Like the overrepresentation of straight white men?
My stance is that I just think that making up racial and sexual orientation pie charts to avoid complaints is a foolish idea.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The one thing you can't be in the Marvel Cinematic Universe -- Gay
- Thread starter berzeli
- Start date
- Status
Like the overrepresentation of straight white men?
My stance is that I just think that making up racial and sexual orientation pie charts to avoid complaints is a foolish idea.
I want to say I've really enjoyed reading all the responses in this thread.
I've been wondering myself about where my stance really falls on the issue. I think as an artist, my opinion really falls on the side of free expression. No doubt, the media does play a role in people's perceptions... but that's not any one person's responsibility to fix. If someone feels that they need to alter their works, include more gay characters to appeal to that demo or to "balance the scales" as it were, that's their prerogative, just as it's an artists' choice not to decide that's what they want their work to say. Neither choice makes the author/creator immune to criticism and never should, but I also think they should be respected. I definitely don't want to see a world where someone is criticized for not having the "right" percentage of any and every type of person. At the end of the day, I really don't think quotas matter. Characters do.
People at my place of employment were talking about making characters gay/black/whathaveyou in adaptations recently, and I think there I feel like there exists a dichotomy between where a character is the creator's, and where it is the people's. I don't think there should be a gay black Peter Parker, because Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created a white, straight character, and their choices should be respected, no matter the era they were created in.
But at some point, and I don't know where that is... those characters transcend the creator's intention and grasp, legally in the case of public domain, but also morally. I don't have a problem with somone who wanted to make all the characters of King Lear one-eyed lesbian paraplegics. Shakespeare belongs to everyone. I think Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is an interesting idea done exceptionally poorly, but Janeites don't get to decide what is the "right" way to extend Austen's work. So at some point while I always think we should respect a creator's wishes, we also have to respect the right of the public at large to decide what they want to do with that character.
I've been wondering myself about where my stance really falls on the issue. I think as an artist, my opinion really falls on the side of free expression. No doubt, the media does play a role in people's perceptions... but that's not any one person's responsibility to fix. If someone feels that they need to alter their works, include more gay characters to appeal to that demo or to "balance the scales" as it were, that's their prerogative, just as it's an artists' choice not to decide that's what they want their work to say. Neither choice makes the author/creator immune to criticism and never should, but I also think they should be respected. I definitely don't want to see a world where someone is criticized for not having the "right" percentage of any and every type of person. At the end of the day, I really don't think quotas matter. Characters do.
People at my place of employment were talking about making characters gay/black/whathaveyou in adaptations recently, and I think there I feel like there exists a dichotomy between where a character is the creator's, and where it is the people's. I don't think there should be a gay black Peter Parker, because Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created a white, straight character, and their choices should be respected, no matter the era they were created in.
But at some point, and I don't know where that is... those characters transcend the creator's intention and grasp, legally in the case of public domain, but also morally. I don't have a problem with somone who wanted to make all the characters of King Lear one-eyed lesbian paraplegics. Shakespeare belongs to everyone. I think Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is an interesting idea done exceptionally poorly, but Janeites don't get to decide what is the "right" way to extend Austen's work. So at some point while I always think we should respect a creator's wishes, we also have to respect the right of the public at large to decide what they want to do with that character.
I'm all for more representation in the MCfilmicU and I believe it'll happen at some point. Just gotta be patient. That won't stop people from complaining which they're free to do.
The OP wanted an explicit gay character. The thread has evolved into something else though from what I gather.
The OP wanted an explicit gay character. The thread has evolved into something else though from what I gather.
BronsonLee
Member
We need to lock down the criteria here. Do people in the thread want a gay superhero leading an MCU film, or more gay characters in it? We're bouncing all over the place here.
And what difference does that make? If a gay role is no fit for the movie then will you force him? idk if marvel has any gay characters in their backlog but I guess they do but will they fit a role in a MCU movie? Imagine if Iron man was gay and some people wanted him removed because of his sexuality even tho he is the prefect pick for the movie considering his abilities etc... would you accept that? of course no so it applies to every situation that the freedom of the writers and the directors shouldn't be affected by anything.
are you talking about straight actors playing gay roles? because that's what actors do
they play roles
people already want queer characters removed from media. those people are called bigots.
also to answer this, we really don't need to lock it down. personally, i'd just like to see more queer characters, both leading and support. they don't have to be gay.
