should there be more gay characters in movies, /tv/?
every character should be gay
>>71755036
If it serves the story, yes.
If it's to serve a political agenda, then no.
>>71755074
Thats offensive to Trans/mentality ill though
>>71755036
>Takei went on to say that while Cho, Pegg, and Lin consulted with him ahead of time, that he in turn pushed back against the idea that making Sulu gay could honor him when he and Rodberry had always viewed the character as heterosexual — and was disappointed when Pegg and Lin pushed ahead with the plan, regardless of his opposition.
like we needed anymore proof that Takei is based and Pegg is a limp writes fag. it feels good to see minorities push against tokenism and patronizing pandering
No, there should be EXACTLY the same amount as there is now. No more, no less. We're at the perfect amount.
Holy shit Uhura's gay?
I'm pretty sure that by this point gays are over represented compared to their population. Like blacks.
>>71755177
Why can't all fags and minorities be like George fucking Takei? The man is a legend. He understands the difference between equality and pandering.
>>71755211
Thats offensive to singularly sexual gays though
why is who people like to fuck so fucking important to some people?
>George Takei BTFOs the change as a disgrace to Roddenberry's legacy
>>71755036
"I think it's really unfortunate."- George Takei (Original Sulu)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-takei-reacts-gay-sulu-909154
>>71755274
Based.
I respect him even more.
I say that as a bi faggot. Fuck pandering.
>>71755264
He's right. they're just shoehorning this shit in to be "progressive" and trendy. it's fucking disgraceful.
I'm ok with new characters being LGBT or non white, I hate when they change original characters to pander to different groups.
>>71755262
its all they have in life
>>71755074
and black, dont be racist goyim
I think the real problem is that general audiences have a problem with, or at least are perceived to have a problem with, seeing gay characters and relating to them.
Gay kids grow up watching straight films all the time, yet apparently the opposite is just too difficult for adults.
>>71755101
I don't know about that, though.
I don't think you have to be a Chekhov's Gay.
So long as they have something else to them, and this is on the writer, I don't see a problem with someone just being gay cause they're gay.
That's what people are.
Obvious 'symbolism' aside, I see it as just another thing to make your character more of a person, like putting a bit of thought into what t-shirt some character wears, or being being shown liking some music or another.
3% of the US population are LGBT. 25%+ of all characters in Hollywood are gay, it would seem.
17% of US are black. 100% of all superheros are black.
>>71755357
t. sjw
>>71755036
Who will be tranny.
Scotty?
>>71755357
We're tired of seeing you parade around your sanctimonious support of a population so small that it's statistically irrelevant, just to show that YOU'RE hip, progressive, trendy and with it.
neck yourself you useless cunt
CGI Chekov gay scene?
>>71755384
Just gay, bruh.
Off the top of my head, I can't come up with any 'confirmed gay' characters in films that weren't obviously for a gay audience, or about gay subject matter.
Would have liked to see that growing up; the 'big' gay movies the local store had were all mainstream, which usually means being centered around violence and conflict.
>>71755101
So u agree straight characters in movies are serving a political agenda?
>>71755456
Not saying make established characters gay at random to get a quick buck.
I'm just saying that I think it's sad that this is the only 'risk' major studios will take with gay content/characters.
Only smaller films actually take the time and effort to write good, original, gay characters, and the only ones that are going to see them are gay adults, and maybe some gay kids with some lienant parents.
I mean, a movie like this is brutal as fuck in its banter (And pretty un'PC', telling blacks to eat watermelon) and no one's going to see it cause it'll make their dick smaller or some shit they think.
>>71755513
>bruh
I'm a chick, and SJWs make me gag.
>>71755672
Welp, there goes the thread
>>71755672
Spouting your buzzword does not a conversation make
If you were a straight Hollywood actor, would you play a gay dude, and be kissin and feeling up another man on camera. I wouldn't.
>>71755738
Yes because it's called ACTING and you get paid a shit ton of money to do it.
Unless it has something to do with the plot who gives a fuck?
>>71755101
>>71755812
This.
>>71755036
Surprise! We just turned another established character you all love gay/tranny/black/female!
They only change established characters so they can "show those evil bigots!" They can't make a NEW character because then they wouldn't get to piss people off and that just wouldn't do.
>>71755036
There should be exactly the same proportion of minority characters in a story as there are IRL.
For instance, say that 1% of Americans are gay. Therefore, a movie set in America should have a 1% proportion of gay characters.
For instance, let's say there are 25 named characters in a film. Therefore, 1/4 of one of those characters should be gay; say, there right leg and part of the torso.
>>71755827
That's the problem
>>71755812
You mean, why do it?
Do you assume characters are straight when it's not addressed? How do you feel about maybe some bit of dialogue or throw-away scene revealing straight sexuality without an attachment to the over all plot?
>>71755788
This
Are gay people seriously incapable of relating to someone unless they shove cocks up their ass? Is there nothing more to homosexuals than they're craving for cock?
>>71755904
See >>71755357
Generally, you'll find quite the opposite.
>>71755865
Not always tho. Some gay people tend to gravitate to certain interests, hence a higher population of them. Same with women, blacks, whites, men. It's like nursing and a film or show showing nurses, it's simply a fact that women dominate that field, and at least 80% of them would be on screen, despite women being 50% of the general population.
Can't just go by general population.
>>71755178
Practically none is a perfect amount? I suppose if you don't want to be reminded that gay people exist...
>>71755223
At what level of resolution is your standard of "representation" determined? Movie to movie? Year to year? Out of all movies of all time? Numbers are more tricksy than they appear to be.
>>71755177
I think it's really more of Takei expressing his own insecurities than anything. Even though he's very visibly out of the closet now, he's from a generation where being out was a terrifying concept - he's talked frequently of the impact the outing of actor Tab Hunter, a man just a few years his senior, had on him in the 1950s. He went from a burgeoning Hollywood star to a nobody overnight, and that's why Takei stayed closeted until he was nearly seventy. That kind of hesitance to be identified doesn't go away easily.
>>71755960
No, it's pretty clear that he's against just changing people to gay, when they're nearly cannon straight.
Had the creator thought of the character differently, I doubt he'd see a problem with it.
>>71755952
What are you, some sort of homophobic cis shithead?
Fuck you for thinking reality can come anal love.
>>71755997
can come *between
>>71755614
Are you retarded?
>>71756053
Except for obvious cases such as >>71755827, that would be the logical conclusion. Sometimes a character is just gay, like people are gay.
Not every gay character is meant to be shoved down your throat in a personal conspiracy against you.
>>71755635
it's just it tends to be difficult to make interesting gay characters that are seen as fun for the whole audience without being lewd for some reason. Look at Wallace from Scott Pilgrim.
Should've made Chekov gay instead. His character was a bit flat in the other movies and he kinda seemed like he'd be ok with getting slammed against some wood.
>>71755036
Pandering to SJW's is literally the most futile and retarded thing you can possible do, they will never be satisfied. Ever.
You could set a movie in Africa and they would complain that it needs more black people.
>>71755899
I think anon means as long as an established straight character is not turned gay because of sjw shit esp. when being hetero was kind of important to their characterization or the plot.
>>71756139
I don't mind Wallace, actually. I think he might be one of the most well-done outside 'gay cinema'.
He's still a guy, he just like guys. As a slice of life out his and Scott's relationship, I think it'd be spot on.
Lewd isn't always bad. I prefer it to the 'gay, but not offensive' characters I see.
>how to do gay properly
>have it as a part of the character, don't making it a defining characteristic and don't really comment on it unless the movie is entirely about their homosexuality
>if it's clearly a statement, if it's their only defining characteristic, or if it's for publicity, it's shit
>>71755997
I hope this is a satire post. I'm bi and transgender, so shut the fuck up.
