The portrayal of LGBTQ characters

[kataklysm336]

I am all for gay rights, same-sex marriage, and all that jazz, but this is a little ridiculous. You guys are seriously going to scorn entertainers because they aren't catering enough to a tiny, specific, subclass of the population? You are aware they are in it for the money, and are going to gear the vision towards to majority. Not only that but the vision is coming from someone that is probably straight (because it is a much higher percentage of the population) and is going to discuss things that straight people know.

And as for the serial killer argument, we all know that every serial killer ever was poised and ready to take over the pentagon, kill millions of innocent people, and take over the world all because they hate freedom. Ever seen the movie Seven? How about Saw? Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Those are realistic serial killers [/sarcasm]. They are misrepresented the same way homosexuals would be misrepresented by someone how isn't one. Yeah, you should stick to things you know, because when you go outside of that you get wildly ridiculous stories that may offend people. It's okay to do that with a serial killer, who is worried about him being offended because of his misrepresentation? But if you misrepresented a homosexual or transgender then there would be complaints about that too.

I personally wouldn't go see a movie about a transgendered person. Why? Because I am not one, and I am not personally concerned with the issues as they don't pertain to me. They don't really pertain to anyone I know either. I wouldn't watch the movie Precious because I am not an obese african american girl with problems that have been exaggerated by Hollywood, but I did enjoy Gridiron Gang (which has one white primary character) because as an aspiring teacher I could connect with the message.

People want a message they can relate to. Most people aren't gay, and even fewer are transgendered so to make a movie that focuses a good amount of the lives and times of such characters is a good way to alienate a majority of your audience. Writers want to captivate people and create an experience for them; they want to get across a message by appealing to many different aspects of many different people's lives. Once you reduce the message to "This person is gay/transgender/insert minority" you lose an overwhelming majority of what makes your story have an impact.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I personally wouldn't go see a movie about a transgendered person. Why? Because I am not one, and I am not personally concerned with the issues as they don't pertain to me. They don't really pertain to anyone I know either. I wouldn't watch the movie Precious because I am not an obese african american girl with problems that have been exaggerated by Hollywood, but I did enjoy Gridiron Gang (which has one white primary character) because as an aspiring teacher I could connect with the message.

People want a message they can relate to. Most people aren't gay, and even fewer are transgendered so to make a movie that focuses a good amount of the lives and times of such characters is a good way to alienate a majority of your audience. Writers want to captivate people and create an experience for them; they want to get across a message by appealing to many different aspects of many different people's lives. Once you reduce the message to "This person is gay/transgender/insert minority" you lose an overwhelming majority of what makes your story have an impact.

I genuinely hope that most people do not share this perspective.

 

[Dre89]

Most people do share that view.

But then again, most people are ignorant and have very narrow perspective. Basic psychology tells us that people generally tend to conform to their enviroment, and communities of like-minded people will generally become more close-minded about their views. It's why things like religion and upholding one's cultural views are so prominent.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Wow.

My brain hurts.

Smooth Criminal

 

[kataklysm336]

I genuinely hope that most people do not share this perspective.

I honestly do not see what is wrong here. So now it's wrong to not be interested in things that don't interest you? I personally think this is the problem. If I don't watch a movie like Precious (just continuing my example) then I am a racist with a narrow mind and am afraid to be cultured. That is actually the exact opposite, and for people to just be shoved into that category is simply unfair. Let's say you like basketball, you were inspired by michael jordan as a child and you watch every game. However, baseball was never your thing, so you don't go to the games, and when they come on you don't watch them. Is it because you are ignorant and don't want to change your worldview? That you don't want to give up how awesome basketball is and "regress" to the horrible disgusting sport of baseball? No, you just aren't interested...I don't see the ignorance here.

EDIT: BTW, nice arguments against what I said. I'll take notes.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

> implying that liking or disliking a passtime is the same as levying judgment over whole cultures/lifestyles.

Smooth Criminal

 

[kataklysm336]

> implying that liking or disliking a passtime is the same as levying judgment over whole cultures/lifestyles.

