It could be referring to the people who don't care that a character is supposed to be a specific orientation, and instead decide for themselves what orientation the character "really" is.
It's important to understand why that vocal minority exists - it's representation. That can be hard to understand if you're part of the dominant groups, but it really does have an impact. I'm a white dude so I didn't get it until Love, Simon came out and there was finally a gay character I could identify with in a movie, and seeing that was really huge. That helped me understand why racial minorities have been so vocal about representation as well... it's just nice to see people who identify like you do.
Wow. Someone actually downvoted this, and didn’t even have the guts or intelligence to say why. I’ll upvote it. I’ll upvote it because here you have someone telling you their first hand experience and opinion. It doesn’t have to be your opinion- it was insightful, respectful, and honest. Just as one might not care about or even want to know a characters orientation, but not everyone wants to have Tolkien describe the shire in great detail. Some people love the books and hate the movies for many stories like Harry Potter, or Vice versa. Because little details and differences in style matter to most. Not every movie is made for every person, and the movies that impact peaople most tend to be ones that aren’t made to please everyone but just to tell the story the creator is trying to tell or speak to a certain audience. Regardless of orientation there is a such thing as pointless sexualization for the sake of sensationalism- but that tends to not be the norm where orientation is concerned
While sometimes it is shoe horned in without thought as a gimmick, usually if the orientation of a character comes up it is to flesh them out, it has something to do with who they are and how they interact with the world. Indiana Jones and Janes Bond were horn dogs, and that trait influenced their stories and fictional lives greatly. Jack Harkness had fluid sexuality and that also was part of the character and played a narrative role. We don’t even actually tend to realize how much sexuality influences our behavior and our lives, especially when you are in the sexual majority and the default “norm” and you have little reason to examine your behaviors or consider yourself different in that regard to most people you interact with. Fish likely don’t notice they’re wet anymore than humans generally don’t notice we are dry until we get wet. There are many people on the planet who “small pointless” thins can make a huge impact for. The fact that even one person was deeply moved is enough.
I think you all worry about up votes down votes way too much, you hadn't even wait an hour before releasing that novel.
Back to the topic at hand, I get it, and that's fine. I'm not saying you can't mention it, it just feels cheesy when they force a point out of it, like JK Rowling after the HP books saying "oh btw dumbledingdong was gay".
I think the movie that has done it best was Paranorman (good watch if you haven't seen it). It lets you form an opinion on someone and once your opinion has developed only later does it drop a hint by saying "yeah I'd love to go to dinner with you Stacy, my boyfriend would love you", rather than spending the whole movie making not so subtle hints and jokes that a character has a different sexuality than hetero
I think you all worry about up votes down votes way too much, you hadn't even wait an hour before releasing that novel.
Back to the topic at hand, I get it, and that's fine. I'm not saying you can't mention it, it just feels cheesy when they force a point out of it, like JK Rowling after the HP books saying "oh btw dumbledingdong was gay".
I think the movie that has done it best was Paranorman (good watch if you haven't seen it). It lets you form an opinion on someone and once your opinion has developed only later does it drop a hint by saying "yeah I'd love to go to dinner with you Stacy, my boyfriend would love you", rather than spending the whole movie making not so subtle hints and jokes that a character has a different sexuality than hetero
I don’t particularly care about upvotes or down votes. If you read my “novel” you’d see I point out that it isn’t about likes- it’s about character of a person who essentially does an ideological “hit and run.” It’s like shouting “you suck” at a speaker from a crowd and running away. It’s cowardly and pointless because no one has any idea why that person took offense, nothing is served except ego and a juvenile need for a feeling of power coming from a person who knows they are powerless and so must stay hidden. But your statements make no sense because neither dumbeldore or Mitch’s sexuality really mattered much and norther was revealed until the end. Dumbeldores datig life wasn’t a big plot point in Harry Potter, but Rowling made the character, and in her mind he’s gay. Fans of things like Potter always want more EU facts on their favorite worlds, the world building that didn’t make the story, Dine and LOTR are great examples of books that had books written about what wasn’t in them
So it’s whatever. If you don’t like Dumbeldore being gay, or figure that it was a publicity stunt- only Rawling can answer her true intentions to you. I’ll agree that a writer can use this sort of thing just to grab attention or try to be edgy or make a point or drum up publicity or force an issue. Like any other aspect of writing it can be cheesy if done wrong. And nothing I said was in response to you- it was in response to the comment under yours, so sorry if I put a twist in your knickers. Also- I saw Paranorman in Theaters when it came out. I agree it was a very good film and liked the twist.
