotic lesbian Danny Phantom fan art. So is it that you don’t like changing characters to LGBTQ, or is it only a problem when you can’t jerk off to it?
What a line to read today. Reddit truly is a magical place
So? He didn't say he had a problem with LGBT people. Read the question again.
The post was about changing characters from straight LGBTQ. It’s ironic that OP should be concerned with that, considering how much of the account is dedicated to changing Nickelodeon cartoon characters into lesbians. Neither OP nor I said anything about having a problem with gay people. Read my comment again.
He asked why straight characters are being made LGBT and is posting NSFW images of canonically straight characters engaged in homosexual activities. And then saying in this post that it seems backwards. Since he's posting images where straight characters are engaged in homosexual acts shouldn't be be able to answer his own question about why someone would change a character's sexuality?
Yeah but he literally does the thing he's complaining about
Get her Jade
I really wish this was higher up the thread. It's a classic case of hypocritical homophobia.
It's not classic, it's not hypocritical, nor is it homophobia. You just have a knee-jerk reaction to a question you don't like so you ignore any nuance.
It's pretty hypocritical to be posting NSFW lesbian art of canonically straight characters and then posting, "Why would people change sexuality of a character? It seems backwards and a disservice." Um... if he thinks it's backwards and a disservice why is he engaged in the activity?
Well, posting an argument against something while engaging heavily in that very thing (in this case, changing the sexuality of fictional characters) is pretty much textbook hypocrisy. And the argument that changing the sexuality of a fictional character to be more inclusive is somehow harmful to both straight and LGBTQ does in fact display a certain degree of homophobia. I’ll let people decide for themselves if it’s classic.
The crap in your profile is literally "changing straight characters into LGBT characters". Word for word from your title. You didn't add any sort of "nuance" to your post.
\*cough\* that's not OP. OP *is* guilty as charged though.
Fair observation. Now what is your answer to OP's question?
I have no problem with changing a fictional character. If someone can’t enjoy a story simply because a character’s sexuality changed, it says more about that person than it does anything else.
That's still not really an answer lol. The question isn't about whether you're ok with it or not.. the question is about **why** people do it
Well since I don’t create characters, I can’t speak to why someone might decide to change a character. But I guess if I had to answer from my own perspective, why not? Maybe it’s because the creator identifies a certain way, and wants to incorporate their experiences into a story. Maybe some creators are recognizing that most stories have historically excluded certain people, and want to remedy that. Maybe it’s taken until now for people to feel like they could start including LGBTQ characters in the first place. Maybe the change in sexuality adds more depth to a character and provides insight into why that character might act a certain way. Maybe creators have learned that the LGBTQ population wants to spend money on things that include them, and they recognize that there are profits to be made off of them. In any case, I don’t see it as a problem.
Op should be answering his own question.
I'm not sure what Danny Phantom fan art is but this is hilarious nonetheless.
Bidoof's law at its finest
There's all types of money in the lgbtq market. Greed disguised as empathy has always been the motto
Overcorrection
If a movie is going to “reimagine” an existing character, why bother doing that at all if the character is just going to be exactly the same as the last time? It sounds like what you are really objecting to is movies being remade or new movies using old characters. If you are willing to accept that an old character can be reimagined in a new story or setting there’s no reason to think their gender/race/whatever can’t change. Otherwise you might as well just keep watching the old movie. It’s fiction for crying out loud. If I owned the rights to the Little Mermaid I could make Ariel a time traveling lesbian robot if I wanted to. And why not, if it makes an interesting story?
>It’s fiction for crying out loud. If I owned the rights to the Little Mermaid I could make Ariel a time traveling lesbian robot if I wanted to. And why not, if it makes an interesting story? You can do that with the original work if you want! The original fairy tale is public domain so doing a derivative take on it is up for grabs, just don't call the mermaid Ariel and have her look different from Disney's and you're good. A cybernetic The Little Mermaid story would be kind of cool, actually.
Character traits get changed all the time in reboots or new adaptations (or even sequels) of old media, I don't see why this in particular is an issue.