I'm talking about all of them. a gay man playing a gay character, a gay man playing a straight character, or a straight man playing a gay character. It doesn't matter, what matters is the decision of the director and what he wants to include. which mean I'm both against people who call to remove queer characters or to add more because that is against freedom and can affect the vision of the director.
BronsonLee
Member
I could give two shits what the OP wants, they made this topic to get mad more than anything else.
Yes we do. It's poisoning the conversation because there's too many variables.
Real talk; you were never going to get a leading gay superhero in the beginning stages of the MCU. Hell, you might not get one for a long time. Want to know why? Hint: It's got nothing to do with the sexual orientation, or even character quality of the hero. It has to do with popularity and having more source material to work from.
I can go into it further if you'd prefer, but the reality of it is that, while there are gay superheroes under Marvel's umbrella, they are both very recent, and not as popular as the old guard. That's why they're not coming up anytime soon. Gay characters, however? That's coming.
You do know straight people are 96.6% of the population, and White is another 74%.
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf
I do agree having all straight white people is something that needs to be changed, but let's keep it close to what the real population is rather than pandering.
I mean would you hold the same argument in regards to something like this?
Because I'm sure it's what the director wants but it doesn't mean it's not gross and shitty.
why?
it's a fictional film
who gives a shit about what the population of the US is like. it obviously doesn't apply for other forms of media (like video games! though that's another discussion...ugh) so why should we let movies slide?
Then why do you care in the first place?
because representation is important to me.
Aarglefarg
Member
Why doesn't the census give the correct proportion of superheroes.
And the question I asked earlier was what gay heroes and villians do they have the rights to use? Most of the high profile ones are X-Men.
Mango Positive
Member
Until the vast majority of the population lacks the prejudice that would keep them away from a gay superhero comic or movie where the hero being gay was somehow relevant to the story, these comics / movies won't be made. It's about money, not social justice.
But you said yourself, it's a fictional film. You can't say that to dismiss my point and then ignore it for yours.
Does your "stick with real life stats or it's pandering" stance also apply if they have homosexuals take up more than 3.4% of screentime, or is it just applicable to casting scenarios?
Do you try and twist every decision you have into aggressive ones?
Because the gay community would do well to have characters they can look up to and relate to? They'd like to see some kind of representation in these fictional worlds they may be fans of? I don't want them to awkwardly shoehorn it in, but its not a complaint that should be dismissed.
liliththepale
Banned
If people are significantly underrepresented, then that says they don't matter or don't exist. If they're overrepresented, then that says they matter more than other people, which is basically another way of saying it's pandering.
I think the disconnect is that you spend 100% of your life being a minority even though your minority only makes up a couple percent of the population. So when your representation doesn't appear in most media, it falls far short of your real life experience, even though it's much closer to most everyone else' experience.
I'll not pretend it's a simple problem, but proper and accurate representation seems the most fair to me.
Depends, what do you mean by "agressive" decision?
I'm having a rather civil conversation with you, and you turn around and start coming at me rather aggressively. You're trying to paint me as a bigot or something, and I don't appreciate that.
TheKaeptain
Banned
The actor or the character?
PS; statistically speaking, MCU TV wise is actually dead on. Based on the US Census, and the idea that there are roughly 17 main protagonists in MCU TV-verse (9-10 in Agents of Shield, RIP Tripp, 3 in Carter, and 4 in Daredevil) - the percent chance that all of them would be straight is 55% (.966^17). Probably higher if you factor in the time period (and the premise for the show) for Agent Carter; and Mack is definitely ambiguous. Is even surprisingly representative by race and by gender.
We don't have good statistics on other forms of entertainment (such as books & video games); hence why there is not much solid data. Video games especially being a very immature form of entertainment (30-40 years old only).
MCU Movies are a little worse; but Rhodes / Falcon / Fury / Maria Hill are all undefined (and arguably Black Widow, oddly enough); and seeing as Marvel didn't say a word about Captain Marvel for years even as they were getting pounded (and was later confirmed to have planned Captain Marvel & Black Panther since 2012, even incorporating Marvel into AoU originally), it would be like Marvel to be hiding such a character in plain sight.