>>71755036
it should be about 10% to reflect reality.
Also it should be all straight white male cast to reflect what feminist believe, and keep them well fed and paid.
>>71756201
This. They just want more and more power.
>>71755317
>Star Trek wasn't "progressive" and "trendy"
Literal spawned both euqality and ripped on the trend of both 10000 leagues under the sea and lost in space.
But yeah, JJ Abraham is doing a terrible job.
>>71756267
But wouldn't swj get angry about stereotypical/ same display of homosexuals all the time (even though most are like that as confirmed by their parades]?
>'gay, but not offensive
And expand on that. Like what?
>>71756201
no no, i've seen them complain that the enemies were black people even though it was africa. It doesn't matter, you're dealing with cult mentality.
It's like trying to deal with any religious doctrine.
>>71756201
Having more gay characters doesn't HAVE to be pandering, or have to be done shittily, though.
Don't be so fucking sensitive. Seeing gay people isn't going to make you gay.
So he's gay because he's Asian or he's Asian because he's gay?
SULU IS GAY?!?!?!
AS A LONG TIME FAN OF THE SERIES FROM OST TO TNG AND VOYAGER I DID NOT SEE THIS COMING!
GASP SHOCK GASP!
>>71755960
Quit making things up, the Trek community knew he was gay for the longest time, he just never felt the need to ever "out" himself until he felt it benefited his activism toward gay marriage. He's just operating off the belief that creator vision should actually matter, the character was married and had a kid and now he's gay for kicks, despite the person they're trying to pander to objecting to it and really for a good reason since there would definitely not be a closet at that point anyway.
>>71756361
>bi
>transgender
Damn, that's a double whammy of special. Way to be a unique individual!
>>71756483
the fuck! i just heard it in his voice!!!
>>71755738
If Hugh Jackman could do it then sure, i'd do it.
Preferably WITH Hughe Jackman, but eh a role's a role.
>>71756431
Would they get offended? If they're actually SJW's or are from an older generation, I would say yes, young gay people wouldn't.
Take Cruising.
When it came out, it was a lot of gays themselves protesting, because then the images you saw of 'gay' people where criminals, murderers, freaks, or lowlives and not much of anything else. It was more important than to have ANY positive gay representation at all, not so much 'human' ones.
Now, I see the same movie played on gay movie nights and shit. People my age didn't really grow up with that atmosphere/caught the tail end of it, so I never thought of Cruising that way when I first saw it.
Now that we do actually have positive images of gays, even if only gays see them, we're at a point where we can start having gay villains or just shitty gays.
I see Wallace as a modern gay character, and in that context, we're good.
>'gay, but not offensive
>And expand on that. Like what?
Like having a gay character and taking pains to not show them doing or saying anything that might actually 'confirm' that they're gay or make straight audiences uncomfortable. (Especially when you get to see a straight character in the same film do much the opposite.)
So since Sulu is canon straight in the original universe, does this mean the cause of gayness is Romulan temporal invasions?
Seriosuly though, they should have made the gay one Chekov or something just because it's really obvious they made neo-Sulu gay because Takei is gay. Plus you get bonus progpoints for making the gay one a Russian in the age of anti-homo Putin laws.
i have such a deep personal investment in these chase scene movies. oh god my mind is blown.
>>71756183
someones been reading my slash fiction tumblr
>>71756618
Alright, I see. However, I think other less sane swj homosexuals and others will still bitch though.
>>71756887
I dunno. Granted it didn't have a wide release, but Stranger by the Lake showed cruising and male sexuality for what it is, for all it's faults/lewdness/'immorality', AND had a villain, and I didn't hear anything negative about its protrayl, from straight or gay.
>>71755036
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-takei-reacts-gay-sulu-909154
George Takei Reacts to Gay Sulu News: "I Think It's Really Unfortunate"
"I’m delighted that there’s a gay character," he tells The Hollywood Reporter. "Unfortunately, it’s a twisting of Gene’s creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it’s really unfortunate."
>>71755187
No, you dweeb. Read it again.
>>71755187
I fucking wish.
>>71756985
Based Takei. Other fags like Ian McClellan would have celebrated it solely because "moar gay = good"
>>71755960
>and that's why Takei stayed closeted until he was nearly seventy.
Takei was not in the closet you ignorant fuck.
He simply didn't announce to the world that he was gay and neither did anyone who knew and respected him.
>Takei actually knows all about his character
>He knows all about the research and planning that went into Sulu
Fuck, I thought he was just coasting off the Trek fame. I didnt know he was grand loremaster
>>71755036
THAT GUY IS SUPPOSED TO BE SULU?
is he even the same fucking race?
>>71755036
Asian men are going to go full SJW over this, they are already very angry over Asian men being desexualized in movies. And they should be angry, Jews have zero respect for them.
>>71755101
I agree with this, sexuality should not be based on political agenda. Therefore every pro-Republican and pro-Christian show needs to add some gay characters to balance it out.
They made Sulu gay because Takei is gay, which he finds insulting and I agree. Its almost suggesting that a gay actor should only play gay characters.
>>71755101
>If it serves the story, yes.
unless it's a story specifically about gay relationship I don't see how having a gay character or mentioning a person is gay can EVER add to the story without it seeming hamfisted.
>>71757586
You could say the same for straight sexuality.
Most gay characters are offensively obnoxious and almost always cardboard caricatures (See woody harrelson in Friends with Benefits). In part it's because of bad writing but the real problem with it is that there is nothing else to them character wise. Why make a character gay if it has absolutely no bearing on the story? Just to be progressive and please the gay and sjw audience? Would harry potter be any different if Dumblerdore was a cock sucker? Obviously not, so the only reason people do it is to pander.
>>71757614
straight characters aren't reminding the audience every minute that they love cock. it's hilarious how important sexuality is to homosexuals, it is literally all there is to their personality.
>>71756985
>Guys please don't make the manlet Asian a faggot
>Look at me, I'm basically a walking stereotype
>Pls guys
>Pls
>>71757649
Gay characters don't have to do this either.
>>71757615
>Why make a character gay if it has absolutely no bearing on the story?
Why make him straight? It could just be a facet of the character.
>>71757649
>straight characters aren't reminding the audience every minute that they love cock
The writers are every time they include a romance or a love interest or a sex scene or unnecessary nudity.
Didn't George Takei publicly masturbate some guy on the Howard Stern show? Why are we nodding anything to him? ugh
>>71757720
Didn't Trump con people out of thousands of dollars and is still being tried in court for it? Why are we trying to elect him? ugh
>>71757749
go suck a dick you fag
>>71757553
If that's true they would have made Spock a faggot since that actor actually is gay.
>>71757850
Except they already made him hetero in the first movie you stupid twat.
>>71757896
>doesn't know what gender fluid is
Back to /pol/ you ignorant moron
>>71757649
rekt Homollywood
>>71757850
Nimoy wasn't gay, and that's all that matters.
>>71757973
See >>71757684
Just because a straight cock doesn't mean you shouldn't notice it being jammed down your throat, boy.
*shrug.*
>>71756836
someone hasn't been reading the obituaries
>no one is going to see our third shitty star trek movie
>have to distract people from the fact that the russian kid died
>uh..make sulu gay
>has no importance on anything, but if you don't like it you'll look like a jerk
>>71757896
These are sequels, Sulu was never gay either you fucking idiot.
>>71755101
but the political agenda is the story now
actually it always has been
>>71758298
Sulu's sexuality was never brought up in the previous movies you stupid shit.
And in the tv series he was blatantly hetero.
>>71758298
And at no point in my post did I say he should be gay, you dumb nigger.
>>71755036
I didn't want him to be, but I saw it coming in the first movie:
>"What kind of combat training do you have?"