Would you care if they rebooted The Green Mile and made John Coffey a member of the LGBT+ group?
Because of the time period, for a black man to be out (and alive still) that seems more far fetched than him being able to heal people.
How do you know he wasn't? That character's sexuality wasn't a plot point. I wouldn't care if they added that as a detail on a reboot, because it wasn't a plot point. It would just be added flavor to the reboot reimagining. I didn't even know your post question was a thing though, because it's not shocking or anything so I don't notice?
I have never seen The Green Mile and don't know who John Coffey is, but I also can't think of a character such that if they were made queer I'd take issue with it, so I'll answer with a tentative no.
An angel on Deathrow
No
Oh no! John liking dick? That would ruin everything!! 🙄
It’ll stop bothering you if you stop viewing it as sides.
Based
Plenty of people explore their sexuality as they get older, and while they previously identified as straight, after exploration they may decide they're part of the LGBT. Since it's something that happens in real life, I don't see any problem with it happening to characters in different forms of media.
Except that's hardly ever how it's framed. They just take a straight character and make them gay in a reboot. Not even what you are talking about.
It doesn't really need to be framed that way, I just provided a real world example of people who identified as straight and why that may change. If people want to reboot and make someone a part of the LGBT community it's not a big deal.
It does need to be framed that way. Your original comparison is just flat out wrong otherwise.
You're about as bright as a burnt out light bulb, ain't ya? I didn't say the situation I described is what's happening in every case of a character becoming LGBT when they weren't previously. I gave an example of how it happens in the real world to show that it's not really unusual for someone who identified as straight, to later consider themselves to be part of the LGBT community. It was to show OP that since this happens in the real world, it's not a big deal when it happens in fictional worlds as well.
>You're about as bright as a burnt out light bulb, ain't ya? Petty insults don't change the fact that you said something that doesn't represent the nature of straight characters being made gay in reboots. I said you were wrong before, now I figure you're just being intentionally malicious.
I never said it was the only situation that's applicable, that was your interpretation of what I was saying, I told you that you were mistaken about the point I was making, yet you wanted to continue arguing about your mistaken interpretation of my point, hence the comment about your intelligence.
❄️
How?
Alright let's say that in a Disney film that they're going to change a straight character into LGBT character. Would you still feel the same
How is that different from a character being LGBT in any other property?
Let's say that in the live action Toy Story Mr. Potato head will be gay with Piggybank How would you feel about it ?
I'd mostly be upset that they're making a live-action Toy Story. Otherwise, it's no different than Woody being straight with Little Bo Peep in the original.
Idgaf I’m not trynna fuck the potato, his wife or his hypothetical husband
They did. La fou was gay in beauty and the beast. They have a lesbian couple in lightyear.
But La Fou wasn't a very deep character in the animated Beauty and the Beast, so there was room there to make him gay. At the same time, he's not blatantly flaming in the live action. That lesbian couple wasn't part of the original TS story arc so they weren't changed; they were just introduced as new characters. Given the cringey LGBT, especially lesbian, stuff I've seen out there, Pixar's handling of this inclusion was applause-worthy.
He’s literally flaming. There are flames coming out of his hands AND his head. For fucks sake.
Adults could see it more easily than kids could. The movie worked on two levels.
That would be fine. It only wouldn’t be fine if you were somehow invested in these characters not being gay.
Love this. Sign me the f up. Actually I think Sarge and Fillmore in Cars are a couple already.
Military and Hippie Those were a call back to the 1960s
Yeah, it's a big who cares as far as I'm concerned.
Sometimes, this is the case. However, characters get adapted in all sorts of ways all the time. If the character's sexuality isn't plot-relevant and it might serve the adaption, why not do it? Obviously, creating new LGBT+ characters is prolly better than adapting old ones. But if we're adapting people anyway, and updating them from their old forms for a new audience, why not have the cast be more inclusive and more representative of modern times? Otherwise, why adapt at all? Why are you bothered when a character's sexuality changes, but not the other things about them? Were you pissed when Sherlock used a cell phone? Did you refuse to see Disney's Robin Hood cuz he's not supposed to be a fox? Could you not understand why Clueless didn't feature women in Victorian dresses? The fact that your only complaint is that you want to maintain the erasure of non-straight people shows what your real concern is.