Smooth Criminal

That's the problem. When did I judge anyone? I didn't.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

I honestly do not see what is wrong here. So now it's wrong to not be interested in things that don't interest you? I personally think this is the problem. If I don't watch a movie like Precious (just continuing my example) then I am a racist with a narrow mind and am afraid to be cultured. That is actually the exact opposite, and for people to just be shoved into that category is simply unfair. Let's say you like basketball, you were inspired by michael jordan as a child and you watch every game. However, baseball was never your thing, so you don't go to the games, and when they come on you don't watch them. Is it because you are ignorant and don't want to change your worldview? That you don't want to give up how awesome basketball is and "regress" to the horrible disgusting sport of baseball? No, you just aren't interested...I don't see the ignorance here.

EDIT: BTW, nice arguments against what I said. I'll take notes.

Regardless, movies, tv shows, and other forms of entertainment focused on racial mimorities and LGBTQ issues should be incorporated wether you or the public in general like it or not. Even if it's nit quote on quote "popular".

 

[kataklysm336]

Regardless, movies, tv shows, and other forms of entertainment focused on racial mimorities and LGBTQ issues should be incorporated wether you or the public in general like it or not. Even if it's nit quote on quote "popular".

I agree. Minorities of all kinds should be represented to the degree they exist in reality (or are likely to exist in the reality defined by the movie, tv show, book, etc.). We are on our way, things are getting better. Minorities are focused on in shows, but if they are shoehorned in its going to look more like a stunt to gain popularity (and in most cases, sadly, it is) and it's going to be offensive and done in poor taste (like the examples mentioned where the transition process is misrepresented).

If the general public are going to be persuaded it has to be slowly. Gay rights and the like are relatively new ideas, and transgender is even more obscure to some. It's not a concept that MOST people encounter in their daily lives, and to have it dominate such a large part of the plot (particularly in romantic subplots) then it seems misplaced, and there to make a statement rather than to aid in advancing the story and what not. People want to sell their product, so in their mind the general public is the audience, and they want to cater to as many people as possible. Most people aren't gay and don't have experience with it, so they aren't as interested.

I'm not saying that it should be like this, but merely that it IS like this. Culture has to change first, and that takes some time.


Sidenote: The whole misrepresentation thing is another issue, everything in Hollywood is misrepresented (that's why most of it sucks...).
EDIT: Just noticed you were talking about the ISSUES of racial minorities and the homosexual/transgender community. Everything aforementioned still stands, but I would like to add that you can't expect people to be overly sympathetic to the issues of minorities. Civil rights and the like are a different case, but entertainment exists to entertain, inform, persuade, etc. You can't expect everyone to be okay with getting a lecture on how they should morally behave when they paid to see Iron Man blast some bad guys.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I honestly do not see what is wrong here. So now it's wrong to not be interested in things that don't interest you? I personally think this is the problem. If I don't watch a movie like Precious (just continuing my example) then I am a racist with a narrow mind and am afraid to be cultured. That is actually the exact opposite, and for people to just be shoved into that category is simply unfair. Let's say you like basketball, you were inspired by michael jordan as a child and you watch every game. However, baseball was never your thing, so you don't go to the games, and when they come on you don't watch them. Is it because you are ignorant and don't want to change your worldview? That you don't want to give up how awesome basketball is and "regress" to the horrible disgusting sport of baseball? No, you just aren't interested...I don't see the ignorance here.

EDIT: BTW, nice arguments against what I said. I'll take notes.

I find it disheartening that people only find interest in stories that remind them of themselves.

 

[Shorts]

I only watch movies/read about gay kids who live in big cities because it's all I can relate to.


What's Harry Porter, and when did the book Twinight happen?

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

I find it disheartening that people only find interest in stories that remind them of themselves.

Exactly. Everything should be a self exploration of yourself. Honestly, when I was a freshmen in college, I was a staunch anti-gay and gay marriage. Now, I am a staunch pro-gay and gay marriage. And I feel much better for it. I was 100% metal head in college but, as I listened to more pop music, I opened up to it more. Things don't need to interest you in order for you to take something out of them.

I decided to become more educated in the subject instead of a biased view I took, studied it, and soon became much more interested and knowledgeable on the subject and issues. Everything should be a self-exploration of yourself and sticking to what interests you and "what you know" doesn't only make you a incredibly boring person but restricts you from reaching your full potential.

You should watch, read, study, and participate in things that advances you as a person; not stick to the same formula you keep for yourself.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I like Venus' post.

Smooth Criminal

 

[kataklysm336]

I find it disheartening that people only find interest in stories that remind them of themselves.