>"Fencing"
>>71755036
It seems more like a pointless gimmick than a creative decision, kind of like a tamer version of the female ghostbusters
To me at least there is little point in explicitly telling or suggesting to us that a character is gay (or any sexuality, for the matter) unless it has something to do with the plot or the movie deals with themes surrounding homosexuality or sexuality in general.
>>71755264
Roddenberry wanted to make the captain of the Enterprise a woman, but the producers told him fuck no.
I'm sure he wouldn't mind.
>>71757682
Why even bother mentioning his sexuality at all? It has no relevance to the books or anything and was not actually portrayed in the books proper
>>71755036
Friendly reminder that Gene Roddenberry wanted to do an episode of TOS with a gay character 50 years ago.
>>71758887
Why 'leave' a character straight, then?
Again, I'm talking about original characters here, not changing established characters.
>>71759003
He doesn't have to be declared straight, I'm saying his sexuality doesn't have to be mentioned at all.
One may assume that he's straight because most people generally are straight, but Rowling saying "btw dumbledore is straight" or "btw dumbledore is gay" is pointless. It's no different than saying "btw malfoy is a republican" or "btw harry is eco-friendly" If it has nothing to do with the books or the themes why even bother touching on it at all? It exists for no reason other than to pander to a certain audience.
>>71755036
Space AIDS is how they explain the death of Chekov off screen?
>>71755036
>implying most people in theater aren't gay already
No.
The whole idea of "representation" is retarded.
And Simon Pegg and Justin Lin were BTFO by George Takei:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-takei-reacts-gay-sulu-909154
>b-but we thought you'd like if sulu was a flaming homo just like you george!
Seriously, what is the fucking problem with making new characters?
"Make Elsa gay!"
"Make Iron Man a black woman!"
"Make Captain Marvel Muslim!"
This SJW revisionism needs to stop.
>>71755262
I bet you want to castrate all pedos you hypocrite.
>>71759086
>I'm saying his sexuality doesn't have to be mentioned at all.
Then he is straight. You parents don't live in la la land before you come out to them, they assume you're straight, and
>declared
See >>71757684
Many characters are 'declared' straight in ways that aren't noticeable when it's heterosexual in nature.
>>71759135
Revisionism =/= Representation
Media representation is important. In the case of gays, it's just as important for them as it is for the people they're going to live their lives with and the culture they're going to need to live in.
Randomly swapping a straight established character for a gay is wrong and cheap, but simply having gay characters is pretty fucking important.
>>71755357
>That's what people are.
Gay isn't a noun, gay is a verb.
"Gay identity" is bad meme.
>>71759223
Dear, by that logic gay would actually be an adjective.
However, you're a fucking moron.
First of all, that's how I meant it. Some people are just gay in the way that some people are just straight, and having a 'gay' oriented character shouldn't be used only when it serves the plot any more than a 'straight' oriented person would. Or any more than whatever the costume department decides which clothes 'are' the character at hand.
It's another layer.
Second of all, do you really think nothing could be shared by gays? Do you really think, in real life, little things don't add up to matter? Being gay could change it. Being from New Jersey v. California could change it.
Everything can mean everything or nothing, it's all in the writing.
>>71755904
Exactly.
Why do gay men have to spread their hatred and bigotry towards "disgusting" women everywhere?
The main requirement to be a gay man is to loathe women.
>>71759204
Yes, but that's in a romance movie, where their sexual orientation would be relevant. If there was a romance movie with gay character (eg. brokeback mountain) I wouldn't give a shit because sexuality will obviously play a role there because it's a romance movie
Tell me, what relevance does Dumbledore being gay or Malfoy being a Republican or Harry being eco-friendly have with the books? None. She just declared that outside the books for some bonus points with the audience and nothing more
>>71755960
>I think it's really more of Takei expressing his own insecurities than anything.
Fuck off you mentally ill faggot.
He said himself it's going against Gene Roddenberry's vision. These retards Pegg and Lin thought Takei would love them for it, and Takei told them what he wanted, and those fucks cynically pandered to the SJWs anyway.
Plus, to suggest that Sulu has been closeted in decades of media is offensive to George.
another success for mental illness.
>>71757480
This.
r/asianmasculinity must be having an aneurysm right now.
>>71759300
Clerks isn't a romance and I know the orientation of multiple characters in that film from watching a movie.
See >>71759269
What doesn't being gay have to DO with anything?
Either it's symbolic/serves the plot and there or you. It means that. Or, it's just another thing you know about your characters and it serves to make them more real to the viewer, and that's all it means.
There's a reason why we don't have all our characters filmed in burlap sacks. Nah, it probably doesn't matter really much that this character favors hoodies, or that that character wears sneakers, but that's what fucking people do, so that's what characters do.
>>71756183
>Should've made Chekov gay instead. His character was a bit flat in the other movies and he kinda seemed like he'd be ok with getting slammed against some wood.
Is this a joke about Yelchin being pinned by his Jeep against a mailbox?
>>71759366
>Either it's symbolic/serves the plot and there or you
Meant 'there you are', sorry
>>71755960
>That kind of hesitance to be identified doesn't go away easily.
he literally jerked some guy off on TV. he doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks about him
>>71756458
>Seeing gay people isn't going to make you gay.
Then why are the "children" of gay parents more likely to be gay?
Culture is imitative.
What's ridiculous is that SJWs think gender is a "performance" (due to that Jewish disphit Judith Butler), but that being gay is not a performance?
>>71759366
And instances where the orientation of multiple characters are hinted at is usually done when it's relevant to the plot. The author chiming in and saying that Dumbledore is gay or Sulu is gay when neither are relevant to anything is nothing more than a cheap PR stunt.
>>71759444
>Then why are the "children" of gay parents more likely to be gay?
Are they really, though? Even so, you're going to see more gay people as the culture becomes more tolerant to it.
>being gay is not a performance?
If you could stop being gay, any more than you could stop being straight, conversation therapy would actually work.
>>71757498
The whole idea of "balancing" characters according to demographics is fundamentally flawed.
The whole idea of "representation" is fundamentally flawed.
If people insists characters be "representatives" instead of individuals, it can only shape stereotypes (and therefore prejudice).
>>71759487
>And instances where the orientation of multiple characters are hinted at is usually done when it's relevant to the plot.
No, not really. There's tons of casual references to sexuality in film/tv.
Mentioning even that someone has a girl friend or wife, or simply giving them one, would do this.
That being said, I don't think it's bad, I just want the same acceptance of gay.
>The author chiming in and saying that Dumbledore is gay or Sulu is gay when neither are relevant to anything is nothing more than a cheap PR stunt
No shit, I said that, you fucking retard.
However, lets say that in the books, JK wrote a line about Dumbledore bringing his boyfriend to a school diner or something. (Bare with me, I know nothing like this happens.) That'd be totally fine. Hagrid is straight in the films, he wants to bang that giant chick, and that has no bearing on anything really, but we know Hagrid more for it.
He seems like a bro, and not an asexual alien.
>>71757615
>Most gay characters are offensively obnoxious and almost always cardboard caricatures
You mean just like real people who identify as "gay"?
>>71757684
They could be bisexual you fucking bigot.
>>71759558
>The whole idea of "balancing" characters according to demographics is fundamentally flawed.
Agreed, ideally.
We're getting there, and I think we can get there, but we're not there yet, and remember this has to go both ways.
>If people insists characters be "representatives" instead of individuals, it can only shape stereotypes (and therefore prejudice).
Growing up, anything gay I saw was of someone killing themselves, or killing others, or ending up in the streets, or dying at one hand or another.
I would've loved to see more 'normal' gay characters on screen. You can't act as if this sort of thing doesn't have an impact on humans, or we wouldn't watch films in the first place.