No one's going to say it'd be bad for Marvel to introduce a character (if they haven't already) that is not straight - but it is basically a load of complete statistical lies to say that they are under-representing them. Especially because the default assumption by the people arguing that Marvel is under-representing gays is that anyone who isn't gay is considered straight 100% of the time. Which...is something you do when you don't want to admit that the sample size is so small such that your premise is statistically and mathematically false.
HUELEN10
Member
As a queer person, arguments and musings such as these make me feel.. conflicted. All I'm gonna say is how I personally feel about the issue, and that is simple: this isn't an issue. Let me elaborate. Sex, sexuality, orientation, gender and all those things are things that are quite intimate for many of us. You can't just look at someone and know the exactness of their sexual orientation, it just doesn't work that way. The way I see it, the problem isn't that there aren't gay/LGBTcharacters, the problem is that people are assuming they are,what some would call, heteronormative in the first place. How do you know MCU's Bruce Banner is straight? Isn't it possible Loki's Bi? Couldn't Coulson be panromantic? Would it truly be outrageous to consider that Armin Zola was aromantic and asexual?
Not a single thing in the films mentions the sexual orientation of these characters, and nothing officially has been said and listed to that effect (have YOU seen a PR release that Hawkeye is a cisgendered male that is sexually attracted only to the opposite sex? Of course not). I don't know about you, but when I watch a film, I take what we know of it and don't let speculation get to me. For example, I am SO into Star Trek, but I don't think about who may or may not be gay and who is this and that; I think of things like Sulu is awesome, The Doctor is puzzling, and Nero is troubled. Why try to dig into something that isn't there to begin with?
I want to be perfectly clear that I am not anti-LGBT representation or anything like that, and I do see the valid arguments raised as potentially addressing legitimate concerns, I am not bashing any of that; all that I am saying is that as for me and me alone, Captain America and friends are just that to me and nothing more, and I couldn't care less about their orientation (which is something personal about us all), because it doesn't really matter to me (and that goes for a lot of media for me). I don't see characters as queer or straight, I see them as characters.
Not a single thing in the films mentions the sexual orientation of these characters, and nothing officially has been said and listed to that effect (have YOU seen a PR release that Hawkeye is a cisgendered male that is sexually attracted only to the opposite sex? Of course not). I don't know about you, but when I watch a film, I take what we know of it and don't let speculation get to me. For example, I am SO into Star Trek, but I don't think about who may or may not be gay and who is this and that; I think of things like Sulu is awesome, The Doctor is puzzling, and Nero is troubled. Why try to dig into something that isn't there to begin with?
I want to be perfectly clear that I am not anti-LGBT representation or anything like that, and I do see the valid arguments raised as potentially addressing legitimate concerns, I am not bashing any of that; all that I am saying is that as for me and me alone, Captain America and friends are just that to me and nothing more, and I couldn't care less about their orientation (which is something personal about us all), because it doesn't really matter to me (and that goes for a lot of media for me). I don't see characters as queer or straight, I see them as characters.
And yet there's still an incredible disparity across so many forms of media. What you see as fair (which is totally a fine opinion to have) still hasn't even happened yet, unfortunately.
This is honestly such a trite way to see these kinds of things, I'm sorry.
Just because they don't explicitly state a character's sexuality does not mean that it might count as representation.
Dumbledore is an example of that. I'm sure Rowling had good intentions, but I don't recall a single bit of the entire Harry Potter books that made me go 'oh maybe he's gay'. She's telling, not showing, and that's total bullshit, and I'd never count that.
liliththepale
Banned
I believe you. I don't know the numbers, so I have only a vague idea of the current standings. I was only making an argument against over-representation.
I am sorry, I was just illustrating why I think your proposed solution of accurate diversity is unpractical and short sighted.
The intense relationship Dumbledore had with that other male wizard when he was a teenaged boy didn't give you vibes that the friendship might have had a romantic undercurrent to it?
Maybe I'm just the odd one out, but I have never been obsessively absorbed in a strictly platonic friend.
Though over representing here and there should not be an problem. Because on average they will still be underrepresented. Never mind there are communities that are much more diverse than others. And even more, the big movies are shooting for international appeal.
I usually take more issue with rewriting characters to fill diversity quotas, than overrepresentation. Because I feel that in some sense equality will be achieved by having a diversity of overrepresentation. If nothing else it's a bit of reparation or tug of war to iron out the inconsiderations of the industry.