People like things they can relate to because they can connect to it more. I really don't see why that HAS to be a bad thing. You are honestly trying to force people to be entertained by things that otherwise don't entertain them.

I only watch movies/read about gay kids who live in big cities because it's all I can relate to.


What's Harry Porter, and when did the book Twinight happen?

I'm sorry that being gay and living in the city are the only two properties you have as a person. You must have a really one dimensional life. The entertainment doesn't have to be a perfect mirror image of your life, but there has to be something that you can connect to. You don't have to be a wizard to connect to harry potter, there is the whole "teenage boy growing up with his friends in a strict boarding school" which people do connect with. On the plus side kids find magic to pretty ****ing awesome, and wish they had those powers. It is probably something they have thought about and imagined having, so they can relate to that aspect too.

Isn't it amazing how I never brought up gender or gender relations? They are pretty petty and unimportant to the overall development of the story in most cases. It has been said that it wouldn't really matter if the prime time detective happened to be gay, that really isn't an issue. It doesn't matter if he is gay, the same way it doesn't matter if he is straight, so why complain that the characters are straight? It's reserve-discrimination.

Exactly. Everything should be a self exploration of yourself. Honestly, when I was a freshmen in college, I was a staunch anti-gay and gay marriage. Now, I am a staunch pro-gay and gay marriage. And I feel much better for it. I was 100% metal head in college but, as I listened to more pop music, I opened up to it more. Things don't need to interest you in order for you to take something out of them.

I decided to become more educated in the subject instead of a biased view I took, studied it, and soon became much more interested and knowledgeable on the subject and issues. Everything should be a self-exploration of yourself and sticking to what interests you and "what you know" doesn't only make you a incredibly boring person but restricts you from reaching your full potential.

You should watch, read, study, and participate in things that advances you as a person; not stick to the same formula you keep for yourself.

Had quite a bit typed, but it wouldn't add much. TL;DR people should want to advance themselves as people, but typically they don't. To me, that is their choice, condemning them doesn't really help the situation any. If you had the option of going to MLG or attending a rally for gay rights which would you choose? I'm guess a HUGE majority has attended the former rather than the latter, and I don't blame them.

I like Venus' post.

Smooth Criminal

Thanks for the input. You are really the heart of the conversation.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I do what I can, Kata.

I do kind of agree with some of your points (condemning people that are close-minded, for instance, doesn't really absolve anything), but some of your analogies ("awful baseball" versus "amazing basketball") are godawful. It's an entirely different dynamic when you compare a lifestyle and/or culture versus a passtime. You don't live a passtime; it's a ****ing hobby. Something you pass the time with.

Also, it isn't impossible to organically include something like a character's sexual orientation into a story.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Shorts]

Also, it isn't impossible to organically include something like a character's sexual orientation into a story.

Smooth Criminal

You can't say someone's gay, without obviously making them gay.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

You can't say someone's gay, without obviously making them gay.

...

You're missing my point entirely, Shortie.

Carefully re-read what I have written. Yes, they would be gay, but it's entirely possible to not make it a polarizing aspect of their character. The reader could draw whatever conclusion they want about the orientation (it's their perspective, after all), but the author in question could feasibly project the character in a way that doesn't make that particular facet of their being overwhelming or the main draw.

Same can be said for television or movies, too.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Holder of the Heel]

So you mean they have gay "aspects" but never do anything gay?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

*sighs.*

No.

I mean that it doesn't have to be main focus of their character or their story. It could be part of it, yes, but they don't have to be the "token" LBGT character that's gay or whatever and that's it. They can do gay things 'til the cows come home, but the work in question doesn't have to revolve around it.

Is this concept really that hard to grasp?

You know what? I honestly don't know, man. You're just going to keep nitpicking this and say that it would still fall in line with the sub-genres directed at that sort of crowd. That's fine, as it's partially true, but I feel that the given sexual/gender orientation should NOT get in the way of making characters interesting and compelling, nor should it be the only reason why they're interesting.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Luigitoilet]

So you mean they have gay "aspects" but never do anything gay?

Are you intentionally trying to be thick?

Sexual inclination is just one aspect of a person. A gay person isn't defined by their being gay. What Smooth Criminal is saying is that our media could reflect that. Instead of having the gay character in your story be "the gay guy", he should just be a character whose personality is constructed of many things including but not limited to his sexual preferences.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Are you intentionally trying to be thick?