>>71757749
Didn't you hear about Trump supposedly raping a 13-year-old girl in a NY mansion owned by Jeffrey Epstein, just 30 blocks or so from the mansion used to shoot the exterior shots in Eyes Wide Shut?
Should have made anton yelchin gay with cgi or rape his twink corpse on screen
>>71757961
"Gender fluidity" is something some fish can do, not mammals.
The idea that gender is a "performance" was created by some stupid Jewish bulldyke in the late 80s, because she had apparently never heard of the term "gender norms."
/pol/ was right
>>71758753
Oh God, Simon Pegg retconned it to mean penis fencing.
B R A V O
R
A
V
O
>>71757159
original cast are all masters of lore
shatner and nimoy knew shit inside out (this is well known), but takei, koenig and doohan knew their shit too. they're a pretty tight knit family
>>71758854
Well, see, there's a ticking time bomb and Sulu has to kiss some hot female alien to prevent the time bomb from going off, and that's when Sulu announces "but I'm gay" and then everyone dies because gay men hate women so fucking much and are disgusted by the sight of them.
>>71758753
How is fencing gay? How is any kind of swordplay gay?
>>71759663
>Growing up, anything gay I saw was of someone killing themselves, or killing others, or ending up in the streets, or dying at one hand or another.
are you 60 years old?
>>71759797
You don't think a dudebrofootballbudwiser guy would consider such a skinny, flimsy 'sword', and a crisp white outfit masculine?
Not saying you're wrong, but that's how it's perceived.
Impressive as it is, athletic as it is, it's the same reason why people think dancing/gymnastics are faggy.
>>71759204
In this case, they're using revisionism to increase the representation of some supposedly "oppressed" demographic (which is actually an extremely highly catered-to minority).
And media representation is NOT important. These are fictional characters. They're not real. They don't "stand-in" for anyone. They don't actually "represent" anyone. People who "identify" with characters are just glomming on to some artificial image, a simulation.
And simply having gay characters is not "pretty fucking important." It's totally irrelevant.
In 100,000 years, insects will still be here (and humanity may even be extinct). Gay fictional characters won't.
It's not important in the least.
>Rainbows in all their posters
It makes sense now
>>71759808
No, but Blockbuster would only stock 'acclaimed' gay titles, if they were there are at, and all acclaimed gay movies are either old, which was your point, or Oscar bait like Philadelphia. That and random 'evil gays' would pop up where you don't expect like watching like Vanishing Point.
>>71759584
First of all, to touch upon >>71759204
not mentioning someone's sexuality =/= straight. That's you projecting your own expectations, assumptions, and insecurities into the movie and the characters. Saying "x must be straight because he didn't say he had a boyfriend" is fallacious.
I never argued that gay characters should not exist, my complaint is the author simply declaring someone is gay for PR approval and presenting them like trophies instead of actually working them in to the movie or media in some way and showing them as regular people. If Rowling actually gave a shit about homosexuals then yes, she wouldn't written about it instead of making a shitty announcement that "btw dumbledore is gay"
Maybe Star Trek Beyond will do that. But the mere fact that this is considered breaking news and the previous Star Trek movie being shit does not inspire confidence.
>>71755036
Degeneracy
>>71755036
should've been Chekov since his actor got punded pretty hard from behind.
>>71759797
Do some porn searches for sword fighting and see what you get, then.
>>71759902
>And media representation is NOT important.
That is fucking stupid.
>People who "identify" with characters are just glomming on to some artificial image, a simulation.
Forgot only gay people identify with fictional characters.
>In 100,000 years, insects will still be here (and humanity may even be extinct).
Oh, wow, now that's the most retarded thing I've read all day? Why not kill yourself? Or stop eating?
Shit your pants every time because no one will remember you in a century, so fuck it, right?
>>71759269
Well homosexual behavior isn't an adjective, it's something you do, not something you are.
These LGBT morons will accept that gender is behavior, that gender is "performative" but that homosexuality isn't? It's fucking retarded.
And speaking of fiction, none of it fucking matters. Insects will inherit the Earth.
>>71759846
yeah, all that upperbody strength and those biceps sure are faggy. And dancing close to and grabbing a scantily clad woman is gay.
Anyone who says that has never even watched them.
>>71759979
oh i understand now never mind.
>>71759947
>not mentioning someone's sexuality =/= straight.
Mmmm, that's true, but I don't think it's fair to say, knowing how people act.
Maybe this won't be true in the future, I don't know, but to use the example again, before you come out to your parents, unless you're fucking FLAMING, you're parents do not exist in a state of not-knowing and keeping the options open, they think you're straight.
If you told someone that a random character is gay, there would be some debate on the matter. There'd need to be proof. If you told someone you thought a character was straight, unless they're some college kid making a point, there wouldn't be nearly as a hard fought debate about it.
>I never argued that gay characters should not exist, my complaint is the author simply declaring someone is gay for PR approval and presenting them like trophies instead of actually working them in to the movie or media in some way and showing them as regular people.
It gets murky here. Retconning (Even in the case of Rowling here, being the original author) is bullshit. I'm in agreement with you there.
However, like I said, if there were just some throw away line in the books as they came out, that indicating that Dumbledore was gay in some way, like some mention of his husband or something, I wouldn't mind any more than some secretary saying 'Sir, your wife called looking for you' in some office show.
>If Rowling actually gave a shit about homosexuals then yes, she wouldn't written about it instead of making a shitty announcement that "btw dumbledore is gay"
Agreed.
>Maybe Star Trek Beyond will do that. But the mere fact that this is considered breaking news and the previous Star Trek movie being shit does not inspire confidence.
Again, I've said this a number of times now, agreed. I'm not talking about changing established characters or adding things in after the thought for brownie points.
>>71759501
>Are they really, though?
>research has revealed that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity
-American College of Pediatricians
>The preceding nine studies suggest that children raised by homosexual or bisexual parents are approximately 7 times more likely than the general population to develop a non-heterosexual sexual preference
-Trayce L. Hansen
>If you could stop being gay, any more than you could stop being straight, conversation therapy would actually work.
And yet these same people who are against conversation therapy for gays probably want pedophiles to get treatment to change their attractions.
It's a behavior, and behaviors can be changed. Responses to be stimuli can be altered. As seen in the studies mentioned above.
>>71759997
>Well homosexual behavior isn't an adjective, it's something you do, not something you are.
No. You're gay/homosexual/whatever, regardless if you actually fuck dudes or not.
There are gay virgins. There are gay men who chose to make a life with a woman.
It's an orientation.
>These LGBT morons will accept that gender is behavior, that gender is "performative" but that homosexuality isn't? It's fucking retarded.
No, really, it's not. You're straight before you actually get to fuck anyone, and I was gay before I got to fuck anyone.
>And speaking of fiction, none of it fucking matters. Insects will inherit the Earth.
Slow your edge. I know it's summer, but it's getting kind of late now.
>>71760025
I'm not saying it is faggy, I'm just saying that people call it faggy, and that it can have that implication is those writing have the same opinion.
Obviously not in Treck's case, but you get my point.
>>71760129
Child molesting is harmful and non-consenting, obviously there's much more, and more justifiable, a push to get pedophiles to chance their ways. Most of the time you find out someone is a pedophile, it's not simply because they are a pedophile, but because they have crossed the line into some form of abuse.
> behaviors can be changed
Homosexual is an orientation, practicing homosexuality is, well, practicing homosexuality.
You might get someone to stop acting on their urges, but they're still gay.
>>71759663
>We're getting there, and I think we can get there, but we're not there yet, and remember this has to go both ways.
So your ideal is perfect representation of all demographics in fiction? It's an impossible goal, bound to lose, doomed to fail.