You gotta understand, most of the downvotes come from 'guests', and the 'hit and run "you suck"', is exactly what is to be expected, so don't stress over it. Dumbledingdong's sexuality wasn't a big plot point, it was the way in which is was post announced to fit the social discussion at the time. No one knew, and no one cares, that's fine, but then years later for JK to go "lol dumbledoorbell is gay" just seems like a stunt as you said, which makes me think back to the original post "no one cares". I was saying the watch they did it in Paranorman was the best way to go about it.
I also understand nothing was "in response", but we're all part of the same conversation and I just think you need to chill out.
I don’t see how anything I have said hasn’t been chilled out? Perhaps it’s the tone you are using to read it in your head? Try reading it with a mellow and even, semi detached aloofness and I think you will find that it ntnonly sounds quite chilled out, but is much closer to the way which it would be spoken. There are some snippets of emotional inflection in there. I’m guessing you may have read the opening to my original comment with a sarcastic tone as opposed to one of genuine surprise which would then falter into disappointment. Well, either way, I’m sure my mother would be glad to know you’re concerned about my stress levels and blood pressure, so thank you from me and her, but I would like to hopefully put your keen interest in the issue at ease by assuring you that I am quite chilled out.
We don't need to pick people just because they're white. We don't see race. Having a white person in as a diversity pick would just be pandering to all the special snowflakes out there.
Some of my favorite writing is advice is that all characters are bisexual. You should consider who they get with based on the story, and if that would be a gay relationship, then go for it. If that relationship is a straight relationship, then go for it. You shouldn't block out possibilities. The reader doesn't even have to know that they are all technically bisexual because that isn't really relevant. It's a background writer's tool.
Why would someone dv this? It makes sense to most any writer or creative person that you tend to “discover” what you are making as you go. That’s a Bob Ross thing. If you start out painting a tree and decide it looks more like a barn, make it a barn if that’s what you want. As you wrote you’ll see things you didn’t before, you’ll come to know your characters from just being a bunch of traits and bullet points and your story as well. So maybe the phrasing is slightly off. Maybe if we say “let your characters and your story define their sexuality” as opposed to a default bisexuality- that would be more agreeable? It’s possible your character doesn’t need any sexuality, it’s possible theirs exists outside a bi gender spectrum (especially in sci fi or fantasy,) but the principle is sound as good advice and whoever dv’d is a coward- and likely ignorant hence why they didn’t back up theor vote with a post. Unless it’s central to the story why box yourself in?
I just hate when they have a character be LGBT just for the sake of diversity and not because that character is the best fit for the role. I don’t care what orientation you are just be good for the role.
Meanwhile I’ve never seen any major movie featuring with a gay girl couple (at least not as a lead) but have seen straight couples in every movie since the dawn of Hollywood.
Like I get that it’s easy to not understand when you’ve never experienced something yourself, but it’s like everyone says: walk a mile in someone else’s shoes, right? If you haven’t experienced it and don’t understand, then at least please listen rather than making dismissive ‘memes’ like these.
It's more about PR. Ten years ago, if a company made a movie with a gay romance being central then they would have been hit with so much negative backlash it would have been a gravestone for the company. It would do better nowadays, but I doubt they will risk it until it's very clear that it will work. The primary concern of every business is making money, and if there is a gay relationship in their movie then it could decrease profits. I have a feeling this will change in a year or two.
There’s also certain biases. It’s chocken or the egg if media causes social bias or social bias influences media- but women in romantic relationships generally doesn’t carry the same stigmas as men, in fact many more people openly will admit to or enjoy the idea or images of two women being intimate than of two men. But that’s not to say the women have it “easier.” Lesbian relationships tend to be fetishized and exploitive in film. “Inclusion” isn’t a catch all because if someone invites you to their wedding because they wanted to show off that they knew diverse people, or as an object of ridicule, or just because they felt obligated- it’s not the same as being invited because you’re valued or cared about, or part of their life. There’s also social concepts often commonly and subconsciously associated with gender to consider. If you think of many discussions over women doing certain jobs or going certain places etc. a common knee jerk response is concern for theor safety specifically..
Because they are a woman. So there is to many people a fragility and desire to protect a female that isn’t invoked with a grown male. This is often used for a psychological backdrop for movie plots and scenes where the audience is expected to feel the main character is vulnerable or powerless. The Alien films used this along with other “rape” themes to evoke discomfort and fear. Women are often considered to be”softer,” and associated with maternal feelings. Writers use these conventions and the dictonomy between men and women to create moods and plot devices, and subconsciously tug at our emotions and social mooring. Simply put- while in many ways similar one cannot (especially on fiction, where the believable is unbelievable,) simply write a good story centered around a romance and plop any combination of people into it. It requires different writing and many are reluctant or thoughtless of the skill. So lesbians tend to be used for sexual exploitation or as “butch” stereotypes...
