Interestingly enough, I've noticed recently, that the best queer representation is actually found in films and shows which are "international" vs from the US. I've started to think, maybe the problem is on your side, with the massive divide between the two political parties. Most films with more than the blink or you'll miss it representation are European, and I've watched some genuinely brilliant Asian films, too - only they were standalone films, not parts of a universe. I've grown a bit tired with all the franchises at this point, I hate to be forced to watch the whole series just to know why something is important in sequel number 8. In standalone films, you can even find openly queer lead characters, who don't die in the end!
@@christopherb501 There are so many, but one that I particularly enjoyed was a Taiwanese film from 2020 called Your Name Engraved Herein. Norwegian film from 2017, Thelma. Many recent Spanish films from the recent years have at least the one token lgbtq character - with varying results, but they are still too important to just cut away. I need look up for the titles. And, of course, series such as Young royals and Heartstopper, and the Spanish Elite.
@@williamlim9066 I guess, yes. Hollywood film industry has dug themselves into a hole by making big budget films and now they need to appeal to large audiences to be profitable. Then again, the Spanish speaking world is also a huge market, but seeing LGBTQ+ representation in Spanish films isn't rare at all.
@@christopherb501 Memories of March is a fantastic English film from India - it is somewhat simple and a drama about a woman who comes to wind up her son's home after he is tragically killed in an accident and discovers that he was homosexual. Stars Rituparno Ghosh - India's first major trans filmmaker. He has made several award winning films - but most are in Bengali. Two Marathi films - not sure if they have subtitles available, but they are pretty visual anyway: Jogwa is about a religious cult of transvestites and forced recruitment, life in the cult, traditional artform involving religious music, escaping it, and so on. It isn't black/white. Brilliant music. Natrang is about a wrestler who falls on hard times. He used to enjoy a local performance form called tamasha and decides to start a troupe for an income, but social taboos prevent them finding a "nachya" - an effeminate man who is traditionally a part of the troupe. He decides to become one. Beautiful story based on a novel in 1978 and also features an interesting body transformation and mind-boggling acting from Atul Kulkarni as he goes from the super-muscular wrestler/bodybuilder to a slim, effeminate performer - both physically and emotionally. Also brilliant music
I was born in the 60's. I can see a seismic progress shift which on close attention looks slow, but so long as progress continues, equity will be served. We're now seeing movie studios going, no we're not cutting 30 seconds to cater to your country's bigotry.
Yeah but people are protesting this. Disney was forced to pay taxes. So telling that they were okay with this when Disney preserved their white hetero normative family movies but as soon as it's starts getting diverse... They make them pay taxes which is what it should've done all this time.
@@williampearson6299 I do see protest. Though I would regard that as bigotry. They'll need to suck it up, because I don't see the progression to a more equally represented media changing.
@@williampearson6299 I recognise the financial component. Yet TV/movies have gently pushed the envelope despite contrary financial pressures since the history of both media.I don't think that's going the change and society will shift, even if slowly and through generational passage.
It's nothing to do with other countries. The only country whose bigotry Disney is catering to is the country where Walt Disney was born. I'm tired of blaming China and Russia for all of America's problems. It's not China who's dictating America, it's not Russia who's dictating America, it's the United fucking States.
A random video recommendation about KILTS in Scotland, some group wanted to forbid them as "nationalist" and therefore racially prejudiced. The comments quickly went from defense of Scottish pride in wearing kilts, manly, womanly -- to homophobic and transphobic, people complaining it was gay boys and trans people wearing skirts, and therefore gay, girly, and on and on. That isn't only an American thing. But when traditional clothing seen as national, historical pride in country, manly, womanly, is turned into phobia against queer people by haters, it shows how bad the problem has become. Sure, I've seen that before. I'm American. I don't know which surprised me more, the claim it was racist to war a kilt, or the homophobic and transphobic stuff.oys and men, girls and women all over Scotland wear kilts for school or special occasions, and would be pretty upset at the idea that that isn't manly or womanly enough or that it's somehow racist or prejudiced or insensitive towards other countries to wear a kilt. But that's how toxic and divisive and hateful, phobic, our mainstream culture has become. That is the level of crazy-stupid we are dealing with, that we have to fight against. Sure, I've seen American guys make remarks like that about kilts before. But it's nuts. It makes me both angry and sad that we have to deal with such silly, mean nonsense. We have a long way to go. I'd bet any Scotsmen would tell them how wrong they are, and object to being considered unmanly for wearing a kilt.
I knew a bisexual leather man who wore a black leather utilikilt. I have also been spanked by a bisexual Australian dom in a kilt. At a fetish party, I saw a straight dom whip a woman, with a vibrator taped to her leg, lol! In college, I knew a Chinese/Dutch man who sometimes wore kilts to school. I never saw any controversy about it.
I was instantly reminded of Solo: A Star Wars Story when you were discussing box office bombs shifting the plans. It’s not a totally concrete theory, but I genuinely believe that the underperformance of that film really made LucasFilm very insecure, especially in light the massive threats of boycotts for anything considered “woke”. Now I’m not saying we would have gotten progressive queer storylines like Finn and Poe (which apparently multiple people fought for behind the scenes) had Solo been a hit, but it definitely couldn’t have helped.
The worst part about this is that film isn’t even woke by really any metric. Aside from the vague hints about Lando and the stuff with L3-37, that film is almost completely apolitical. The reason it failed is because of a number of reasons (Star Wars fatigue, the poor reception of The Last Jedi, people just not caring enough to want to see Han Solo’s backstory, especially without Harrison Ford) but the whole ‘go woke, go broke’ dogma is in no way the cause.
@@samuelbarber6177 Agree, I really feel like Solo was a victim of the reactions to previous films. I mean it should have been a series so that they weren’t speed running through all the events in Han Solo’s life. But that being said, I find most people who call it a bad movie haven’t seen it. It isn’t a great movie, it’s also not a bad movie. One of the few Star Wars films that touches on the seedy underbelly of the universe and stars a character navigating that universe who isn’t force sensitive. But the general ‘new stuff bad cause not like old stuff’ grumpiness set in for anything Disney Star Wars spat out by the time Solo hit theaters.
@@TheDawnofVanlife I think it’s also a victim of its own nature as a Han Solo feature that doesn’t star Harrison Ford. It would be like if Halloween 2018 recasted Laurie Strode. I understand they couldn’t have Ford in the movie because even if they used De-Ageing effects, he’s still 76 years old at time of that film coming out and it wasn’t The Irishman, but kind of asks the question, ‘why are you making this movie in the first place?’ Who gets what they want? Plus, there is also what you mentioned at the end there that fans don’t know what they want. The Force Awakens was criticised for copying A New Hope and then The Last Jedi was criticised for being something different.
@@samuelbarber6177 I don’t disagree, but I also think without the contributing factor of the sequel trilogy movies that preceded it more people would have initially bought tickets out of curiosity. There’s a lot of ‘who asked for this’ films part of massive franchises where there were at least good numbers at the box office. Basically a lot of things tanked Solo and ‘being woke’ is low on the totem pole. I honestly didn’t watch it until it hit Redbox. The Harrison Ford issue is why I also think a streaming series would have given the actor time to stretch in as the character. Especially since original Han had been just freshly killed off in the sequel trilogy. If we had gotten this during the dry spell of not having seen Harrison Ford in the role for years, I don’t think it would have been a huge hit of a film, but I do think it would have done better.
@@TheDawnofVanlife I honestly feel like the film would be better received if it wasn’t a Star Wars flick. If it was the same story and characterisation except say, it was a Western or a Crime flick, that would probably have been better altogether
"TV is way less expensive than film" ...Indeed. Even the shocking announced budget for Stranger Things S4 - $30m an episode - was for a 9 episode season. So around $270m. Which, sure, makes it more expensive than most films on a production standpoint, but... It doesn't have the "double the budget to account for marketing costs" factor of modern blockbusters. Even before you factor in that the episodes are long - The lengths aren't listed where I looked when I looked them up a couple of days ago, but I think the first 6 are about 75 minutes each, 7 is a little over 90, 8 a little under 90, and 9 around two and a half hours? 13 or so hours of entertainment for a comparable budget to an expensive film - Avatar's sequels are about $250m each - but still a film.
It is quite weird to me. I mean, just remembering to last year when there was such an uproar (I say uproar, some people made a big deal of it) when No Time To Die was released and one line of dialogue implies Ben Whishaw’s Q is about to have a date with a man. Coming from a series which hasn’t historically had a good representation of other sexualities (see the Connery films for the likes of Rosa Klebb from From Russia With Love in 1963 and the team of Mr Wint and Mr Kidd from Diamonds Are Forever in 1971), it’s strange that it took until 2021 for anything like that, aside from some dialogue in 2012’s Skyfall where the villain seemingly attempts to freak Bond out by coming on to him and Bond kinda turns that around. I can kind of see why, however. I mean, James Bond is historically the most heterosexual man on the planet, and we don’t often delve into the lives of the MI-6 regulars. At this point, big budget movies really should be trying to branch out here. I mean, a Marvel film in regular circumstances isn’t going to fail at the Box office. And if it does they can at least fail doing something important. I think this also displays just how big these productions are getting. They’re getting so expensive that if some got any bigger they’d probably have to force people to pay them because the sink the economy otherwise. Be cheaper movies! Reservoir Dogs was made on 2 million dollars. They’re so big that they need to take measures to ensure they don’t fail. They’re only willing to risk a few million on something that’s geared around LGBT storylines, like say Heartstopper. I guess Gay stuff just doesn’t make money. Get out your wallets people, because that’s the only way you can vote for what you want to see more of in media. Studios don’t care about criticism if they profit. It’s also good for your impression anyway, I mean do you really want Homophobes, Transphobes, Racists, Sexists etc. in your audience. No. You don’t really. This is why I respect Rick Riordan so much.
My entire young life (80's, 90's, early aughts) there was a giant Christian boycott of Disney. It had no effect, and if it happened again, still wouldn't.