It's like a fictional map having a scale of "a mile to a mile", or Borges' map of an empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science
>I would've loved to see more 'normal' gay characters on screen. You can't act as if this sort of thing doesn't have an impact on humans, or we wouldn't watch films in the first place.
And how would your life be different aside from liking something?
Normal how? In being the demographic with the highest prevalence of HIV? In being highly promiscuous and only like 4% of them being in monogamous relationships?
In 2014, there were 119.4 million adult men in the US. Say 4% of them were gay. Thats' 4.776 million gay adult men in the US.
There are also 1.2 million people in the US with HIV, and over 156,000 of them are unaware of it.
>>71760099
>If you told someone that a random character is gay, there would be some debate on the matter. There'd need to be proof. If you told someone you thought a character was straight, unless they're some college kid making a point, there wouldn't be nearly as a hard fought debate about it.
Yes, they may think that, but the true answer is "we don't know."
>However, like I said, if there were just some throw away line in the books as they came out, that indicating that Dumbledore was gay in some way, like some mention of his husband or something, I wouldn't mind any more than some secretary saying 'Sir, your wife called looking for you' in some office show.
Fair enough. If the dialogue is natural then it's of no concern to me, because then the film is just representing reality.
>>71755036
There should be less gay characters in movieand in real life.
>>71755036
I don't care if it's tastefully done. Like what they said about Sulu, it's going to be nonchalant. That kind of shit is fine with me and adds up to the canon: Sulu was never with a woman in the entirety of Star Trek and while he does have a daughter revealed in Generations, it's entirely plausible they got a surrogate to give birth to the baby.
>>71755036
kirk should be gay. just say that all the times it did not work out with women was due to his fear of commitment and gayness (like with iceman)
>>71760282
>So your ideal is perfect representation of all demographics in fiction? It's an impossible goal, bound to lose, doomed to fail.
No? Can you fucking read?
I'm saying, ideally, and where we can strive to get to, is demographics not mattering.
If a show is full of straights? No one care or complain. If a show is full of gays? No one care or complain.
>And how would your life be different aside from liking something?
For me, personally, I'd probably be better off not associating my given orientation is death and misery.
Certainly, it would have helped society to chill the fuck out about it. If you're a kid growing up gay, and every gay on TV is killing or killed, kids make fucking fun of you. Do you live in the real world?
>Normal how?
Some people are gay.
>In being the demographic with the highest prevalence of HIV?
That's a men's problem. How many shitty standups complain about using condoms?
If you a man he didn't have to wear a condom, most wouldn't wear a condom, especially if there were ZERO risk of pregnancy, and AIDS wasn't yet a thing. You'd make sure that pussy wasn't dripping puss and go to town. Only the threat of pregnancy and women take this opportunity from you.
>In being highly promiscuous and only like 4% of them being in monogamous relationships?
When until recently divorce was tabboo and you've got mixed incomes and kids keeping you together, no shit, two dudes who started to go south with their relationship wouldn't stick it out. There's literally no reason to, especially before you could even fucking get married.
What's your point? You just hate gays?
>>71755187
>>71757078
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p81Rxpqee5g
>>71755036
>Among all U.S. adults aged 18 and over ... 1.6%
identified as gay or lesbian
so with that in mind, if you have a 60 person ensemble cast then yes, you should have 1 gay person. But given that's incredibly unrealistic for a main cast anyone calling for equal representation needs to fuck off. If you want to count extras as part of that you likely already have gays in your production because they're theatrefags so it doesn't matter
>>71759995
>That is fucking stupid.
Explain why demographics being "represented" in made-up stories is important. These are not real people.
>Forgot only gay people identify with fictional characters.
Why should anyone? Again, you're talking about fake people, artificial people, non-people, imaginary people, simulations. The fact that people do do that, only goes to show how much of a construct "identity" is.
>Oh, wow, now that's the most retarded thing I've read all day? Why not kill yourself? Or stop eating?
>Shit your pants every time because no one will remember you in a century, so fuck it, right?
If someone has had grandchildren and their relatives are all cared for, why not kill themselves? Their legacy is intact.
And nobody will remember you in a century, or anyone here.
DNA is the legacy of humanity. People talk about "legends" or stories, but in a few millenia they'll all be gone too. They "matter" in that they make money for people now which helps them raise their offspring.
People think this shit matters now, but only because have have no perspective of geological time.
>>71755036
Sulu is gay because Takei is gay.
It's a kind of a pottery.
>>71755614
No, but it does unconsciously serve a social agenda.
Most of the population is straight, as far as we know. Therefor, statistically speaking (which affects sociology), there should be far more straight characters in any given Western media than open gay characters.
Now take your bait of your line.
>>71755456
You have a good point, but you typed it in your greasy limey speak so I can't agree with it. You can fucking smell the vinegar from here.
>>71760460
>Explain why demographics being "represented" in made-up stories is important. These are not real people.
Because it helps us explore and understand ourselves.
It helps society explore and understand everyone.
If you think no one relates to characters, why doesn't anyone watch movies? Why are you here?
Most movies aren't fucking Mad Max, where you can get away with 'Oh, neat!' and be done with it. Most movies, most books, most songs, they're just about people being people somewhere.
>>The fact that people do do that, only goes to show how much of a construct "identity" is.
See, this just goes to show you that you literally have autism.
>People think this shit matters now, but only because have have no perspective of geological time.
Again, autism.
>>71760460
People like you don't deserve art
>>71760511
but if i doesn't come naturally to the story why do it? Why would you make someone compromise their product to satisfy a quota. You're treating it as if a film-maker needs to account for the rest of the industry when each film should be taken individually. You can't say to a film-maker oh everyone else hasn't put gay people in their films so you have to now. You can only talk about representation on a film by film basis. So on a film by film basis if the cast doesn't consist of more than 60 people it's not necessary to have a gay person based on representation according to demographics.
>>71760145
>No. You're gay/homosexual/whatever, regardless if you actually fuck dudes or not.
>There are gay virgins. There are gay men who chose to make a life with a woman.
>It's an orientation.
Yes, there are virgins who are attracted to the same-sex. But the attraction is a response. You could argue it's an uncontrollable reflex, some might argue it's imitative behavior based on the increased likelihood among children of same-sex couples, but engaging in homosexual acts is behavior.
And the whole "sexual orientation" meme is really about who or what you are attracted to, the object of your attraction, but they say it's only about gender (and then they declare that gender is "fluid", or "performative", a behavior).
>No, really, it's not. You're straight before you actually get to fuck anyone, and I was gay before I got to fuck anyone.
So being gay is not performative, it's just that a majority of gay men act the same way? There are homosexuals who reject the label "gay" and say there is dichotomy between gay and homosexual.
I can believe that virgins can be attracted to the same-sex. But attraction is an action. You could argue attraction is not a choice, that attraction is uncontrollable, but acting on urges is certainly controllable (unless someone is skeptical of free will, or that anybody can actually make conscious choices or decisions).
>Slow your edge. I know it's summer, but it's getting kind of late now.
It helps to put some perspective on things. Look 10,000 years ahead. Look 100,000 years ahead. Actions speak louder than words, and it is written in DNA.
>>71755036
more fags in movies would be ok as long as they act like real fags, lots of crying and screeching, bitch slapping, hair pulling, gossip about big dicks and diseases
>>71760635
>but if i doesn't come naturally to the story why do it?
Maybe that character's just gay. I'm not sure what you mean by 'naturally'.
Regardless, this isn't an issue with sexuality, it's an issue of writing.
>Why would you make someone compromise their product to satisfy a quota.
Who's making anyone do anything?
>So on a film by film basis if the cast doesn't consist of more than 60 people it's not necessary to have a gay person based on representation according to demographics.
Right? Why are you responding to me? If a movie has a cast of fucking three, and two of them happen to be gay, that's also fine.