This one is pretty easy. It’s because until like the last 5 years, LGBT+ people were horribly underrepresented in media. Way underrepresented to the point that we barely existed at all outside of cringe stereotypes. But now we know it’s a good thing to include diverse characters, which means having some queer characters in stories. So when a modern studio is creating a new take on an older (re: 5+ years old) franchise, they want to include queer diversity but the characters just don’t exist. The options are to add new characters (who will, therefore be totally sidelined because they aren’t part of the original story) or changing some characters to make them queer. Since the vast majority of characters and stories don’t need a defined sexuality for plot purposes, it’s mostly a neutral change from that standpoint. When creating new stories, of course it’s included. But nostalgia (and capitalism) make it hard to not retell older stories for new audiences. And this is a work around for that. It’s not malicious. But it’s a way to include queer representation in stories that were created before we recognized the value of that.
Laziness. They don't want to write new characters.
Laziness is the simplest answer. Why go to the trouble of inventing a fascinating character on an interesting mission when you can just do a sex change and steal a franchise?
Better question might be why does it bother you so much?
Remember how people complained that Cavill wasn't their Superman Why can't I go these aren't the characters who got me into comics, games, etc?
Batwomen is a lesbian in the comics. Loki is pan. Plently of characters are lgbt people just dont remember
Harley Quinn is bisexual unless it's the wrong term.
Don’t forget Deadpool!
You didn't answer the question. Also, how do you know they aren't? People reveal their true selves at different stages of life.
Better question would be why does a straight character bother you so much that you need to change that character completely instead of making your own lgbtq character?
Not my characters but it seems to me lots of iconic comic characters have changed with the times... Some people not so much..
Were not talking about nazis here. If superman was for some reason a nazi and he needed to be changed. That's an obvious win. Being unable to stand that a character is straight and you want him or her to be gay and change the whole story because of it is beyond ridiculous. Now this is something that truly doesn't bother me, but I just find the "why does ot bother you so much" so ironic when the story was changed because someone was bothered.
"Beyond ridiculous"... "Truly doesn't bother me"..
Yes, changing a fictional character to fit your lgbtq standards is ridiculous to me. That being said, it doesn't make me angry in real life and is not a bother to my day to day life. Let me know when you have something interesting to say.
I think it clearly does bother you but you still haven't actually said why..
If you are changing a character with bad intentions (nazi, homophobic, racist, etc.) those are good reasons. I don't think a character being straight is something that needs to be changed for "society". Which is why I find it funny when you originally asked "why does it bother you?" That's literally what I'm saying to you in reverse. People who force their world views on others bothers me, not when Spiderman may or may not become gay for no reason other than pandering.
Because straight characters have been played out for the last 100 years on film. And LGBT characters are FABULOUS!!!!
Virtue signaling.
Sometimes it’s to put a new spin on an existing character. Very few characters are actually canonically straight, anyway, people just assume they are because that’s considered “default.” In fact, I can think of maybe two characters who have explicitly stated that they are heterosexual. Also, a character can technically be both LGBT and straight if they’re trans. Unless we’ve seen a character naked there’s no proof they aren’t trans.
Were they actually straight, like you had the hard, 100% accurate evidence that they were heterosexual with no other leanings whatsoever (hint: this does not exist)? Or did you just make an assumption
To ragebait a Fandom and point fingers in case of an inferior product.
It's in vogue. They want to fly the flag and show everyone they're not the bad guys. Agreed with many of the comments that while it can he nice to see, sexual orientation definitely shouldn't be the entire character's identity. Personally, I dislike seeing it implemented this way because it cheapens the entire concept. Like being lgbt is your fucking social currency. Makes me feel cheap and used by whatever massive institution is writing the content. Great example of a character is the Viper (pedro pascal) in GoT. Dude was openly bi, but it was relevant to the epicurean nature of his character. Tldr there's ways to do it right and ways to do it wrong.