An extension of the interconnectedness argument is that since so many of these franchises are specifically ADAPTATIONS of existing large sprawling things, then the base pool of representation in the source media is often also lower or more sidelined. Like if Disney wants to do a Star Wars TV show (or if the recent trilogy maybe had been made a few years later) then it would be "easier" to include queer characters since they presumably are mostly inventing brand new characters. But when it comes to things like adapting comics, there are queer characters in the comics, But as a percentage of The whole body of comics up until this point there a lot fewer and farther between. Like, Even if it was made today, it would be a much bigger deal for them to, for example, decide they ofc want to adapt a very popular character like Captain America from the for the screen and then decide to write a queer story for him. So many popular characters not being queer, and that being the database that they're pulling from, very much at least gives them the excuse not to include the rep. Again making me very interested to see what they're going to choose to do about characters like Wiccan and hulkling going forward, some of the few very popular characters they haven't touched on really yet, who are also intrinsically queer.
i feel like i say this every time you post one of these kinda vids, but i so greatly appreciate your rational take on these topics. you're not out here just shouting that "x corporation is evil" or "this show is evil" or what have you; you're just like, it's all risk vs benefit, it's all money money money in the end. corporations are profit-driven, and they will do what will make them money-- be that to our detriment or benefit. also, props for the correct use of amoral. it always bugs me when people conflate amoral with immoral and it's just like no, they're not the same thing lol.
The MCU and LGBT inclusion discussion should also bring in Multiverse of Madness. It's not a spoiler, I would think, that when America reveals her backstory, it shows that she has two moms. It's another situation where it could possibly interpreted as straight (since it's never said the women are in a relationship with each other, one could see it as two friends co-parenting), but it's something. But of course, if the MCU could become bold enough to depict a main character as LGBT in the movies (I haven't seen Eternals, not sure if the LGBT character is a main character), that would be a huge plus. They have three who are LGBT in the comics which they could go to: Valkyrie has the most likely shot at taking that step first, with Love and Thunder coming out soon. America Chavez has been introduced, so why not bring that up about her in whatever movie she next appears in? Deadpool 3 is on the docket, and all they have to do is continue the trajectory set by the first two films, and let Deadpool's pansexuality be more than just some flirting with Colossus this time. And they could throw some curveballs to the viewing comic book fan. The Fantastic Four may all be straight in the comics, but I can imagine them deciding to do away with that for Johnny. Or have Reed be pan. Though sexuality-wise, I feel he would fall somewhere on the ace spectrum (I'd say grey, but maybe demi--but his romantic inclinations need only include an attraction to Sue, they need not be necessarily only toward women; and I can imagine the movies could introduce the idea that Doom is one of Reed's old boyfriends and maybe the last person he dated before going to Sue, just to spice things up in their dynamic).
The wheels are slow to turn, but at least they still seem to be turning. Marvel might have shunted their first major queer reveal to streaming. Just recently, however, Doctor Stranger gave us the character of America Chavez, who while not explicitly queer herself was shown having two mothers. True, it's only for single flashback scene that can easily be cut or re-scripted for foreign markets, but it's still better representation than Star Wars and its pair of background extras kissing. Also, as I understand, the upcoming Thor movie will openly acknowledge that Valkyrie as ruler of new Asgard is looking for a queen to marry. I'm not going to tell anyone to just be patient and everything will work out. Even these small representative gestures are long over due. I'm just willing to personally hold out hope that things are still mostly moving in a better and more inclusive direction.
@DanteLeiva-oj9rc : it's not about being "owed" anything. It's a simple fact of reality. Queer people exist, and so fiction that refuses to acknowledge that existence is less realistic.
I was born a few months before TOS premiered. Things are a little better now than when I grew up, but it is still hard for non-straight folks; it can be very risky and there is still a lot of homophobia and transphobia, a lot of ignorance and fear and hate, pushback. But there IS some acceptance, and ways we can talk more openly. RUclips videos and the web, forums, blogs, give people a chance that I never had, growing up, to open up, to learn, to find out how others feel and what they go through; to learn we are not the only ones. I think things are changing, but there are both undercurrents, acceptance and phobia. I am not sure how to get past that to a time when it is just as OK to be queer / not straight as it is to be straight, when it isn't a scandal and not even an issue if two boys or girls are more than friends, in love, a couple; where the nature of their friendship isn't a problem. A world where trans youth and adults, or gay or bi youth or adults are fine? I don't know how we read that, when so many people have no understanding of what it is to be not straight, when they don't know anyone (or they don't think they do) who is not straight, and where fear and knee-jerk hate motivate them because of it. But I long for that, for myself and others.
I feel like we've almost gone backwards a bit. Orange is the New Black and Torchwood were 10 years ago and now we're talking about the first ever gay Disney character.
22:00 I think the only people who do that are hyper religious people and really I think that is a low percentage of the population, they are just very vocal.
SF author Charles Stross calls corporations "slow AIs" in that the goals of corporations are not set by any one person & so behave in non-human, but intelligent, ways.
While there are some good points, I disagree with the idea that companies are completely a-moral. By the chart you showed, 70-80% of people are okay with traditional gay people. So because tv shows are more niche, we should expect 70-80% of them to have (at least traditional gay) representation. Yet the number is far lower than that. This means corporations are actively choosing to do the wrong thing and lose money, and that is a moral choice. To find an explanation for this, I’d say look at the people in charge of corporations: 99.9% of them are conservative bigots. And they are only willing to concede a little to the morals of the liberals, but don’t actually understand or care about the issue and possibly outright advocate against it. They only make token concessions to maintain their board positions, because if it were more obvious they were costing the company money they might lose their jobs
I think, the math goes the other way. If 70-80% are okay, then the remaining 20-30% are against representation. What would bring the company more money: gaining uncertain number of queer people into the audience or potentially losing the 20-30% of viewers who are against representation?
I don't see that this is the right math. How many of the 70-80% will actually turn away from watching a movie because it lacks queer representation? One would guess diminishingly few. How many of the 20-30% would turn away from a movie because it has queer representation? Quite unpredictable. It could be anywhere from very few to very many, depending on whether some bigot or another decides to declare moral panic over it.
12:40 - I don't think it's the studios' fault. Not entirely. You can pay for one person to see one movie in a theater, or you can pay the same amount for your whole family to see an entire library on a streaming service. What do you choose? When you have a blockbuster movie where you *have* to see it in a theater - movies with big visuals & sound design, and lots of potential of spoilers that people will want to avoid - then you go see it in theaters. But if you're not going to miss the impressive visuals, and you can wait to see it because people aren't talking about it, then why spend the big bucks to see it in a theater? That also means that movies are less relevant. Movies are no longer the primary form of media that people consume. Of course, that also means that because of the massive amount of streaming, TV, and indie media, it's harder to build a shared culture that can be influenced. The right-wingers can watch Hallmark and PureFlix and never have to see an LGBTQ+ person. Which is just going to make things worse.
Video game movie that doesnt suck? So Sonic? and Sonic 2? And the Paramount Plus series Knuckles. And the Sonic 3 theyre definitely making after the success of the first two! :D
I mean isn't modern writers not feeling they'd represent it well also a factor? Queer rep won't damage a film, but BADLY WRITTEN Queer rep could do a lot of damage. And there's not a long list of good examples to draw upon. Its a risk in the same way addressing ANY under represented aspect of reality is a risk. I fully believe the only reason cis white male is still the main protagonist of so many series is entirely because there's an endless supply of old movies where that's the case that writers can look back on and see what works and what doesn't. Harder to do that for something that was banned from cinema for its formative years and only mildly represented after. I'm honestly more inclined to believe that THAT is the primary contributing factor in why things are taking so long.
Yes and No. Yes, writers may feel they don't know how to write true-to-life characters who are LGBT, or women, or other than white, or handicapped, or (pick any minority trait) because the writer isn't from that group and is afraid of getting it wrong and facing criticism / outrage from those communities for misrepresentation or stereotypes. But no, in that that becomes an excuse not to try, and therefore not to include or represent people from any community other than the majority or the convenient default. Also, there's some fear of pushback from the outraged majority who just can't stand it that anyone would dare to include those (pick a minority or trait) that the complainer doesn't like, so much that they yell and scream and jump up and down about it. I mean, you can see that in backlash against LGBT characters, black/Hispanic/Asian/whoever, religion, politics, handicaps...a ton of factors, even is supposedly inclusive things like science fiction fandom. (Just look at some of the RUclipsrs frothing at the mouth over several sci-fi franchises currently.) This isn't to blame writers; some do a good job of including minority characters (and queer characters). Some try, even if they aren't perfect at it. Some don't. They often get pushback from studios, publishers, and fandoms for even trying; also from political and religious groups. The net result is, there can be several reasons why more diverse characters don't get more representation. (Studios and publishers get very shaky about public criticism for inclusion, for instance.) Oh, and I left out the "think of the children!" argument, which is just a quagmire for writers, studios, publishers, and (supportive) fans to have to deal with. So I think I get what you're saying, but I think the reasons are complicated, tanged up, and some positive and some negative. It's maybe a no-win scenario, they think: if they do include, they get outrage from majority but prejudicial groups. If they don't include, they shut out a portion of th minority audience and allies; they disappoint and fail to represent. Unfortunately, they often choose to be too cautious, and if they do try to represent, they get those trolls with flames and pitchforks. -- So they might as well represent, or give it a good try. They just haven't figure d it out yet And the trolls are living in a past fantasy world; they don't want to see what the real world (or big city life) is like, with all kninds of people, some of whom are next door or in their own families.