>>71760638
> but they say it's only about gender
Sexuality =/= gender
>So being gay is not performative, it's just that a majority of gay men act the same way?
Act what way; fucking dudes? Yes, most homosexual men act like this way.
> But attraction is an action.
Wrong.
>but acting on urges is certainly controllable
Hey, look at that! You figured it out all by yourself!
Having urges =/= acting on urges.
>>71760229
Pedophilia is an attraction, abuse is not a requirement. Just like gay virgins exist. Just like heterosexual virgins exist. Pedophilia is an attraction pre-teens, but notice how nobody calls pre-teens who are attracted to other pre-teens pedophiles.
And homosexuality can also be non-consenting, as seen in Catholic clergy child sex abuse. People think those priests can be rid of their attraction to pre-teens but not their attraction to males?
The question is if people can change what they are attracted to. Conditioning exists. Dehabituation exists. Cognitive behavioral therapy exists. People overcome addictions all the time. Various stimuli change the reward reflexes in the brain. LGBT people reject the idea of "conversion therapy" or chemical castration for homosexuals, and yet many of them support treatment or chemical castration for pedophiles. On the one hand, they say attraction cannot be altered, and on the other, they believe attraction can be altered. So which is it?
"Orientation" is just another word for who or what you are attracted to. LGBT people say it's about "gender" (but then go on to say that gender is "fluid" or "performative" (according to Judith Butler) or is a way of acting or a behavior that can be altered). In which case trannies have redefined "sexual orientation" to mean which behaviors you're attracted to, which performances you're attracted to.
>>71760704
this. and thats all a normal fag stands out with.
making a character gay is pointless.
>>71760847
>Pedophilia is an attraction, abuse is not a requirement.
Hello, friend, if you actually read my post you'd see that I said exactly that.
>but notice how nobody calls pre-teens who are attracted to other pre-teens pedophiles.
Because that's not an abusive pairing, one, and two, isn't likely to last as they age. (At least not exclusively.)
>And homosexuality can also be non-consenting, as seen in Catholic clergy child sex abuse.
Homosexual pedophilia =/= what we're talking about here; simply homosexuality.
>People think those priests can be rid of their attraction to pre-teens but not their attraction to males?
Absolutely not. I do not think priests can rid themselves of their attraction to little boys. What I think they can do is stop fucking them.
>LGBT people reject the idea of "conversion therapy" or chemical castration for homosexuals, and yet many of them support treatment or chemical castration for pedophiles.
Because it's harmful and non consenting when they cross the line into molester status.
Most people conflate the two; I don't.
>On the one hand, they say attraction cannot be altered, and on the other, they believe attraction can be altered. So which is it?
They're not trying to stop the attraction, they're trying to stop the acting on it in the most extreme, and in their mind effective, manner.
>"Orientation" is just another word for who or what you are attracted to.
It's literally this, yes. Don't conflate that with who you actually fuck.
>LGBT people say it's about "gender"
Again, no. No one says this. Orientation is not about gender, you fucking retard, or else you couldn't have both straight and gay males.
In which case trannies have redefined "sexual orientation" to mean which behaviors you're attracted to, which performances you're attracted to.
Anon, do you really think being trans is about who you're attracted to sexually? You don't know what you're talking about, I mean this sincerely .
>>71760394
>I'm saying, ideally, and where we can strive to get to, is demographics not mattering.
So if the media just keeps keeps trying to "fix" underrepresentation in fictional works then eventually representation of demographics will no longer matter?
>For me, personally, I'd probably be better off not associating my given orientation is death and misery.
Exclusive homosexuality is a genetic dead-end, end of line, it is death (and many gay men died from AIDS due to their behavior. They valued sex more than their own lives.)
>If you're a kid growing up gay, and every gay on TV is killing or killed, kids make fucking fun of you.
Heterosexuality is valued by conservatives because every one of your ancestors going back to the dawn of sexual reproduction was heterosexual, pro-life. Exclusive homosexuality is the end of that.
And Hollywood has had a gay agenda for years now, it's been very successful. And like Bill Burr said, when boys call another boy a "fag", it's not always about homosexuality.
>What's your point? You just hate gays?
No, I just think that many gays are mentally ill, destructive, overrepresented in the media, practically worshipped these days instead of seen as just another person who can have flaws, and there's no pride in shitting on 4 billion years of ancestors (unless someone honestly thinks that life was a mistake and that birth only increases the amount of suffering in the universe).
>>71761189
>So if the media just keeps keeps trying to "fix" underrepresentation in fictional works then eventually representation of demographics will no longer matter?
Not in the way you're making it out to be, but in a round about way, yes. If gays weren't so starrved, then we wouldn't be having a flood of them now. And if straights weren't so butthurt and understood the reasons for the 'flood', no one would be burthurt about never seeing gays.
If everyone could just chill the fuck out, yeah, it wouldn't matter.
>Exclusive homosexuality is a genetic dead-end, end of line, it is death
Doesn't matter, especially if like you've said, the world will go to insects. Can't have it both ways.
>Heterosexuality is valued by conservatives because every one of your ancestors going back to the dawn of sexual reproduction was heterosexual, pro-life. Exclusive homosexuality is the end of that.
First of all, that doesn't matter, second of all, little kids don't give a shit about that.
>And Hollywood has had a gay agenda for years now, it's been very successful.
As successful as the 'straight agenda'?
>And like Bill Burr said, when boys call another boy a "fag", it's not always about homosexuality.
I'm not just saying they said 'fag', I'm saying they make fun of gay kids.
>No, I just think that many gays are mentally ill, destructive,
lol, sure is summer.
>overrepresented in the media
You really think that? Out of centuries of art?
>and there's no pride in shitting on 4 billion years of ancestors (unless someone honestly thinks that life was a mistake and that birth only increases the amount of suffering in the universe).
Ha, holy shit, dude. Again, if your insect shit is true, humans don't matter at all.
>>71755177
This is what gets me.
Everyone else is pandering and the one actual gay guy, one of the most outspoken members of the gay community, calls bullshit on it... when it's in honor of him.
Takei is amazing. You couldn't ask for a better gay guy to front your cause.
>>71759135
>"Make Captain Marvel Muslim!"
It was actually Ms. Marvel, which was always a different character to Captain Marvel, that was replaced with a new Muslim character. But the new Ms. Marvel is hot as fuck so i'm fine with it.
Making Captain Britain a Muslim woman out of nowhere, though, that was just fucking retarded garbage.
>>71761189
>No, I just think that many gays are mentally ill, destructive, overrepresented in the media, practically worshipped these days instead of seen as just another person who can have flaws, and there's no pride in shitting on 4 billion years of ancestors (unless someone honestly thinks that life was a mistake and that birth only increases the amount of suffering in the universe).
Just because you see a lot on tv doesn't mean it is alot. Most of us are just normal people living our lives, we aren't marching in the street, yelling on tv or making movies or doing drugs and having sex all the time. What you see on tv and in the media are just as much a minority to us as they are to you.
>>71755036
There should be Less gays on the planet.
>>71755827
Why is there no women equivalent of Takei to call bullshit on the new Ghosbusters?
It's literally just gender swapping characters to pander, create controversy, and sell tickets. But no woman is standing up and saying that it's bullshit.
>>71755357
kys
>>71761390
>>71756361
T. Snowflake
>>71755036
I think every character should be gay
>>71756985
Takei is a molesting psychopath.
>>71760847
You Will Burn in Hell.
>>71761397
oh look two paths and not three or four.
You do Not Belong. Begone.
>>71761450
I just wanna have homosex, don't get so asspained
>>71756456
it's a mental disability.
they are sub 90 IQ and that is being generous.