Sexual inclination is just one aspect of a person. A gay person isn't defined by their being gay. What Smooth Criminal is saying is that our media could reflect that. Instead of having the gay character in your story be "the gay guy", he should just be another character.

Thank you, LT.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Luigitoilet]

It's not like gay people are all flamboyant sex addicts. It's very possible to portray a gay man without portraying his buttplug collection or whatever. The implication I'm getting from some of you guys' post is really offensive, and I'm not even gay.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wh-- Wait, why am I surprised people are moody around here again? Just recently been saying that, I shouldn't forget. Seriously people, control your passions. @_@

You said it could be left to the viewer's interpretation, so what I was saying is that it could be interpreted that way, but they never do anything gay to actually prove that, and thus BE SOMETHING TO INTERPRETATION.

Guys, seriously, what the heck is wrong with all of you? This place gets too stupid, the User Blogs shouldn't be like this, this is where people should be freely writing about lives, thoughts, and things openly, and yet everyone is looking to rip someone's head off to the point where they don't even need to make sense in doing so.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Imagine a show/movie with TWO gay characters.
That is some 2020 metagame right here.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Christ on a cracker, Holder. I think the only person that's excitable around here is you, jumping on everyone's nuts 'cause you're assuming people are getting moody/butthurt. They're not.

I never said anything about leaving anything to interpretation. I was saying that you can't change the way somebody looks at that kind of thing personally just by virtue of the character's existence. If they wanna have a change of heart after the fact, then that's great. If not, well, it's their choice.

To reiterate again: I was saying that it's possible to make great characters regardless of their gender orientation or their sexual orientation, and that it shouldn't be the end all, be all focus.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Spelt]

Most of the most in this thread are, surprisingly, relatively calm.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Er, both replies I got were very pretentious, yet all I did was say this harmless little thing. o-o

Moody does not mean raving angry, it means that you react antisocially with little to no provocation.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Right, Merriam-Webster Holder, but you're looking into people's posts a little too much.

Or should I call you Sigmund Freud Holder?

And you wanna talk pretentious...?

Moody does not mean raving angry, it means that you react antisocially with little to no provocation.

There. Now, if you have any beef with my pointing out these things, drop me a VM or a PM. I'd rather not clutter up this thread with any more bull****.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Dude I was called out on being intentionally thick, you agreed, and in your first reply you couldn't help but express your impatience and accused me of looking out to nitpick at whatever you are saying. I haven't even been messing with you in this discussion. Not looking too much into it, I just read your posts at face value, I haven't even look into either posts seriously because I could tell what I said went way over both of your heads but you both still assumed it was this offensive remark. Sooo I think you guys looked way too much into a single short sentence, eh? ^_^;

I am not trying to offend gay people, I LOVE gay people.

Spoiler

No homo.

Spoiler

j/k, I hate when people say that >_O

Also, that is probably not the definition of moody, that is just how I think of it. XD

Edit: Wait, you think I'm pretentious? @_@ Confused, again.

 

[Luigitoilet]

uhh. anyways.

Imagine a show/movie with TWO gay characters.
That is some 2020 metagame right here.

you mean like?:

Brokeback Mountain
Milk
Monster
Magnolia
Boogie Nights
Being John Malkovich
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
Desperate Living
Pink Flamingoes
Room in Rome
Mulholland Drive

 

[Shorts]

*sighs.*

No.

I mean that it doesn't have to be main focus of their character or their story. It could be part of it, yes, but they don't have to be the "token" LBGT character that's gay or whatever and that's it. They can do gay things 'til the cows come home, but the work in question doesn't have to revolve around it.

I think, THINK, how I read it was, you can't make a character gay (Even if it's not the focus of the story) without most people calling it a "LGBT token" book/movie. Which, I was agreeing with. It's hard to make a character gay, without fleshing out that side of them to some extent, otherwise, they're not all that gay. But I guess that's sort of what you're looking for? Characters who are gay, but aren't neccisarily this token gay kid, who's entire adventure (Whether it be book/movie) are focused around either finding love, or the woes of being gay.

Whatever. This topic is gay.

 

[kataklysm336]

I would just like to thank everyone that responded to my well thought out and explained posts. I can see this is a conversation you guys really care to talk about and discuss rather than just state your opinion and then leave...

I do what I can, Kata.