@@eshbena Definatley the quickest solution, but there's also the risk of hiring JUST based on that leading to diverse writers building a rep for being untalented or bad, it seems like an easy answer but finding a Queer or PoC writer that's also actually talented is the whole of the solution needed. And that's more work than most studios are willing to go through, or even capable of. Hopefully some studio will start prioritizing that and we can get a nice domino effect to a cinema line up that doesn't look like its still stuck loop its been in since the 00's
I have to ask, what qualifies as queer representation? I’m speaking from the perspective of a hetero, male for whom romance, orientation, gender identity etc aren’t super important to me as a movie watcher, and if those are important focuses of a movie, then it’s probably in a genre I’m not too interested in. I’m also going to assume that I represent the plurality of movie watchers. I’m trying to think of movies where you could replace the main character’s hetero relationship with a queer one, while still not really affecting the rest of the movie, and I’m coming up with movies like “Die Hard”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and the first “Back to the Future”. Movies where relationships might serve as motivation or background characterization, but aren’t really the main focus. Would something like that qualify as queer representation? The point I’m trying to make is that I think it’s hard to find the balance between queer representation but having the focus of the movie be about queer representation. I don’t know if that makes any sense. It’s way easier to do in a tv/streaming series since they have the time to juggle multiple plot threads
Speaking as somebody who loves genre stuff like sci-fi, fantasy, and superheroes, but who rarely gels with romance or realistic dramas I get where you're coming from. And to answer the question at the end of your first paragraph, yes that absolutely counts. A character's queerness doesn't have to be the focus of the story to be relevant. In fact it's kind of important to have instances where it's not, because often times there's flatly no reason a character couldn't be some kind of queer. But the thing is, all characters are assumed straight and cisgender until stated otherwise. So basically every time a character simply doesn't engage in romance or attraction they're defaulted as being straight (excepting incidents of often insulting levels of stereotyped behavior). And I agree it's not easy. I did a video years ago pointing out that one of the difficulties of queer representation is that nobody knows a character is queer until it's pointed out. You can have an ethnically diverse cast and nobody ever has to bring up race because the diversity is clearly visible. With queer representation there needs to be some kind of signifier, whether it's a dialogue reference, a pride pin on their clothes, or their love interest being a presence.
@@CouncilofGeeks Yeah. the default assumption that a character is cis & straight plays a part in representation taking its time. I think one way around this is to cast more openly queer performers; movie watchers will probably assume their characters are also queer without any overt indicators needing to be in the movie. Unfortunately, Hollywood doesn’t seem too keen on casting queer performers.
@@stevenmara1025 You're underestimating the power of denial. Most regular watchers either wouldn't know the actor is queer, or would spout something along the lines of "There's no reason a queer actor can't play a cishet character -- they're an actor after all".
@@kaworunagisa4009 Yeah, straight actors playing queer and queer actors playing straight is fairly common. So I agree queer actor does not equal queer character. That being said, I do think casting LGBTQ+ actors who are openly out and LGBTQ+ in real life does at least curve the ‘assumed straight’ trope a bit. Because what use to always support the ‘straight until proven otherwise’ view on most characters was the silence of LGBTQ+ actors who, trying to just work and pay their bills, stayed in the closet if not flat out ‘played straight cis het’ in real life for the public so that they remained viable as a casting choice. If we stop ‘straight until proven otherwise’ as a perspective on actors, it might change the ‘straight until proven otherwise’ with characters as well.
@@stevenmara1025 Hmm, I do agree that those default assumptions may be playing their part in the pacing of progress but I'm not convinced the casting of queer performers is the answer (not that I know what the answer is mind you 😜) . I'm gay but don't have an up-to-date index of which actors are gay or not so even I, who has a vested interest, wouldn't necessarily make the assumption they are playing gay characters - let alone general audiences. Also I do feel there's a danger there of suggesting (not that you are) that they could *only* play queer when its my personal opinion that we should be opening the door for queer actors to play whatever roles they wish (and are good at obviously), to make it more (for want of a better word) 'normalised'. Work that in reverse to assume that straight actors always play straight and there's a risk of getting less representation as movie exces want 'big names' etc and lets face it, the majority of those are straight. Vera, puts it better than I could above but its a tricky one and its an awkward balancing act. Do we have the character just be _there_ integrated as one of, or *the*, lead? Yes ideally, but then without any signifier how do we know they are representing LGBTQ+? If they effectively put up a neon sign or have to have a significant other to signpost it, it can quickly turn to tokenism. Makes my brain hurt a bit... 😁. Maybe the answer is just it has to be slow and steady progress for now, chipping away with a toothpick rather than a sledgehammer; I guess progress is progress, and a step in the right direction, no matter how long it takes....
I see it as a situation where a group that is still a minority that can be written into stories naturally, but what we get is overly "woke" sledgehammer writing that doesn't appeal to the mass market. While the majority of the audience is still straight then the lead character/main protagonist is likely to be straight. It doesn't help when "queer" is the defining character trait as compared to a character that just happens to be queer, very off puting and forced.
To get that right requires openly queer technical advisors, writers and directors. "Woke" sledgehammer writing of LGBT characters is an ethnic stereotype by cis/het writers, due to ignorance, cliche-dependence and unconscious biases.
It's VERY difficult to try and be a People pleaser for cinema going audiences in a Conservative country. Despite using Chinese Actors in It's cast, Shang Chi got banned from being released there.
I've think the China situation has changed from a couple years ago when Vera did her previous & studios have lately quit playing ball. China kept denying stuff even after studios tried to cooperate, and there was suspicion they were fudging box office numbers, so studios worrying less about catering to them.
Again I’m frustrated by the division (divorce?) of MCU movie and MCU TV. I recently heard America described as the first Hispanic representation in the MCU. I guess Yo-yo being on Agents of Shield along with a gay Latino Inhuman character. Also, I used to, at least personally, include Jessica Jones’ assistant as the first trans MCU character. Then I stopped. Then Matt and Kingpin played by the Netflix actors appearing in the MCU has muddled it further. Perhaps they’re variants and the Netflix shows are in the multiverse but not the MCU specifically? Who knows. Due to a bit of stunt casting, a certain speedster was impersonated by someone who looks exactly like the same character in the X-men franchise. YMMV. RIP Pietro.
To be fair to marvel first queer character was Justin hammer as seen in the one shot all hail the king which was a bonus extra on Thor dark world blu ray and DVDs. Then they finally put an edit friendly version of queer representation though not by an actual queer actor nor main character in endgame. So from DVD extra edit friendly moment to basically extra making a queer cameo in their biggest film that's edit friendly is a big jump though still lackluster due to it being poor representation. Then Loki is a major character but again easy to edit and not really explored. So getting better but still very behind just not as far back behind as originally. Then phastos who is a superhero so firstbqyeer superhero in the mcu and a major character albeit in an ensemble film. They tried not editing it in many nations so a lot better. And America Chavez and her moms is a little behind phastos as she's a supporting character being queer herself and her moms were basically cameos out of endgame. Seeing how they follow her can be great and also how they move forward with Loki and phastos all being different queer representation but gotta lean more into those. Billy or Wanda's son isn't portrayed as queer at all so we'll see about him and his boo Hulkling
As a big fan of the original Universal Monsters i was really disappointed the Mummy failed as much as it did. Plus there was some undertones in them that could have been better explored in modern society.
don't forget, a lot of the big name movie actors these days got started as a nobody on tv shows....example, Kaley Cuoco.....she was in a few thigs as a relatively unknown, Bridget on 8 simple rules, season 8 of the original charmed....then she went to the Big Bang Theory to play Penny....now she's known for roles on many tv shows and she's been in many many movies....she's now a big name....but back in the early 2000's she was a relative no body
While your overall point is true, and the barriers between TV and movies has become increasingly blurred, if you want to use big name TV to movie actors, then Kaley is a bad example IMO. She isn't known because of her movie roles and I can't see any big movies in her credits. Certainly not to the extent where she's known because of those movie roles. She's a big name because of her TV roles, with Big Bang, Harley Quinn and currently The Flight Attendant. She hasn't made that jump to being a known movie star, at least not yet. She is a TV star, not a movie star. I'd say that someone like Chris Pratt is a better, more recent example. Karen Gillan is another. Spinning off your original point, it also seems more common these days for movie actors to go to TV, or at least go back to TV after successful movie roles. Nicole Kidman and Reese Witherspoon being standouts for me.
I think also they know that LGBT+ won't necessarily "boycott" things because we aren't in it in the same way ultra-conservatives will if we are. We just don't tend to react in that way so we are way easier to appease. Like you said, short of actually sliding back we are generally quite accepting. We also read into veiled and ambiguous stuff and "see" representation (which pleases us) but it's left vague enough that they can not claim it if it winds conservatives up (if that makes sense).
I was very irritated with Bridgerton Season 2. Yes, it is a cheesy show with gorgeous costumes and sets. But in season 2, there was apparently zero time for any queer representation at all. There was a minor gay character in season 1. But now that Bridgerton is very popular in many markets, there was apparently zero interest. My question is, when should we stop watching these things? In Bridgerton, they have a world where racism has been mostly overcome - a wonderful goal! But why then can there not even be a smidge of queer representation in this world? I think I won't watch again until there is at least one queer character on the show.
Doctor Strange 2 does acknowledge that America Chavez has two moms. It's a blink and you'll miss it moment. America says "my moms" and Strange says "your parents."
Not quite on topic but can we talk about the cancellation of Legends of Tomorrow? The standard idea is of course that the show was cancelled for not generating enough revenue but I do wonder if there's more complex analysis that can be derived from this cancellation because LoT was one of the few CW shows that ticked off some pretty important boxes--namely its racial diversity, queer leads, and its usage of non-traditional storytelling
@@CouncilofGeeks Thank you so much for replying! Crisis happened a few years ago, though, so I don't quite understand why it affected Legends now instead of back then?
I am sorry but eternals was not (that) good I don't think it bombed because of any queerness in it or that they have any grounds on doing that... but i cannot disagree that their most common excuse would be that the world is still "conservative"... now loki was interesting but it was more like a fake-out... it could have been great but... cop-out
Re homophobia: I think it's more complicated than that. There are plenty of straight people out there who don't have a problem with gays per se, but gay content isn't really a draw for them & if it's front & center, may make them lose interest. It seems this is the studio theory. That's why we keep getting queer sidekicks or ensemble members, but not leads.
Here's my theory: Disney doesn't care about their homophobic audience. In fact, they're counting on people to get upset about the representation, because it gives them publicity. If LGBT becomes normalized, they'll no longer be able to profit from the controversy.