Why can't Sulu be a girl
>>71755101
in this case it's neither, they thought they were honoring Takei because you couldn't have gay guys on a 1960s television show, although apparently misguided >>71755177
>>71760511
>Because it helps us explore and understand ourselves.
>It helps society explore and understand everyone.
It's been said "fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth." But why are proportional ratios important?
Characters who are different from consumers could help them empathize with different people (reading fiction has been shown to increase empathy). What does seeing a character you can identify with do? Feel more a part of the story?
Many complain about a movie having "no characters they could identity with." But that means they fail to empathize with anyone who doesn't look or talk or act like them. Instead of using fiction to walk in other people's shoes, they just want to keep walking in their same exact IRL shoes?
>If you think no one relates to characters, why doesn't anyone watch movies? Why are you here?
If someone has to be just like you in order to relate to them, or empathize with them, that shows a kind of inherent prejudice. Like if a white guy can only watch movies with an all-white cast, etc.
If gay people want to see more people like themselves on screen, it should be so other people could empathize with people like themselves (but representations are still inaccurate).
>See, this just goes to show you that you literally have autism.
People with autism have difficulty with perspective-taking, empathy. If a white person needs a superhero to be white in order to "identify" with him, it shows he has a problem with perspective-taking. If one can be influenced by a fictional character, it shows how identities are constructed: stories we tell ourselves.
>Again, autism.
I could argue this conversation is important to me, because right now I'm engaged in it. But I won't pretend it will matter in a million years.
Someone could argue that heterosexuality doesn't even matter, since humanity will eventually go extinct. Whether certain things "matter" is all about different scales of time.
>>71761478
Get the hazard tattoo while you're at it, Filth.
>>71755101
>If it serves the story, yes
you know it won't
>>71757684
>The writers are every time they include a romance or a love interest
because fucking women can't be interested in a story that doesn't involve romance. congrats, you just equated gay men to women's level of intellectual destitution.
>>71761908
>because fucking women can't be interested in a story that doesn't involve romance. congrats, you just equated gay men to women's level of intellectual destitution.
Why? Because you think gay people are complaining about movies not having more gay people in them?
I've never heard a gay person say that in my life.
>>71760541
I'm questioning the agenda of proportional representation in art (as if art should have such a "rule").
Do you think art should directly copy reality, in all its ratios? Merely regurgitate reality back to us, like a mirror? Because that's kind of the opposite of Star Trek.
Ignoring the fact that the boundaries of art have totally broken down, so that there is hardly any distinction between "art" and "not art" anymore, since anything and everything can be aestheticized, you could argue that art is like a map, and reality is like territory, but what is the point in a one-to-one correspondence of the two? A simulation can be mistaken for reality, but it can never be reality.
Did Lord of the Rings need more homosexual orcs? Did there need to be more elves with brown skin? Did Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane need to be a female?
>>71761928
so then why add "DURR IM GAY" characters?
>>71757684
But romances are or at least should serve as story plot point.
>>71761980
Why? Is there absolutely nothing else in a story that maybe more interesting? God knows we didn't need all that Tony x Pepper shit when we could've gotten Demon in a Bottle. In the Hobbit they literally forced a romance between one of the Dwarves and that female elf, that didn't exist in the books. It gets forced everywhere.
>>71761980
do or at least*
>>71762003
>movies are plagued by shitty, forced romance
>so let's add even more pointless gay romance
thanks fampai
>>71760744
>Sexuality =/= gender
They say that "sexual orientation" only concerns which gender you're attracted to (as opposed to who you are attracted to). In that way, they argue that pedophilia is not a "sexual orientation" since pre-teens are not a gender (even though pre-teens are their target of attraction).
>Act what way; fucking dudes? Yes, most homosexual men act like this way.
There are many "gay" mannerisms and not all homosexual men have them. For one, people have talked about a "gay lisp" or "gay accent" or "gay voice."
>Wrong.
Maybe attraction is a reaction rather than an action; a reflex, a response. But it's still a stretch to say a person's "identity" is based on such a reflex.
>Having urges =/= acting on urges.
Do you think therapy can't help people control their urges or change their urges?
>>71761975
I don't think they should but if they feel like they have to they should make it something original instead of taking someone else's creation and warping it. Its lazy.
>>71762034
Again, I'm not arguing for more of either.
>>71762003
Yes and your examples don't really serve the plot. Those just got shoehorned in because people think every movie needs a romance which is bullshit.
>>71762041
nah, lefties and the chosen are all about corrupting other people's work
>Not making Kirk and Spock bisexual
It's like they never read the fanfic!
>>71755036
>it's the asian guy
OF COURSE IT'S THE ASIAN GUY! WHO ELSE?
It's pretty lazy to be honest.
>>71755332
>I'm ok with new characters being LGBT or non white, I hate when they change original characters to pander to different groups.
Actually I think that's why the New Doctor Who didn't bother me even when proud fag Russell T Davies was writing it.
The show was constantly cycling new characters so even when something like the third of supporting character were 'incidentally' gay whenever resorted to making previously straight characters gay.
In fact the worst thing he did was have the doctor flirt with his female companion.
>>71756619
Actually yeah. A gay Chekov doesn't conflict with anything on the show, and sort of suits his demeanour in the movies. Also Putin.
Not sure what the jokes about his actor is about.
>>71755036
DESIGNATED
GAY
CHARACTER
>>71761009
>Because that's not an abusive pairing, one, and two, isn't likely to last as they age.
There is no abuse merely between attractor/attractee. And why would a boy cease being attracted to girls? The physical traits that made her attractive remain attractive.
>Homosexual pedophilia =/= what we're talking about here; simply homosexuality.
Homosexuality includes consensual pairings, nonconsensual pairings, and also just attraction.
>I do not think priests can rid themselves of their attraction to little boys.
Can heroin addicts rid themselves of their attraction to heroin?
>They're not trying to stop the attraction, they're trying to stop the acting on it
Or maybe they'd rather they be attracted to only adults.
>Don't conflate that with who you actually fuck.
No, they play a word game where sexual orientation only refers to which gender you're attracted to, therefore bestiality, pedophilia, objectophilia are not "orientations" but paraphilias.
>Orientation is not about gender, you fucking retard
Google define:sexual orientation
>a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
>Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender.
>Anon, do you really think being trans is about who you're attracted to sexually?
No, I just took the definition of sexual orientation (which gender you're attracted to), combined that with Butler's theory of gender "performativity" (which LGBT people accept), and it becomes "which performance you're attracted to."
I don't need to read Butler's books to know she's crazy, and confusing the word "gender" with "gender norms."
>>71762564
The actor is dead a known defect in his jeep may have caused it to slip out of gear and crush him after he exited it near his estate's entry gate.
>>71762705
I didn't hear about that, poor guy.
>>71762791
Worst part is that the jeep had been recalled.
>>71761281
>If everyone could just chill the fuck out, yeah, it wouldn't matter.
As opposed to say, people keep bringing up race, therefore ensuring that racism continues?
>Doesn't matter, especially if like you've said, the world will go to insects. Can't have it both ways.
Those insects reproduce by sexual reproduction. Someone could say it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a dead-end, since humanity itself is doomed, but that's pretty nihilistic (and just reaffirms conservative beliefs that homosexuality is concerned more about instant gratification than any kind of long-term sustainability). Even though humanity will eventually go extinct, many people still give birth and find that creating human life has value. Humanity still celebrates "succeses" in their time even though in billions of years it won't matter.
>First of all, that doesn't matter, second of all, little kids don't give a shit about that.
I think it does matter. Every homosexual alive today is the result of generation after generation of heterosexual couplings. Homosexuals consider that (or don't) and declare "yeah, I think we're done here."
>As successful as the 'straight agenda'?
Is there is a "straight agenda", it's a result of natural selection among a species that reproduces sexually.