... with few works legitimately trying to capture a realistic or even “real for fiction” feeling lesbian pairing, and studios like to appeal to masses, which means that they assume most ticket buyers only want their lesbians as joke characters, gimmicks, and “hot mindless sex pots.” There’sno good reason why a lesbian couple can’t be a main love pairing, it’s more a fear of alienating paying viewers with a less “conventional” romantic pairing, and the fact that it takes more thought for writers who aren’t lesbians to write a lesbian love story that isn’t just recycled scripts with the man’s name crossed off and a woman’s written in, or generic.
@poopun- I get where you’re coming from but your own logic points out the catch. Yes- a straight person is more unlikely to default to imagining a romantic relationship that isn’t straight, but just as it doesn’t have to be a gay relationship- it doesn’t have to be a straight relationship just because that is the majority norm. For instance- being a space smuggler or “chosen one” or special forces commando or cop who is 2 days away from retirement are not the norm. If we assume that “people just write about what is normal to them without thinking about it... then the norm for people would be to be super heroes or one person armies or giant robots. All art is a statement to a degree and all films are carefully constructed and reviewed and tweaked. They aren’t stream of conscious writing made by one person. So there are major flaws in the idea that straight relationships are the Hollywood norm because they are what is the norm as an innocent oversight.
As for statements- yes most art is some sort of statement. You don’t tell a story of you don’t have anything to say right? But as for being a political or social statement- we go back to the norm. If a person truly accepts other orientations then following your heart in love is the norm, and there is no statement beyond that one included another. In 1934 aimply having a black male lead in most any type of non exploitation film would be a statement. In 2018 simply having a black male lead alone is not a statement. Its just a character who is black, just as in the world there are people who are black. It was only a statement when people were actively trying to oppose it. - to be clear you CAN make a statement with cast decisions, just like you CAN make a muppet porno, but by default muppets Akon are not considered pornographic.
Am I totally misunderstanding or are you saying if a character is gay the plot has to revolve around that, he can't be casually gay, as in "it's a normal thing, let's move on"?
I am one of those minority but in my opinion it very much matters when adapting from a book or game. When you are trying to borrow from an already published story it is important to respect that by keeping the characters the same.
I don’t know that you’re in the minority there. I think most people prefer that adaptations of their favorite works stay faithful to the original. Enders Game was an amazing book and a serviceable movie that lost most of the punch and much of the quality as a chopped up movie- but I still enjoyed the movie. It’s one thing to say that we prefer the original to a less than faithful reimagining than to say that the reimagining is terrible or has no value simply because it isn’t the original. Sometimes we even like those differences such as when a film franchise kills a favorite character or botches an emotional payoff and the novel series retcons it (in fact loads of fan fiction are dedicated to just this alone!) So I think it’s fair to say most people who love a work don’t appreciate most changes when it shifts mediums- but how important it is to keep it the same depends on how faithful the artist wants to be to the original and the story they are trying to tell.
To me I believe sexual orientation should be a part of the character but not their sole defining feature. If so thats more of a token or gimmick character and played up for steretypes. I've seen it done so much in media in my homeland. It's really irritating because the character has no personality and it does more harm than good since the majoruty of the population now thinks this is what a gay guy is like. That all they do is go "ooooh darling" and give crap advice to the female protag.
I mean, most normal people don't. But there is a (relatively small but) vocal minority of people who get outraged when a character in an announced movie is LGBT+. They say it's "muh SJW agenda" and whatnot as if all the interesting characters in the world ever had to be straight.
Back to the topic at hand, I get it, and that's fine. I'm not saying you can't mention it, it just feels cheesy when they force a point out of it, like JK Rowling after the HP books saying "oh btw dumbledingdong was gay".
I think the movie that has done it best was Paranorman (good watch if you haven't seen it). It lets you form an opinion on someone and once your opinion has developed only later does it drop a hint by saying "yeah I'd love to go to dinner with you Stacy, my boyfriend would love you", rather than spending the whole movie making not so subtle hints and jokes that a character has a different sexuality than hetero
Back to the topic at hand, I get it, and that's fine. I'm not saying you can't mention it, it just feels cheesy when they force a point out of it, like JK Rowling after the HP books saying "oh btw dumbledingdong was gay".
I think the movie that has done it best was Paranorman (good watch if you haven't seen it). It lets you form an opinion on someone and once your opinion has developed only later does it drop a hint by saying "yeah I'd love to go to dinner with you Stacy, my boyfriend would love you", rather than spending the whole movie making not so subtle hints and jokes that a character has a different sexuality than hetero
I also understand nothing was "in response", but we're all part of the same conversation and I just think you need to chill out.
Like I get that it’s easy to not understand when you’ve never experienced something yourself, but it’s like everyone says: walk a mile in someone else’s shoes, right? If you haven’t experienced it and don’t understand, then at least please listen rather than making dismissive ‘memes’ like these.