I'm a straight woman and I find LGBT content in the west extremely boring. For that matter, even feminist content. We have much better films in India with actual stories. Sadly, most aren't English. Most stuff in the west just showcases LGBT do normal things like we are supposed to look and wonder. It is boring. I like stuff like Legends of Tomorrow, but the sex reassignment regeneration and race reassignment regeneration of the Doctor Who show is nauseating. The whole joyous goodwill around the show is destroyed and it is a game of flying labels and hate. I disagree with your views on content but I actually enjoy your channel more than Jodie's entire era because YOU have YOUR points to make. Nobody knows why she's the Doctor or what she's doing from perspective of show, though I get it, the important business of representation is going on and it is dead BORING and it sacrifices the show for this exhibition of nonsense. Speaking from a market outside the West, no one is likely to care about LGBT content in India. Muslim countries may have a problem because their religion forbids it. There may also be concerns of backlash against local LGBT communities. India recognizes trans people as a "third gender" - so we don't even have the TERF vs Trans type conflict. It isn't easy, but it isn't as hostile as in the west either. If you don't mind subtitles, you might enjoy the work of the late Rituparno Ghosh - Bengali mostly. Two Marathi films worth watching are Jogwa and Natrang. These are about gender change in various ways. I don't find this kind of quality - those films are incredible FILMS with trans/adjacent leads, shown to full cinemas, mindblowing music, winning awards and such. Not some patronized, bar lowered, "support entertainment in the name of human rights, even if it makes the show worse" nonsense. I saw the show because of David Tennant and I'm at risk of starting to hate the sight of him since his return was announced, even though I'd watch anything he was in. I hate that these disclaimers are necessary, but: I am not sexist/homophobic/racist/transphobic/etc to the best of my knowledge. I've seen and enjoyed a lot of your content and I'd celebrate if you got cast in a film. But not if you were simply a drop-in replacement for an iconic character. I wouldn't enjoy that and wouldn't watch.
The assumption that every character which sexual orientation is not specifically adressed is straight is absolutely dumb. I don't care about the sexual orientation of characters when I watch movies, unless it is part of the story. American cinema has more problems with queer representation - and representation in general - than european cinema. Stop the "Hey look, he/she/they is queer!" representation. Stop fingerpointing. Normalise it. This will take a while, but I'm hopefull.
Polling by Gallup in 2017 showed that Americans significantly overestimated the number of self-identified LGBT people in the country. GLAAD, a pro-LGBT activist group, estimated that the representation during the 2018-2019 period on TV was about double Gallup's best estimate for the number of LGBT people in the US, and this may explain the incorrect estimates for the group's size by the general population. There are fads in Hollywood, and it shouldn't be surprising if the trend of making a point of having LGBT characters to show that you are cool with LGBT people is fading away. It also wouldn't be surprising if the trend reappears in future decades, because these things go in cycles.
Please keep in mind that the number of out LGBTQ+ people does not equal the actual number of LGBTQ+ people. The numbers are quickly becoming outdated as more people who grew up with less stigma surrounding being LGBTQ+ come out. The latest Gallup poll has LGBT identified people up to 7.1%, an increase of 1.5% in a single year. 20.8% of Gen Z identify as LGBT, as do 10.5% of Millennials. Currently, 11.9% of characters on broadcast TV are LGBTQ and if (as seems likely) the actual population percentage of LGBTQ+ people is closer to the percentage of out young people rather than out older people, that might actually be low. Either way I doubt the “trend” is going anywhere. Also, this video was about representation in movies, not TV shows. Maybe some numbers about that would have been more relevant.
Don’t accuse me of defending Disney but…they’ve, or at least Marvel Studios, stepped up much more than expected. There was not only queer representation in The Eternals and Dr. Strange but they REFUSED to alter it in any way to appease bigoted government censors in various countries, losing money in the process. Queer rep in Lightyear was restored and it’s been announced that there is to be an openly gay protagonist in an animated film. I’ve no doubt some Disney ‘leadership’ is frothing at the mouth but it’s clear that internal and external pressures have made a dent.
On stepping backwards and losing trust…the gayming community has had it’s struggles. The Mass Effect series stepped in ‘controversy’ almost immediately by featuring gay people existing in the vastness of space. Consciously trying to avoid criticism from Feax News, gays went nearly extinct in the second installment, damaging much good will from the player base. That good will was restored somewhat in the third game by the introduction of multiple gay characters and romance options. Then came Andromeda.
Mass Effect Andromeda is famous for it’s many problems but early on there was massive criticism from gaymers about the disparity in romance options. Straight male and gay women had many options, all designed for the male gaze, while gay men had side characters. A step back for the series. This was remedied by removing romance restrictions on one of the main male characters. Later it was revealed that some writers had to fight to make their characters queer. And there were rumors at the time that gay/bi/pan male characters were intentionally avoided to not draw the same criticism the series has received in the past. Needless to say, faith in the company BioWare, a self identified ‘ally’ was shaken by many. Mass Effect’s sister series however, Dragon Age, has been consistent in decent representation from the beginning.
The think is it does disney no favours. It would be fine if they would say in movies , no gay but series, you can , if they wouls actually officially show that in movies. Its not really connected, its still very independent . Like i am sure if sam gets a movie, the flag smashers wont come up and them having a point. And hoinestly , i the shows are allowed to be mor eexplicit and open about it, and the movies not, fine! But they dont! Like loki and mobius at least you can show that and it would be tchnically canon but lieave it out off movies. Sylvie is trans , but not really in the movies. I can live with that, if they let series have queerness official.Because lets be serious, you dont need loki, to see its a multiverse, Its like hell the fox xmen, all over the place for good, And they want that, in series, so do it. Well i donr expect peopl who in the first place , if wanda vision int too much, why woul you care. And maybe gt evn hatewatchers and pr. No excuse like they did it to agents of shield and its better off for it.
Another reason is very US specific -- when (eg) a gay director makes a movie about a gay character, they will be mercilessly attacked by members of the LGBT+2 community for not representing every demographic in the community (something which is clearly impossible to do). And they are attacked not on the basis of the work, but instead on news reports and trailers (what happened with Stonewall, Looking, & Love Simon) -- it is clear that the actual work doesn't matter. Sometimes it seems like the US LGBTQ+2 community loves to form circular firing squads and spend all their time shooting each other. Why you would expect anyone outside the community to join in, put money and time and effort on the line, and then be subject to the kinds of character assassination and vitriol that we hurl at each other? We might get another Brokeback - a movie written by a straight guy, based on a story written by a straight woman, directed by a straight man, starring two straight men (where, of course, a queer character has to die in the end, and end tragically for the other.)
So… if I’m understanding you, that feels like a misread of what I remember the complaints about those movies being, or at least the ones I personally encountered. The issues I saw raised were about the larger picture and the fact that when queer people are represented it is nearly always white gay men who get to be the flag bearers while other groups are ignored or minimized. This isn’t a “these specific movies” issue, it’s a big picture issue of which these movies become emblematic. Stonewall in specific was rightly maligned for centering a fiction gay white man at the expense of depicting the real life gender bending people of color at the actual heart of the Stonewall riot. I don’t recall ever seeing these complaints manifesting as cries of “you should have personally included all groups in this movie” being thrown at directors. If it did, then those people didn’t understand the issue and are not representative of the pushback as a whole.
I don't think it's a moral decision that companies are making. It's a financial one. The truth is the majority of people are not queer. It's only around 5% of the population. Companies feel like there's no need to have tons and tons of queer representation for only 5% of viewers. Most people who are not queer are not worried about representation or looking for it. It's like when they make a movie for a small group of feminists but then they can't figure out why men and non-feminist are not standing in line to see the movie. I think it's more about supply and demand. Plus lately companies have been losing money doubling down on virtue signaling. It hasn't been paying off.
Actually, the latest Gallup poll has LGBT identification in the US up to 7.1%, an increase of 1.5% in a single year. LGBT identification has doubled since they began polling in 2012. It seems likely that it will continue to rise as more of Gen Z become adults, as Gen Z is already polling at 20.8% LGBT. So there is a market for it, and moreover the market is growing.
@@anony-missy That is still nowhere near the majority of moviegoers. Show runners usually try to appeal to the majority audience. For the showrunners it doesn't make sense for 90% of your projects to appeal to only 7 to 20% of the public. I'm not saying shows and movies geared toward that demographic are not important. But your average movie goer is looking for a good story. They are not hyper focused on how much representation is in the film or how diverse it is. This is why feminist movies do not do well in the box office because your average moviegoer is not a feminist. Same thing
@@geraldvance7925 Why do you assume that movies featuring good queer representation are not good stories? If that’s what the audience cares about, then why wouldn’t showrunners strive to have a good queer story, thus appealing to the built in queer audience of 7-20% of the country plus all the people looking for a good story?
@@anony-missy because the crowd that that would appeal to judges movies based on representation instead of good storytelling. Removing parts of a film for other countries takes away from the movie. Movies like Charlie's Angels Terminator dark fate and birds of prey did poorly at the box office. The last three years of Doctor Who have been the worst Doctor Who ever. But people keep saying it's great because of the diversity. It's all about the message and not the story unfortunately.
@@geraldvance7925 But why are you assuming that just having the representation automatically makes it bad? Are you saying there is no way to make movies with good representation and a good story?
Interestingly enough, I've noticed recently, that the best queer representation is actually found in films and shows which are "international" vs from the US. I've started to think, maybe the problem is on your side, with the massive divide between the two political parties. Most films with more than the blink or you'll miss it representation are European, and I've watched some genuinely brilliant Asian films, too - only they were standalone films, not parts of a universe. I've grown a bit tired with all the franchises at this point, I hate to be forced to watch the whole series just to know why something is important in sequel number 8. In standalone films, you can even find openly queer lead characters, who don't die in the end!
@@christopherb501 There are so many, but one that I particularly enjoyed was a Taiwanese film from 2020 called Your Name Engraved Herein. Norwegian film from 2017, Thelma. Many recent Spanish films from the recent years have at least the one token lgbtq character - with varying results, but they are still too important to just cut away. I need look up for the titles.
And, of course, series such as Young royals and Heartstopper, and the Spanish Elite.
@@christopherb501 Lovely Writer (Thai) and Heartstopper (British)
Do you think this sort of confirms Vera's point about smaller studios in smaller markets being able to take bigger risks?