I do kind of agree with some of your points (condemning people that are close-minded, for instance, doesn't really absolve anything), but some of your analogies ("awful baseball" versus "amazing basketball") are godawful. It's an entirely different dynamic when you compare a lifestyle and/or culture versus a passtime. You don't live a passtime; it's a ****ing hobby. Something you pass the time with.

Also, it isn't impossible to organically include something like a character's sexual orientation into a story.

Smooth Criminal

The analogies are relevant. I am not comparing liking basketball to being gay. I am comparing liking basketball to liking movies that don't pertain to homosexuals/minorities. The government and entertainment worlds are vastly different. The former is there to assure that homosexuals are represented and their rights are upheld, the latter makes no such commitment. In fact, the entertainment industry is there to cater to the interests of MOST people and MOST people aren't concerned with gay rights. They don't want to pay money to go see a movie that they can't connect with, and there is nothing wrong with that. Entertainment is there to, well, entertain. People aren't entertained by things that they aren't interested in or can't connect with. It doesn't mean they are being closed minded, just that they don't want politics flooding their movies/books/etc. If they wanted to support gay rights they would be in Washington at a rally, not in the movie theatre in their hometown.

Are you intentionally trying to be thick?

Sexual inclination is just one aspect of a person. A gay person isn't defined by their being gay. What Smooth Criminal is saying is that our media could reflect that. Instead of having the gay character in your story be "the gay guy", he should just be a character whose personality is constructed of many things including but not limited to his sexual preferences.

Really now? So what makes a gay person gay is somehow not related to their sexual orientation...that's interesting. To me, them having a different sexual orientation is the ONLY thing that separates them from straight people. Without explicitly saying or hinting at their orientation, I would otherwise not ever know or make a judgement about their orientation.

What I am assuming you mean, is that them being gay isn't the only aspect of their character. In which case I agree, and there would be no way to distinguish them from straight people so what's with all the complaining?

I want everyone to understand that the topic of this thread is "THERE AREN'T ENOUGH GAY PEOPLE IN MOVIES"...which is just another way of saying "THERE ARE TOO MANY STRAIGHT PEOPLE IN MOVIES!" If I replaced the word "straight" with "gay" in the previous sentence you would all condemn me for being a bigot, so think about what that makes you.

 

[Jam Stunna]

uhh. anyways.



you mean like?:

Brokeback Mountain
Milk
Monster
Magnolia
Boogie Nights
Being John Malkovich
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
Desperate Living
Pink Flamingoes
Room in Rome
Mulholland Drive

Oh God, what a horrible movie. I saw it at a LGBT film festival at my school, and I literally laughed out loud

Spoiler

during the bathtub Cupid scene

. It tried soooooo hard to be artsy and serious, and just came across as absurd.

 

[Fuelbi]

Gay people are gay

It's ok for me to say bad things about them because I have a gay friend

 

[Luigitoilet]

Oh God, what a horrible movie. I saw it at a LGBT film festival at my school, and I literally laughed out loud

Spoiler

during the bathtub Cupid scene

. It tried soooooo hard to be artsy and serious, and just came across as absurd.

I actually haven't seen it. it looked like a slightly more artistic Skinemax movie. guess I wasn't too far from the truth!

 

[Holder of the Heel]

"The Kids Are All Right" is a pretty decent lesbian couple family movie about their kids (Peeta and Alice from Wonderland) meeting their sperm donor (who is the Avenger Hulk). Saw that like two days ago on TV, perhaps doesn't add too much to the discussion, but recommend checking it out regardless.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Brokeback Mountain
Milk
Monster
Magnolia
Boogie Nights
Being John Malkovich
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
Desperate Living
Pink Flamingoes
Room in Rome
Mulholland Drive

Will and Grace
The Birdcage
Prime
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry

Those are a few more just off the top of my head. You may also notice that most of my examples feature overly flamboyent gay characters. At least I didn't mention Krod Mandoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire

 

[Luigitoilet]

I'm really not against that super flamboyant obnoxious gay guy stereotype because those people exist and are pretty common...though not all of them are gay, so there is that, but in my experience it does tend to go hand in hand.

 

[Spelt]

It's funny because the actors who play non-flamboyant gay guys are always straight.

 

[Teran]

Probably because if you are openly gay as an actor you will be typecast as a ***got.

Not everyone is lucky like Ian McKellen.