>I'm not just saying they said 'fag', I'm saying they make fun of gay kids.
Yes, kids are very cruel. But I don't see how shows like Glee (or retconning Sulu to be gay) changes that.
>You really think that? Out of centuries of art?
I'm sure lots of LGBT people are happy to point out that a lot of art in ancient Greece was really fucking gay.
>Ha, holy shit, dude. Again, if your insect shit is true, humans don't matter at all.
Humans like to think they matter, humans don't like thinking they will die some day, humans don't like thinking about their own extinction. You could say that most people like living in a state of denial about the transience of everything, me included.
>>71761359
I guess I had kind of forgotten that many gay people might not feel like the media is getting their story "straight" (as it were).
I think people looking to media messages for information can lead to caricatures and stereotypes, rather than looking at people as individuals. I can understand people wanting to see, say, positive role models in the media, but I think even that can backfire when it comes to fictional characters.
Star Trek has been noted as a progressive show. Pegg and Lin probably thought they were being progressive by making Sulu gay, and thought Takei would approve, but he didn't. They wanted to introduce a gay character in the Star Trek universe, but then they've possibly offended Asian men (who also complain about underrepresentation in American TV and films) by suggesting that Asian men are effeminate (and maybe I've just offended some homosexuals by suggesting homosexuals are effeminate).
>>71763149
>but then they've possibly offended Asian men (who also complain about underrepresentation in American TV and films) by suggesting that Asian men are effeminate (and maybe I've just offended some homosexuals by suggesting homosexuals are effeminate)
>gotta walk on eggshells to avoid offending anyone
>someone always gets offended anyway
you'd think people would get tired of this shit sooner or later
>>71763149
>>71763216
People need to grow thicker skin.
>>71755036
to be honest there should be a real movie for real people, i mean a film with entirly LGBTQNZLMFAOG characters, and they are all double gay. Some of them a triple gay with multiple sets of genitalia and they all wear badges referring to their preferred gender pronoun. They should always mention that pronoun at any opportunity.
seriously though, why do people make such a big deal, how can gay/ness be normalized (and it kinda is already but it constantly bandwagoned by the media "oh we are so open and inclusive" wank wank) if it is always such a big stupid deal.
plus straight actors playing gay characters is like white guys doing black face...haha not really but im sure someone has said that on salon or some shitty site.
>>71763216
this post offends me
>>71763256
or alternatively, we need to bring back the notion that everyone's opinions and feelings don't matter and no one cares if you're offended.
>>71755036
You know what, in the future Rodenbury envisioned, it would make sense for their to be gay people.
But making Sulu gay because George Takei is gay is fucking dumb. Takei himself was against the idea and has vehemently stated that his life shouldn't bleed in an define Sulu's.
If anything, Bones should be gay. Half the time Kirk was making out with some chick McCoy would just be standing off to the side watching, in the same room.
>>71763313
Same thing.
>>71763313
feeling matter, opinions don't. But feelings are subjective and we should (in a perfect world) be able to manage them in a mature way, like say: letting go of things that are stupid and harmful to you and understanding that you can only feel the way you feel if you feel that way, no one can force a feeling on a person.
Opinions are useful in that they open up a certain POV, which may or may not be useful. But generally are not.
example: "muuhhhh feelings aur taht freedum oopinion of speech trigger feeling ahhhhhhhhhhhhh"
>>71763341
jerkin' it
>>71761378
That's because women have no personal integrity. It's all team-based.
>>71761434
Do you think boys who are attracted to girls will burn in hell?
As boys get older, they should start think girls they were attracted to are ugly and repulsive?
>>71755614
No, because heterosexuality is default regardless of what the pride and SJW movements are trying to tell you.
Sex between a man and a woman, though perverse in the sense that it is done solely for pleasure and not for reproduction has proven to be healthy for both parties involved, both mentally and socially.
Sex acts engaged by Transsexuals and Homosexuals (or any other sexual deviation from the norm) has proven to lead to the opposite;
poor mental health and social status.
People hate faggots, and rightfully so; they are degenerates that thinks sex actually matters, that it is this huge part of their life, a lifestyle even.
Though what the industry is actually doing is not fulfilling some ingenious plot orchestrated by the jews, they're just pandering to the LGBT and hope that the rest won't mind.
However, in doing this they are ripping at the moral fabric of not only our society but nature in general.
I want more openly gay action movie stars. they are already so very homoerotic and bromantic that it'd a be a very small step to make them openly gay. the target audience would go ballistic though, probably literally.
>>71763387
no, feelings don't matter for the same reason opinions don't. they're subjective, irrational and ever changing. there's no reason for muh feelings to enter public discourse as something to be taken seriously.
>>71763442
wrong forum dude, think you went left of some weird dark web thing and am all fueled up on "I can intellectually justify" juice.
just say no.
>>71763450
You sound like you belong on Fox news.
I can understand Takei's point of view and can even respect the integrity as an actor to insist the depiction a character he is so very much associated with to be kept consistent with how it was done decades earlier in its inception, but at the end of the day, it's a reboot series, they can, as have already done with the previous two flicks, whatever the fuck they want with the characters and the series. One member of the crew being gay means jackshit.
Wanting to honor Takei with the move at least has some merit behind it, even if it is awkward when he said no thanks to them. It's not just "we need more cocksucking on this starship"
>>71755036
yes but ti shouldn't be announced as a major plot point or their only trait. When you turn characters into a laundry list of arbitrary attributes (see any Bioware game) then you're story suffers.
>>71762003
Don't talk about my Waspfu like that.
>>71763485
"Homophobes" are usually stupid,
however if you think about it enough you'll come full circle and realize that it is true.
star trek should be about exploring the galaxy not social issues
>>71763522
underrated
>>71763522
>mfw reboot series and still all the bad guys are humanoid
I'm pissed.
>>71763503
how many instances of gay characters and their faggotry being integrated in a story well are even out there? the only example I can think of is Spartacus S1.
>>71763522
b-but how else will movie producers generate buzz about the movie without hiding under the guise of progressive issues?
It's the same shit when social health nuts demanded McDonalds to go more healthy and then when asked to eat at McDonalds they all said "Nah"
>>71763467
Feeling do matter, but the way we think they matter is in a weird didactic literal way. Humans are social creatures and we can (or at least should be able to) empathize and read each other through non-verbal cues. Emotions and expressing them are a key to the whole social communication dynamic.
where it goes wrong is when people think they feel more than everyone else and no one see's there "massive feelings" dismissing the likelihood that we all feel the same stuff, but just process it differently.
that leads us to "im triggered" culture, feelings so not reflect reality, but they help us to relate. Feeings are important only in so far as they are useful, anything other than that is self absorbed emotional masturbation, the internet is full of it.
but then again this is based on my experience and is all opinion so either way my points are baseless. But i feel that they matter so you should agree and if you dont i will argue them forever cos it will make me feel important and i can screen cap this and put it on Imgur and bask in my euphoric intelligence and show girls and stuff cos feeling!
>>71763522
>lefties sabotaging space exploration to deal with muh social justice instead
it's like real life
>>71763485
he is right though
>>71755456
>We're tired of seeing you parade around your sanctimonious support of a population so small that it's statistically irrelevant
This.
>>71763540
very few since writers seldom understand subtlety or just flat out don't care and say "LOOK HOW PROGRESSIVE I AM!" Just meant it could work in the medium,
>>71763554
I agree that feelings matter to a certain extent, it's just that extent is way smaller than it's been purported to be lately. every random literally who demanding that the rest of the world cater to their mental problems is fucking ridiculous.
>>71763477
Do you know which board this is? How long have you been here? Do you know the reputation this board has?
>>71763667
Well not everyone has mental issues, just the delusion that they matter in a world of billions for accomplishing nothing.