@@williamlim9066 I guess, yes. Hollywood film industry has dug themselves into a hole by making big budget films and now they need to appeal to large audiences to be profitable. Then again, the Spanish speaking world is also a huge market, but seeing LGBTQ+ representation in Spanish films isn't rare at all.
@@christopherb501 Memories of March is a fantastic English film from India - it is somewhat simple and a drama about a woman who comes to wind up her son's home after he is tragically killed in an accident and discovers that he was homosexual. Stars Rituparno Ghosh - India's first major trans filmmaker.
He has made several award winning films - but most are in Bengali.
Two Marathi films - not sure if they have subtitles available, but they are pretty visual anyway:
Jogwa is about a religious cult of transvestites and forced recruitment, life in the cult, traditional artform involving religious music, escaping it, and so on. It isn't black/white. Brilliant music.
Natrang is about a wrestler who falls on hard times. He used to enjoy a local performance form called tamasha and decides to start a troupe for an income, but social taboos prevent them finding a "nachya" - an effeminate man who is traditionally a part of the troupe. He decides to become one. Beautiful story based on a novel in 1978 and also features an interesting body transformation and mind-boggling acting from Atul Kulkarni as he goes from the super-muscular wrestler/bodybuilder to a slim, effeminate performer - both physically and emotionally. Also brilliant music
I was born in the 60's. I can see a seismic progress shift which on close attention looks slow, but so long as progress continues, equity will be served. We're now seeing movie studios going, no we're not cutting 30 seconds to cater to your country's bigotry.
Yeah but people are protesting this. Disney was forced to pay taxes. So telling that they were okay with this when Disney preserved their white hetero normative family movies but as soon as it's starts getting diverse... They make them pay taxes which is what it should've done all this time.
@@williampearson6299 I do see protest. Though I would regard that as bigotry. They'll need to suck it up, because I don't see the progression to a more equally represented media changing.
@@sofajockeyUK Don't double down. Money still is louder.
@@williampearson6299 I recognise the financial component. Yet TV/movies have gently pushed the envelope despite contrary financial pressures since the history of both media.I don't think that's going the change and society will shift, even if slowly and through generational passage.
It's nothing to do with other countries. The only country whose bigotry Disney is catering to is the country where Walt Disney was born. I'm tired of blaming China and Russia for all of America's problems. It's not China who's dictating America, it's not Russia who's dictating America, it's the United fucking States.
That "you are beautiful, you are valid, you are loved" at the end... I needed that. Thank you for being who you are, Vera 🤗
A random video recommendation about KILTS in Scotland, some group wanted to forbid them as "nationalist" and therefore racially prejudiced. The comments quickly went from defense of Scottish pride in wearing kilts, manly, womanly -- to homophobic and transphobic, people complaining it was gay boys and trans people wearing skirts, and therefore gay, girly, and on and on. That isn't only an American thing. But when traditional clothing seen as national, historical pride in country, manly, womanly, is turned into phobia against queer people by haters, it shows how bad the problem has become. Sure, I've seen that before. I'm American. I don't know which surprised me more, the claim it was racist to war a kilt, or the homophobic and transphobic stuff.oys and men, girls and women all over Scotland wear kilts for school or special occasions, and would be pretty upset at the idea that that isn't manly or womanly enough or that it's somehow racist or prejudiced or insensitive towards other countries to wear a kilt. But that's how toxic and divisive and hateful, phobic, our mainstream culture has become. That is the level of crazy-stupid we are dealing with, that we have to fight against. Sure, I've seen American guys make remarks like that about kilts before. But it's nuts. It makes me both angry and sad that we have to deal with such silly, mean nonsense. We have a long way to go. I'd bet any Scotsmen would tell them how wrong they are, and object to being considered unmanly for wearing a kilt.
I knew a bisexual leather man who wore a black leather utilikilt. I have also been spanked by a bisexual Australian dom in a kilt. At a fetish party, I saw a straight dom whip a woman, with a vibrator taped to her leg, lol! In college, I knew a Chinese/Dutch man who sometimes wore kilts to school. I never saw any controversy about it.
I was instantly reminded of Solo: A Star Wars Story when you were discussing box office bombs shifting the plans.
It’s not a totally concrete theory, but I genuinely believe that the underperformance of that film really made LucasFilm very insecure, especially in light the massive threats of boycotts for anything considered “woke”.
Now I’m not saying we would have gotten progressive queer storylines like Finn and Poe (which apparently multiple people fought for behind the scenes) had Solo been a hit, but it definitely couldn’t have helped.
The worst part about this is that film isn’t even woke by really any metric. Aside from the vague hints about Lando and the stuff with L3-37, that film is almost completely apolitical. The reason it failed is because of a number of reasons (Star Wars fatigue, the poor reception of The Last Jedi, people just not caring enough to want to see Han Solo’s backstory, especially without Harrison Ford) but the whole ‘go woke, go broke’ dogma is in no way the cause.
@@samuelbarber6177 Agree, I really feel like Solo was a victim of the reactions to previous films. I mean it should have been a series so that they weren’t speed running through all the events in Han Solo’s life. But that being said, I find most people who call it a bad movie haven’t seen it. It isn’t a great movie, it’s also not a bad movie. One of the few Star Wars films that touches on the seedy underbelly of the universe and stars a character navigating that universe who isn’t force sensitive. But the general ‘new stuff bad cause not like old stuff’ grumpiness set in for anything Disney Star Wars spat out by the time Solo hit theaters.
@@TheDawnofVanlife I think it’s also a victim of its own nature as a Han Solo feature that doesn’t star Harrison Ford. It would be like if Halloween 2018 recasted Laurie Strode. I understand they couldn’t have Ford in the movie because even if they used De-Ageing effects, he’s still 76 years old at time of that film coming out and it wasn’t The Irishman, but kind of asks the question, ‘why are you making this movie in the first place?’ Who gets what they want?
Plus, there is also what you mentioned at the end there that fans don’t know what they want. The Force Awakens was criticised for copying A New Hope and then The Last Jedi was criticised for being something different.
@@samuelbarber6177 I don’t disagree, but I also think without the contributing factor of the sequel trilogy movies that preceded it more people would have initially bought tickets out of curiosity. There’s a lot of ‘who asked for this’ films part of massive franchises where there were at least good numbers at the box office. Basically a lot of things tanked Solo and ‘being woke’ is low on the totem pole. I honestly didn’t watch it until it hit Redbox.
The Harrison Ford issue is why I also think a streaming series would have given the actor time to stretch in as the character. Especially since original Han had been just freshly killed off in the sequel trilogy. If we had gotten this during the dry spell of not having seen Harrison Ford in the role for years, I don’t think it would have been a huge hit of a film, but I do think it would have done better.
@@TheDawnofVanlife I honestly feel like the film would be better received if it wasn’t a Star Wars flick. If it was the same story and characterisation except say, it was a Western or a Crime flick, that would probably have been better altogether
"TV is way less expensive than film"
...Indeed. Even the shocking announced budget for Stranger Things S4 - $30m an episode - was for a 9 episode season. So around $270m. Which, sure, makes it more expensive than most films on a production standpoint, but... It doesn't have the "double the budget to account for marketing costs" factor of modern blockbusters. Even before you factor in that the episodes are long - The lengths aren't listed where I looked when I looked them up a couple of days ago, but I think the first 6 are about 75 minutes each, 7 is a little over 90, 8 a little under 90, and 9 around two and a half hours? 13 or so hours of entertainment for a comparable budget to an expensive film - Avatar's sequels are about $250m each - but still a film.
TV is also scalable. A good story idea that’s a hit in it’s first season can scale up based on profit and profit predictions.
It is quite weird to me. I mean, just remembering to last year when there was such an uproar (I say uproar, some people made a big deal of it) when No Time To Die was released and one line of dialogue implies Ben Whishaw’s Q is about to have a date with a man. Coming from a series which hasn’t historically had a good representation of other sexualities (see the Connery films for the likes of Rosa Klebb from From Russia With Love in 1963 and the team of Mr Wint and Mr Kidd from Diamonds Are Forever in 1971), it’s strange that it took until 2021 for anything like that, aside from some dialogue in 2012’s Skyfall where the villain seemingly attempts to freak Bond out by coming on to him and Bond kinda turns that around.
I can kind of see why, however. I mean, James Bond is historically the most heterosexual man on the planet, and we don’t often delve into the lives of the MI-6 regulars.
At this point, big budget movies really should be trying to branch out here. I mean, a Marvel film in regular circumstances isn’t going to fail at the Box office. And if it does they can at least fail doing something important.
I think this also displays just how big these productions are getting. They’re getting so expensive that if some got any bigger they’d probably have to force people to pay them because the sink the economy otherwise. Be cheaper movies! Reservoir Dogs was made on 2 million dollars. They’re so big that they need to take measures to ensure they don’t fail.
They’re only willing to risk a few million on something that’s geared around LGBT storylines, like say Heartstopper.
I guess Gay stuff just doesn’t make money. Get out your wallets people, because that’s the only way you can vote for what you want to see more of in media. Studios don’t care about criticism if they profit.
It’s also good for your impression anyway, I mean do you really want Homophobes, Transphobes, Racists, Sexists etc. in your audience. No. You don’t really. This is why I respect Rick Riordan so much.
My entire young life (80's, 90's, early aughts) there was a giant Christian boycott of Disney. It had no effect, and if it happened again, still wouldn't.
An extension of the interconnectedness argument is that since so many of these franchises are specifically ADAPTATIONS of existing large sprawling things, then the base pool of representation in the source media is often also lower or more sidelined.
Like if Disney wants to do a Star Wars TV show (or if the recent trilogy maybe had been made a few years later) then it would be "easier" to include queer characters since they presumably are mostly inventing brand new characters.
But when it comes to things like adapting comics, there are queer characters in the comics, But as a percentage of The whole body of comics up until this point there a lot fewer and farther between. Like, Even if it was made today, it would be a much bigger deal for them to, for example, decide they ofc want to adapt a very popular character like Captain America from the for the screen and then decide to write a queer story for him.
So many popular characters not being queer, and that being the database that they're pulling from, very much at least gives them the excuse not to include the rep.