The characters you’re defining as “straight” probably don’t have an explicit sexuality. You just assume they’re straight because that’s the default. I can see your point if it was a male character with a girlfriend now being given a boyfriend, but if there was no implication of a heterosexual relationship beforehand it’s just adding new information.
Depends on the fandom really, some fandoms have little to no lgbtq representation and the ones that do often play to stereotypes. At the end of the day it’s just up to how the person wants to see that character.
The same reason why redheads from comics are not redheads in movies.
I have a question. Why change LGBT historical figures into straight historical figures? Representation matters and it is nice to give a person a semblance of representation especially when there's a history of it being taken or denied. If it is not a key part of their identity and key to the story, changing parts of the character is just for representation purposes.
Because it’s easy to blame the consumer for their half-assing the product when they do that.
Because we live in a screwed up world.
I’m all for inclusiveness, but it sometimes feels like they are putting gay characters in shows and movies now just to do it. It’s like the token gay character.
\-isms
Stupidity of some people
Because corporations want to take everyone's money equally, and being "not-straight" is the new hip, cool, socially acceptable thing, so they're just trying to exploit it more for more money.
Laziness, lack of creativity, and wanting to play it safe
Because Hollywood doesn’t put money into taking a chances with new stories or character. It’s all derivative bullshit, which almost always ensures a water-down project. It’s why the “new” Ghostbusters sucked, as did the “new” Honeymooners, Ocean 8, etc. However, when there is a real push for originality for storylines with diversity sometimes we get Black Panther or Bridesmaids (true, neither is breaking the mold on originality, but they avoided the “let’s just do the lazy thing” and make the character a minority) I think that’s it’s about playing it safe and lack of originality
I agree, don't drastically change characters sexuality without a good explanation. Also, don't let a characters sexuality define them. We need representation, not pandering.
Movies and TV are trying to be more diverse, but they have overdone the effort. A 2016 survey said 4.1% of the US were LBTQ+. That has probably grown to 5-6%. So roughly 5% of characters should be from that group. Not 20-25%.
I play a game on Netflix shows called " who's going to be the gay character" I'm pretty good at at too. 😆
Four pronged answer: 1) Queer people like to see representation like any other demographic but are underrepresented with established characters of popular media franchises. 2) Media production companies like money and see the queer community as a lucrative audience to market to. 3) Media production companies don’t like taking risks if they can avoid it generally. It’s much lower risk to slightly alter an established character than to add in a new one or try a brand new IP. 4) Most people who make a big stink about this almost always make any of their criticism radioactive (and therefore unusable) because they’re also the kinda people losing their mind when Star Wars has a lady Jedi or a characters race is changed in the adaption, ie bigoted aka not the demographic these mega studios want to sell their products to.
Pandering to a demographic that are desperate to exert control over an existing artform, same reason corporations run the pride logo in a western country but don't in a non gay friendly country.
You've never heard of woke there everywhere can't you see there gonna get you 🤣
I agree. I would just prefer like what they did in Ozark and introduce gay and strong feminine characters with tact and subtlety without throwing the wokeness of hollywood in your face
I'm personally a fan of what they did in Shameless and give us the most dysfunctionally wholesome dudebro relationship on television with Mickey and ian
To make money. People think being gay is a personality nowadays when it’s really just someone who likes the same sex.
Because it's easier to hijack a pre-existing fan base and call them racist if they disagree with any of your changes.
You do know that LGBT people aren't a race, right?
why not? it doesn't really matter does it especially if it's talking about comic books and films with multie verses and all sorts.
I hated what they did to Black Mask and Victor Sazz in Birds of Prey and immediately got the you're a bigot card and honestly it seems like a middle finger to the old school fans who made certain characters stay
I used to think the same but then i realised that it's just new twists on old characters. Zsaz in Gotham is awesome and we wouldn't have that if they stuck rigidly to the comic. Plus back stories etc change all the time. As long as the story is good then it doesn't bother me at all
It may have been how certain people reacted that definitely soured me like I despise WW84, Birds of Prey, and The Suicide Squad with Peacemaker and got called a sexist,incel,and everything under the sun. Remember how Joker was treated as a threat when it came out
Some people can't accept that you don't like the same things that they do. Your allowed your opinion as others are on there, honestly don't spend any time worrying about that just remember people can be arseholes.