An Eye For An Eye
Considering Rowling out and out said that Dumbledore was gay, and that his romantic life had no bearing on the story outside of giving Dumbledore a little bit of back story...pretty sure there is no point in an honest conversation at this point.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...edore-harry-potter-books-gay-article-1.227347
The problem is that representation isn't enough for some folks in this thread, it has to be the "right kind of gay". It has to be done only in a specific way, otherwise "it doesn't count." As someone who is in the entire "there is almost no representation of us in the media bit" - I cannot understate how abhorrent that concept is to me. That is the epitome of pandering and selfishness. To hold your minority status as a monolith, state that a representative character must be done One True Way (tm), and then promptly bag on someone else in the same minority group as you because they might see things another way? That's kinda messed up.
Chairmanchuck
Member
How would you even write a gay character? Just saying one line he likes men? Or talking all about how he likes men?
Or just doesnt have a female love interest?
Or just doesnt have a female love interest?
Let's get into it. Let's get the quotes rolling! Name some names, partner! 💪🏽
"My wife and I...." Etc
"Oh yeah, my last boyfriend..." Etc
It is so, so simple.
Father_Brain
Banned
How can anyone criticize such positive representation as... um... the "lol, prison bitch" jokes in All Hail the King and GotG?
At least we're getting lesbians in Jessica Jones, so that's something. There have also been implications that a couple characters in Agents of SHIELD might be gay/bi, but most of them are dead and they're too subtle for me to really count.
At least we're getting lesbians in Jessica Jones, so that's something. There have also been implications that a couple characters in Agents of SHIELD might be gay/bi, but most of them are dead and they're too subtle for me to really count.
Nope. There is no good in this. You have your concept of what true representation would be; and I'm fine with it being that way for you.
I do not agree that minorities are monoliths, and that there's only a "given" way for a character to be truly representative of a minority group. If Maria Hill is a closet lesbian, and they portray her that way, then there will be a group of lesbians that is abhorrent to, and there will be a group of lesbians that connect to her. I don't believe there's one true way to portray Asian-Americans or even Indian-Americans in media; I'm not a fan of Raj from BBT - but I know other Indians who are, and I'm not going to tell them that the way they see things are trite and wrong.
HUELEN10
Member
Even lines like that don't actually specify orientation, which is what some people want though.
"He said his husband was gonna pick him up"
Is said person gay, pan, bi, or poly? Do you see what I mean?
Has this been posted yet?
http://alewing.tumblr.com/post/64893876355/hello-mr-ewing-we-will-see-lokis-dad-odin-your
http://thegeekiary.com/loki-agent-of-asgard-writer-confirms-loki-is-bisexual-and-genderfluid/4034
Loki of the comics is pansexual and genderfluid, and states that Asgardian culture has a rather different view of sexuality. It's not clear if that actually extends to the MCU as well, but Tom Hiddleston at least is open to the idea of his character being genderfluid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU9J_-WVyvQ
(Of course, having the only LGBT characters of the MCU being villains would carry its own set of potential problems...)
http://alewing.tumblr.com/post/64893876355/hello-mr-ewing-we-will-see-lokis-dad-odin-your
http://thegeekiary.com/loki-agent-of-asgard-writer-confirms-loki-is-bisexual-and-genderfluid/4034
Loki of the comics is pansexual and genderfluid, and states that Asgardian culture has a rather different view of sexuality. It's not clear if that actually extends to the MCU as well, but Tom Hiddleston at least is open to the idea of his character being genderfluid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU9J_-WVyvQ
(Of course, having the only LGBT characters of the MCU being villains would carry its own set of potential problems...)
H.Cornerstone
Member
Sorry if already posted but
Many theories Mack in Agents of Shield is Gay. Believe.
Affeinvasion
Member
Yeah but most people like Loki more than most of the heroes...so I don't see that as a problem at least as far as Loki is concerned.
blame space
Banned
wait.. all the super heroes aren't gay?
HUELEN10
Member
Alot of characters have pretty important, romantic figures in their lives. Depends on the character/comic.
So in most cases, they can't just reveal that so and so is gay, and would have to invent new gay characters, I guess?
Aarglefarg
Member
Right. I assume from his name he is bi.Nope.
- Status