Again making me very interested to see what they're going to choose to do about characters like Wiccan and hulkling going forward, some of the few very popular characters they haven't touched on really yet, who are also intrinsically queer.
It would also be nice to see an on-screen Version of Catman that's Bisexual.
i feel like i say this every time you post one of these kinda vids, but i so greatly appreciate your rational take on these topics. you're not out here just shouting that "x corporation is evil" or "this show is evil" or what have you; you're just like, it's all risk vs benefit, it's all money money money in the end. corporations are profit-driven, and they will do what will make them money-- be that to our detriment or benefit. also, props for the correct use of amoral. it always bugs me when people conflate amoral with immoral and it's just like no, they're not the same thing lol.
Short answer: Because they're afraid of being accused of "forcing diversity down people's throats" if there's too much of it at once.
yeah, the public at large calls that "TOO WOKE"....but it's just their reluctance to let go of prejudiced archaic thinking
that's already been happening for years.
I'd probably say that Pride and Heartstopper are the 2 best recent examples I can think of of good queer representation
Also Our Flag Means Death
Owl house
If you like Heartstopper, I recommend checking out Lovely Writer (Thai) and Life: Love on the Line (Japanese)
The OA (Especially in Season 2).
The MCU and LGBT inclusion discussion should also bring in Multiverse of Madness. It's not a spoiler, I would think, that when America reveals her backstory, it shows that she has two moms. It's another situation where it could possibly interpreted as straight (since it's never said the women are in a relationship with each other, one could see it as two friends co-parenting), but it's something. But of course, if the MCU could become bold enough to depict a main character as LGBT in the movies (I haven't seen Eternals, not sure if the LGBT character is a main character), that would be a huge plus. They have three who are LGBT in the comics which they could go to:
Valkyrie has the most likely shot at taking that step first, with Love and Thunder coming out soon.
America Chavez has been introduced, so why not bring that up about her in whatever movie she next appears in?
Deadpool 3 is on the docket, and all they have to do is continue the trajectory set by the first two films, and let Deadpool's pansexuality be more than just some flirting with Colossus this time.
And they could throw some curveballs to the viewing comic book fan. The Fantastic Four may all be straight in the comics, but I can imagine them deciding to do away with that for Johnny. Or have Reed be pan. Though sexuality-wise, I feel he would fall somewhere on the ace spectrum (I'd say grey, but maybe demi--but his romantic inclinations need only include an attraction to Sue, they need not be necessarily only toward women; and I can imagine the movies could introduce the idea that Doom is one of Reed's old boyfriends and maybe the last person he dated before going to Sue, just to spice things up in their dynamic).
Heartstopper is like the biggest show on Netflix right now, which is great to see.
The wheels are slow to turn, but at least they still seem to be turning. Marvel might have shunted their first major queer reveal to streaming. Just recently, however, Doctor Stranger gave us the character of America Chavez, who while not explicitly queer herself was shown having two mothers.
True, it's only for single flashback scene that can easily be cut or re-scripted for foreign markets, but it's still better representation than Star Wars and its pair of background extras kissing.
Also, as I understand, the upcoming Thor movie will openly acknowledge that Valkyrie as ruler of new Asgard is looking for a queen to marry.
I'm not going to tell anyone to just be patient and everything will work out. Even these small representative gestures are long over due. I'm just willing to personally hold out hope that things are still mostly moving in a better and more inclusive direction.
@DanteLeiva-oj9rc : it's not about being "owed" anything. It's a simple fact of reality. Queer people exist, and so fiction that refuses to acknowledge that existence is less realistic.
I was born a few months before TOS premiered. Things are a little better now than when I grew up, but it is still hard for non-straight folks; it can be very risky and there is still a lot of homophobia and transphobia, a lot of ignorance and fear and hate, pushback. But there IS some acceptance, and ways we can talk more openly. RUclips videos and the web, forums, blogs, give people a chance that I never had, growing up, to open up, to learn, to find out how others feel and what they go through; to learn we are not the only ones. I think things are changing, but there are both undercurrents, acceptance and phobia. I am not sure how to get past that to a time when it is just as OK to be queer / not straight as it is to be straight, when it isn't a scandal and not even an issue if two boys or girls are more than friends, in love, a couple; where the nature of their friendship isn't a problem. A world where trans youth and adults, or gay or bi youth or adults are fine? I don't know how we read that, when so many people have no understanding of what it is to be not straight, when they don't know anyone (or they don't think they do) who is not straight, and where fear and knee-jerk hate motivate them because of it. But I long for that, for myself and others.
I feel like we've almost gone backwards a bit. Orange is the New Black and Torchwood were 10 years ago and now we're talking about the first ever gay Disney character.
22:00 I think the only people who do that are hyper religious people and really I think that is a low percentage of the population, they are just very vocal.
SF author Charles Stross calls corporations "slow AIs" in that the goals of corporations are not set by any one person & so behave in non-human, but intelligent, ways.
HEY! Don't make fun of my precious expired gruel. That is such a gruelsome thing to do!
While there are some good points, I disagree with the idea that companies are completely a-moral. By the chart you showed, 70-80% of people are okay with traditional gay people. So because tv shows are more niche, we should expect 70-80% of them to have (at least traditional gay) representation. Yet the number is far lower than that. This means corporations are actively choosing to do the wrong thing and lose money, and that is a moral choice. To find an explanation for this, I’d say look at the people in charge of corporations: 99.9% of them are conservative bigots. And they are only willing to concede a little to the morals of the liberals, but don’t actually understand or care about the issue and possibly outright advocate against it. They only make token concessions to maintain their board positions, because if it were more obvious they were costing the company money they might lose their jobs
I think, the math goes the other way. If 70-80% are okay, then the remaining 20-30% are against representation. What would bring the company more money: gaining uncertain number of queer people into the audience or potentially losing the 20-30% of viewers who are against representation?
I don't see that this is the right math. How many of the 70-80% will actually turn away from watching a movie because it lacks queer representation? One would guess diminishingly few. How many of the 20-30% would turn away from a movie because it has queer representation? Quite unpredictable. It could be anywhere from very few to very many, depending on whether some bigot or another decides to declare moral panic over it.
I love what I can see of your top, those sleeves are adorable.
12:40 - I don't think it's the studios' fault. Not entirely. You can pay for one person to see one movie in a theater, or you can pay the same amount for your whole family to see an entire library on a streaming service. What do you choose? When you have a blockbuster movie where you *have* to see it in a theater - movies with big visuals & sound design, and lots of potential of spoilers that people will want to avoid - then you go see it in theaters. But if you're not going to miss the impressive visuals, and you can wait to see it because people aren't talking about it, then why spend the big bucks to see it in a theater?
That also means that movies are less relevant. Movies are no longer the primary form of media that people consume. Of course, that also means that because of the massive amount of streaming, TV, and indie media, it's harder to build a shared culture that can be influenced. The right-wingers can watch Hallmark and PureFlix and never have to see an LGBTQ+ person. Which is just going to make things worse.
Video game movie that doesnt suck? So Sonic? and Sonic 2? And the Paramount Plus series Knuckles. And the Sonic 3 theyre definitely making after the success of the first two! :D
That little message at the end made me feel so happy.
Expired gruel is an excellent analogy
I mean isn't modern writers not feeling they'd represent it well also a factor? Queer rep won't damage a film, but BADLY WRITTEN Queer rep could do a lot of damage. And there's not a long list of good examples to draw upon. Its a risk in the same way addressing ANY under represented aspect of reality is a risk. I fully believe the only reason cis white male is still the main protagonist of so many series is entirely because there's an endless supply of old movies where that's the case that writers can look back on and see what works and what doesn't. Harder to do that for something that was banned from cinema for its formative years and only mildly represented after. I'm honestly more inclined to believe that THAT is the primary contributing factor in why things are taking so long.
Yes and No. Yes, writers may feel they don't know how to write true-to-life characters who are LGBT, or women, or other than white, or handicapped, or (pick any minority trait) because the writer isn't from that group and is afraid of getting it wrong and facing criticism / outrage from those communities for misrepresentation or stereotypes. But no, in that that becomes an excuse not to try, and therefore not to include or represent people from any community other than the majority or the convenient default. Also, there's some fear of pushback from the outraged majority who just can't stand it that anyone would dare to include those (pick a minority or trait) that the complainer doesn't like, so much that they yell and scream and jump up and down about it. I mean, you can see that in backlash against LGBT characters, black/Hispanic/Asian/whoever, religion, politics, handicaps...a ton of factors, even is supposedly inclusive things like science fiction fandom. (Just look at some of the RUclipsrs frothing at the mouth over several sci-fi franchises currently.) This isn't to blame writers; some do a good job of including minority characters (and queer characters). Some try, even if they aren't perfect at it. Some don't. They often get pushback from studios, publishers, and fandoms for even trying; also from political and religious groups. The net result is, there can be several reasons why more diverse characters don't get more representation. (Studios and publishers get very shaky about public criticism for inclusion, for instance.) Oh, and I left out the "think of the children!" argument, which is just a quagmire for writers, studios, publishers, and (supportive) fans to have to deal with. So I think I get what you're saying, but I think the reasons are complicated, tanged up, and some positive and some negative. It's maybe a no-win scenario, they think: if they do include, they get outrage from majority but prejudicial groups. If they don't include, they shut out a portion of th minority audience and allies; they disappoint and fail to represent. Unfortunately, they often choose to be too cautious, and if they do try to represent, they get those trolls with flames and pitchforks. -- So they might as well represent, or give it a good try. They just haven't figure d it out yet And the trolls are living in a past fantasy world; they don't want to see what the real world (or big city life) is like, with all kninds of people, some of whom are next door or in their own families.
Almost as of queer & poc writers don't exist 😂😂😂
@@catsthemovie4692 I was just about to point out that the solution to the whole issue is to just hire more diverse writers. Problem solved. XD
@@eshbena Definatley the quickest solution, but there's also the risk of hiring JUST based on that leading to diverse writers building a rep for being untalented or bad, it seems like an easy answer but finding a Queer or PoC writer that's also actually talented is the whole of the solution needed. And that's more work than most studios are willing to go through, or even capable of. Hopefully some studio will start prioritizing that and we can get a nice domino effect to a cinema line up that doesn't look like its still stuck loop its been in since the 00's
@@Fanatic_Foremem Like Bryan Fuller, Lee Daniels, Alan Ball or Zal Batmanglij?