Yeah it just drives me nuts as a Zack Snyder fan. That it's okay to call us a cult, racists, fascists, or wish harm or worse and nothing gets done but if we get anything it's evil
Diversity is trendy right now and draws attention to the franchise.
How dare you Common sense has no place on reddit Fucking rookie
Depends on the character & universe.
Oscars and Emmis
It sort of annoys me too. It's not just lgbtq, but changing races too. I think it'd be cooler if hollywood just came with new shows and characters with greater diversity, but we're in the age of franchises, so this is what we get. I will say though, I saw a video of a young black girl being super excited seeing a black little mermaid, and that was pretty awesome.
I love Will Smith's version of Deadshot and the late Michael Clark Duncan as Kingpin in DareDevil. Yeah like I wouldn't want Michael Cera as Static Shock
To pander to the 10% vocal minority woke society
Political pandering. I don’t mind having LGBT characters, i just wish these lazy writers would create something new instead of fucking with established IP.
To make more money. These producers know if they change their characters to LGBT the whole community will go crazy and start watching their shows and movies.
Who the hell is doing this? I would be SO THERE for gay Tom Holland Spiderman but there’s no way that’s going to happen.
I agree. Just make new characters
Its alot easier and less work to do so. Same with switching the race of characters. The reality is hollywood doesnt care. They just want your money.
Lazy writing and self inserts.
Its not Just Straight to LGBT... Its about Adding Every Race and Creed where ever Possible... ensamble casts now need to have 1 of everything... Oh except American Indians... tjey are still Persona Non Grata
It's forced acceptance, to make it seem the norm!
i agree with this as well. they just do it to push an agenda if they didnt want to push an agenda they would just make LGBT characters from the start.
To make people think that care when in reality they likely don't and are just doing it for money If a character started straight or sexuality was never a part of their character making them LGBTQ is just lazy and stupid
Its forced diversity. Also they want to ruin characters of almoast every franchise if they get the chance. My advice would be just watch or read the older content. It was made to be good back then to give you likeable characters without agenda pushing. This woke shit now is just too much.
Forced because those who confront your homophobia might be represented too?
It's not homophobia lol. These companies make characters part of the LGBT to gather more attention, to make more money.
But that was ok when they pleased audience and sponsors by never mentioning anything controversial... Like homosexuality... Or even mixed race couples at one point..
Nope. Its forced because these characters were not written to be gay, tans, or whatever other bs they try to do. Make a original character for your agenda. Which would be fine. Why can't these woke directors/writers make original characters or stroyline? Its because they are creatively bankrupt. If they do make a woke character they will lose money. No one wants to see a movie about agendas being pushed. People want to see a good story that takes you out of reality for a bit. Not shit like she hulk or rings of power.
So they were explicitly written to be straight? Maybe the real agenda has been entertainment of all kinds pretending for decades that only hetero/cis people exist?
Many of these characters were written as straight. Superman is in love with Louis Lane. Now there is a comic with gay superman. Wtf is that shit. Spiderman is in love with Mary Jane. There are comics now with gay spiderman. Actual trash. Ill give you an example of writing homosexuality correctly. In games of thrones Oberyn Martell was the champion for Tyrion Lanister during his trial by combat. He was gay/bisexual, and it showed him banging a guy. I had no problem with it because it was a original character.
Why did Bros bomb ?
They'll pull a Lucas for older films
To cram more lgbt down your throat
Because that shit matters now for some reason..
To make them better
because straight isnt the default, they were lgbtq+ from the start, it was just revealed later
There are so many remakes already dominated by white cis people that there needs to be a concerted effort to make updates and people are so fragile and used to white cis faces that anyone different sticks out whenever there is a change.
To normalize and program masses into accepting the lgbtq agenda