I have to ask, what qualifies as queer representation? I’m speaking from the perspective of a hetero, male for whom romance, orientation, gender identity etc aren’t super important to me as a movie watcher, and if those are important focuses of a movie, then it’s probably in a genre I’m not too interested in. I’m also going to assume that I represent the plurality of movie watchers. I’m trying to think of movies where you could replace the main character’s hetero relationship with a queer one, while still not really affecting the rest of the movie, and I’m coming up with movies like “Die Hard”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and the first “Back to the Future”. Movies where relationships might serve as motivation or background characterization, but aren’t really the main focus. Would something like that qualify as queer representation?
The point I’m trying to make is that I think it’s hard to find the balance between queer representation but having the focus of the movie be about queer representation. I don’t know if that makes any sense.
It’s way easier to do in a tv/streaming series since they have the time to juggle multiple plot threads
Speaking as somebody who loves genre stuff like sci-fi, fantasy, and superheroes, but who rarely gels with romance or realistic dramas I get where you're coming from. And to answer the question at the end of your first paragraph, yes that absolutely counts. A character's queerness doesn't have to be the focus of the story to be relevant. In fact it's kind of important to have instances where it's not, because often times there's flatly no reason a character couldn't be some kind of queer. But the thing is, all characters are assumed straight and cisgender until stated otherwise. So basically every time a character simply doesn't engage in romance or attraction they're defaulted as being straight (excepting incidents of often insulting levels of stereotyped behavior).
And I agree it's not easy. I did a video years ago pointing out that one of the difficulties of queer representation is that nobody knows a character is queer until it's pointed out. You can have an ethnically diverse cast and nobody ever has to bring up race because the diversity is clearly visible. With queer representation there needs to be some kind of signifier, whether it's a dialogue reference, a pride pin on their clothes, or their love interest being a presence.
@@CouncilofGeeks Yeah. the default assumption that a character is cis & straight plays a part in representation taking its time. I think one way around this is to cast more openly queer performers; movie watchers will probably assume their characters are also queer without any overt indicators needing to be in the movie. Unfortunately, Hollywood doesn’t seem too keen on casting queer performers.
@@stevenmara1025 You're underestimating the power of denial. Most regular watchers either wouldn't know the actor is queer, or would spout something along the lines of "There's no reason a queer actor can't play a cishet character -- they're an actor after all".
@@kaworunagisa4009 Yeah, straight actors playing queer and queer actors playing straight is fairly common. So I agree queer actor does not equal queer character. That being said, I do think casting LGBTQ+ actors who are openly out and LGBTQ+ in real life does at least curve the ‘assumed straight’ trope a bit. Because what use to always support the ‘straight until proven otherwise’ view on most characters was the silence of LGBTQ+ actors who, trying to just work and pay their bills, stayed in the closet if not flat out ‘played straight cis het’ in real life for the public so that they remained viable as a casting choice. If we stop ‘straight until proven otherwise’ as a perspective on actors, it might change the ‘straight until proven otherwise’ with characters as well.
@@stevenmara1025 Hmm, I do agree that those default assumptions may be playing their part in the pacing of progress but I'm not convinced the casting of queer performers is the answer (not that I know what the answer is mind you 😜) . I'm gay but don't have an up-to-date index of which actors are gay or not so even I, who has a vested interest, wouldn't necessarily make the assumption they are playing gay characters - let alone general audiences. Also I do feel there's a danger there of suggesting (not that you are) that they could *only* play queer when its my personal opinion that we should be opening the door for queer actors to play whatever roles they wish (and are good at obviously), to make it more (for want of a better word) 'normalised'. Work that in reverse to assume that straight actors always play straight and there's a risk of getting less representation as movie exces want 'big names' etc and lets face it, the majority of those are straight.
Vera, puts it better than I could above but its a tricky one and its an awkward balancing act. Do we have the character just be _there_ integrated as one of, or *the*, lead? Yes ideally, but then without any signifier how do we know they are representing LGBTQ+? If they effectively put up a neon sign or have to have a significant other to signpost it, it can quickly turn to tokenism. Makes my brain hurt a bit... 😁. Maybe the answer is just it has to be slow and steady progress for now, chipping away with a toothpick rather than a sledgehammer; I guess progress is progress, and a step in the right direction, no matter how long it takes....
So they can sell the movie in China, Russia, Middle East and other homophobic markets, simple as that.
I see it as a situation where a group that is still a minority that can be written into stories naturally, but what we get is overly "woke" sledgehammer writing that doesn't appeal to the mass market.
While the majority of the audience is still straight then the lead character/main protagonist is likely to be straight.
It doesn't help when "queer" is the defining character trait as compared to a character that just happens to be queer, very off puting and forced.
To get that right requires openly queer technical advisors, writers and directors. "Woke" sledgehammer writing of LGBT characters is an ethnic stereotype by cis/het writers, due to ignorance, cliche-dependence and unconscious biases.
I'd say it's to "help" the movie be accepted in international markets that don't tolerate queer rights or acknowledge them at all... Sad, but true...
It's VERY difficult to try and be a People pleaser for cinema going audiences in a Conservative country.
Despite using Chinese Actors in It's cast, Shang Chi got banned from being released there.
@@wardjunior1450 Speak for yourself. I'm a fan of Michelle Yeoh and Tony Leung, so I liked it.
I don't think the quality of Shang-Chi is related to this discussion. But carry on... 🤣
I've think the China situation has changed from a couple years ago when Vera did her previous & studios have lately quit playing ball. China kept denying stuff even after studios tried to cooperate, and there was suspicion they were fudging box office numbers, so studios worrying less about catering to them.
Again I’m frustrated by the division (divorce?) of MCU movie and MCU TV. I recently heard America described as the first Hispanic representation in the MCU. I guess Yo-yo being on Agents of Shield along with a gay Latino Inhuman character.
Also, I used to, at least personally, include Jessica Jones’ assistant as the first trans MCU character. Then I stopped. Then Matt and Kingpin played by the Netflix actors appearing in the MCU has muddled it further. Perhaps they’re variants and the Netflix shows are in the multiverse but not the MCU specifically?
Who knows. Due to a bit of stunt casting, a certain speedster was impersonated by someone who looks exactly like the same character in the X-men franchise. YMMV. RIP Pietro.
Great to see an image from 'Victim' used in the thumbnail. Incredible film.
To be fair to marvel first queer character was Justin hammer as seen in the one shot all hail the king which was a bonus extra on Thor dark world blu ray and DVDs. Then they finally put an edit friendly version of queer representation though not by an actual queer actor nor main character in endgame. So from DVD extra edit friendly moment to basically extra making a queer cameo in their biggest film that's edit friendly is a big jump though still lackluster due to it being poor representation. Then Loki is a major character but again easy to edit and not really explored. So getting better but still very behind just not as far back behind as originally. Then phastos who is a superhero so firstbqyeer superhero in the mcu and a major character albeit in an ensemble film. They tried not editing it in many nations so a lot better. And America Chavez and her moms is a little behind phastos as she's a supporting character being queer herself and her moms were basically cameos out of endgame. Seeing how they follow her can be great and also how they move forward with Loki and phastos all being different queer representation but gotta lean more into those. Billy or Wanda's son isn't portrayed as queer at all so we'll see about him and his boo Hulkling
As a big fan of the original Universal Monsters i was really disappointed the Mummy failed as much as it did. Plus there was some undertones in them that could have been better explored in modern society.
_Cupiditās est radix omnium malōrum_
Still as relevant now as 2000 years ago...
don't forget, a lot of the big name movie actors these days got started as a nobody on tv shows....example, Kaley Cuoco.....she was in a few thigs as a relatively unknown, Bridget on 8 simple rules, season 8 of the original charmed....then she went to the Big Bang Theory to play Penny....now she's known for roles on many tv shows and she's been in many many movies....she's now a big name....but back in the early 2000's she was a relative no body
While your overall point is true, and the barriers between TV and movies has become increasingly blurred, if you want to use big name TV to movie actors, then Kaley is a bad example IMO. She isn't known because of her movie roles and I can't see any big movies in her credits. Certainly not to the extent where she's known because of those movie roles.
She's a big name because of her TV roles, with Big Bang, Harley Quinn and currently The Flight Attendant. She hasn't made that jump to being a known movie star, at least not yet. She is a TV star, not a movie star.
I'd say that someone like Chris Pratt is a better, more recent example. Karen Gillan is another.
Spinning off your original point, it also seems more common these days for movie actors to go to TV, or at least go back to TV after successful movie roles. Nicole Kidman and Reese Witherspoon being standouts for me.
I think also they know that LGBT+ won't necessarily "boycott" things because we aren't in it in the same way ultra-conservatives will if we are. We just don't tend to react in that way so we are way easier to appease. Like you said, short of actually sliding back we are generally quite accepting.
We also read into veiled and ambiguous stuff and "see" representation (which pleases us) but it's left vague enough that they can not claim it if it winds conservatives up (if that makes sense).
Great video! Will you be ranking each episode for flux?
Not anytime soon.
I was very irritated with Bridgerton Season 2. Yes, it is a cheesy show with gorgeous costumes and sets. But in season 2, there was apparently zero time for any queer representation at all. There was a minor gay character in season 1. But now that Bridgerton is very popular in many markets, there was apparently zero interest. My question is, when should we stop watching these things? In Bridgerton, they have a world where racism has been mostly overcome - a wonderful goal! But why then can there not even be a smidge of queer representation in this world? I think I won't watch again until there is at least one queer character on the show.
Doctor Strange 2 does acknowledge that America Chavez has two moms. It's a blink and you'll miss it moment. America says "my moms" and Strange says "your parents."
Not quite on topic but can we talk about the cancellation of Legends of Tomorrow? The standard idea is of course that the show was cancelled for not generating enough revenue but I do wonder if there's more complex analysis that can be derived from this cancellation because LoT was one of the few CW shows that ticked off some pretty important boxes--namely its racial diversity, queer leads, and its usage of non-traditional storytelling
It got swept up in the usual "restructuring" that often happens after a merger. Along with several other Arrowverse shows.
@@CouncilofGeeks Thank you so much for replying! Crisis happened a few years ago, though, so I don't quite understand why it affected Legends now instead of back then?
@@jonnestyronicha497 that’s not the merger I’m talking about. I’m talking about the Warner Bros./Discovery merger.
@@CouncilofGeeks Ah I understand now
True, the Mouse has no morals. It just does what it can to survive, be it pretend it is in favor of something, then support a stupid bill.
I am sorry but eternals was not (that) good I don't think it bombed because of any queerness in it or that they have any grounds on doing that... but i cannot disagree that their most common excuse would be that the world is still "conservative"... now loki was interesting but it was more like a fake-out... it could have been great but... cop-out
Great video! Your makeup looks great!
Re homophobia: I think it's more complicated than that. There are plenty of straight people out there who don't have a problem with gays per se, but gay content isn't really a draw for them & if it's front & center, may make them lose interest. It seems this is the studio theory. That's why we keep getting queer sidekicks or ensemble members, but not leads.
Here's my theory: Disney doesn't care about their homophobic audience. In fact, they're counting on people to get upset about the representation, because it gives them publicity. If LGBT becomes normalized, they'll no longer be able to profit from the controversy.
love the top!!! very cute look for a not so cute topic!
I'm a straight woman and I find LGBT content in the west extremely boring. For that matter, even feminist content. We have much better films in India with actual stories. Sadly, most aren't English. Most stuff in the west just showcases LGBT do normal things like we are supposed to look and wonder. It is boring. I like stuff like Legends of Tomorrow, but the sex reassignment regeneration and race reassignment regeneration of the Doctor Who show is nauseating. The whole joyous goodwill around the show is destroyed and it is a game of flying labels and hate.
I disagree with your views on content but I actually enjoy your channel more than Jodie's entire era because YOU have YOUR points to make. Nobody knows why she's the Doctor or what she's doing from perspective of show, though I get it, the important business of representation is going on and it is dead BORING and it sacrifices the show for this exhibition of nonsense.
Speaking from a market outside the West, no one is likely to care about LGBT content in India. Muslim countries may have a problem because their religion forbids it. There may also be concerns of backlash against local LGBT communities. India recognizes trans people as a "third gender" - so we don't even have the TERF vs Trans type conflict. It isn't easy, but it isn't as hostile as in the west either. If you don't mind subtitles, you might enjoy the work of the late Rituparno Ghosh - Bengali mostly. Two Marathi films worth watching are Jogwa and Natrang. These are about gender change in various ways. I don't find this kind of quality - those films are incredible FILMS with trans/adjacent leads, shown to full cinemas, mindblowing music, winning awards and such. Not some patronized, bar lowered, "support entertainment in the name of human rights, even if it makes the show worse" nonsense.
I saw the show because of David Tennant and I'm at risk of starting to hate the sight of him since his return was announced, even though I'd watch anything he was in.
I hate that these disclaimers are necessary, but: I am not sexist/homophobic/racist/transphobic/etc to the best of my knowledge. I've seen and enjoyed a lot of your content and I'd celebrate if you got cast in a film. But not if you were simply a drop-in replacement for an iconic character. I wouldn't enjoy that and wouldn't watch.
Shoutout if you hung out with your rich friend to watch the new Disney Channel
Summers with my well off grandparents, but the same idea.
Money.
End of video.
The assumption that every character which sexual orientation is not specifically adressed is straight is absolutely dumb. I don't care about the sexual orientation of characters when I watch movies, unless it is part of the story. American cinema has more problems with queer representation - and representation in general - than european cinema. Stop the "Hey look, he/she/they is queer!" representation. Stop fingerpointing. Normalise it. This will take a while, but I'm hopefull.
Polling by Gallup in 2017 showed that Americans significantly overestimated the number of self-identified LGBT people in the country. GLAAD, a pro-LGBT activist group, estimated that the representation during the 2018-2019 period on TV was about double Gallup's best estimate for the number of LGBT people in the US, and this may explain the incorrect estimates for the group's size by the general population.
There are fads in Hollywood, and it shouldn't be surprising if the trend of making a point of having LGBT characters to show that you are cool with LGBT people is fading away. It also wouldn't be surprising if the trend reappears in future decades, because these things go in cycles.
Please keep in mind that the number of out LGBTQ+ people does not equal the actual number of LGBTQ+ people. The numbers are quickly becoming outdated as more people who grew up with less stigma surrounding being LGBTQ+ come out. The latest Gallup poll has LGBT identified people up to 7.1%, an increase of 1.5% in a single year. 20.8% of Gen Z identify as LGBT, as do 10.5% of Millennials. Currently, 11.9% of characters on broadcast TV are LGBTQ and if (as seems likely) the actual population percentage of LGBTQ+ people is closer to the percentage of out young people rather than out older people, that might actually be low. Either way I doubt the “trend” is going anywhere.
Also, this video was about representation in movies, not TV shows. Maybe some numbers about that would have been more relevant.
Don’t accuse me of defending Disney but…they’ve, or at least Marvel Studios, stepped up much more than expected.
There was not only queer representation in The Eternals and Dr. Strange but they REFUSED to alter it in any way to appease bigoted government censors in various countries, losing money in the process.
Queer rep in Lightyear was restored and it’s been announced that there is to be an openly gay protagonist in an animated film.
I’ve no doubt some Disney ‘leadership’ is frothing at the mouth but it’s clear that internal and external pressures have made a dent.
On stepping backwards and losing trust…the gayming community has had it’s struggles.
The Mass Effect series stepped in ‘controversy’ almost immediately by featuring gay people existing in the vastness of space.
Consciously trying to avoid criticism from Feax News, gays went nearly extinct in the second installment, damaging much good will from the player base.
That good will was restored somewhat in the third game by the introduction of multiple gay characters and romance options.
Then came Andromeda.
Mass Effect Andromeda is famous for it’s many problems but early on there was massive criticism from gaymers about the disparity in romance options.
Straight male and gay women had many options, all designed for the male gaze, while gay men had side characters. A step back for the series.
This was remedied by removing romance restrictions on one of the main male characters. Later it was revealed that some writers had to fight to make their characters queer.
And there were rumors at the time that gay/bi/pan male characters were intentionally avoided to not draw the same criticism the series has received in the past.
Needless to say, faith in the company BioWare, a self identified ‘ally’ was shaken by many. Mass Effect’s sister series however, Dragon Age, has been consistent in decent representation from the beginning.
The think is it does disney no favours. It would be fine if they would say in movies , no gay but series, you can , if they wouls actually officially show that in movies. Its not really connected, its still very independent . Like i am sure if sam gets a movie, the flag smashers wont come up and them having a point. And hoinestly , i the shows are allowed to be mor eexplicit and open about it, and the movies not, fine!
But they dont! Like loki and mobius at least you can show that and it would be tchnically canon but lieave it out off movies. Sylvie is trans , but not really in the movies. I can live with that, if they let series have queerness official.Because lets be serious, you dont need loki, to see its a multiverse, Its like hell the fox xmen, all over the place for good,
And they want that, in series, so do it.
Well i donr expect peopl who in the first place , if wanda vision int too much, why woul you care. And maybe gt evn hatewatchers and pr. No excuse
like they did it to agents of shield and its better off for it.
You just might be a weeping angels favourite prey
Another reason is very US specific -- when (eg) a gay director makes a movie about a gay character, they will be mercilessly attacked by members of the LGBT+2 community for not representing every demographic in the community (something which is clearly impossible to do). And they are attacked not on the basis of the work, but instead on news reports and trailers (what happened with Stonewall, Looking, & Love Simon) -- it is clear that the actual work doesn't matter. Sometimes it seems like the US LGBTQ+2 community loves to form circular firing squads and spend all their time shooting each other. Why you would expect anyone outside the community to join in, put money and time and effort on the line, and then be subject to the kinds of character assassination and vitriol that we hurl at each other? We might get another Brokeback - a movie written by a straight guy, based on a story written by a straight woman, directed by a straight man, starring two straight men (where, of course, a queer character has to die in the end, and end tragically for the other.)
So… if I’m understanding you, that feels like a misread of what I remember the complaints about those movies being, or at least the ones I personally encountered. The issues I saw raised were about the larger picture and the fact that when queer people are represented it is nearly always white gay men who get to be the flag bearers while other groups are ignored or minimized. This isn’t a “these specific movies” issue, it’s a big picture issue of which these movies become emblematic. Stonewall in specific was rightly maligned for centering a fiction gay white man at the expense of depicting the real life gender bending people of color at the actual heart of the Stonewall riot.
I don’t recall ever seeing these complaints manifesting as cries of “you should have personally included all groups in this movie” being thrown at directors. If it did, then those people didn’t understand the issue and are not representative of the pushback as a whole.
I don't think it's a moral decision that companies are making. It's a financial one. The truth is the majority of people are not queer. It's only around 5% of the population. Companies feel like there's no need to have tons and tons of queer representation for only 5% of viewers. Most people who are not queer are not worried about representation or looking for it. It's like when they make a movie for a small group of feminists but then they can't figure out why men and non-feminist are not standing in line to see the movie. I think it's more about supply and demand. Plus lately companies have been losing money doubling down on virtue signaling. It hasn't been paying off.
Actually, the latest Gallup poll has LGBT identification in the US up to 7.1%, an increase of 1.5% in a single year. LGBT identification has doubled since they began polling in 2012. It seems likely that it will continue to rise as more of Gen Z become adults, as Gen Z is already polling at 20.8% LGBT. So there is a market for it, and moreover the market is growing.
@@anony-missy That is still nowhere near the majority of moviegoers. Show runners usually try to appeal to the majority audience. For the showrunners it doesn't make sense for 90% of your projects to appeal to only 7 to 20% of the public. I'm not saying shows and movies geared toward that demographic are not important. But your average movie goer is looking for a good story. They are not hyper focused on how much representation is in the film or how diverse it is. This is why feminist movies do not do well in the box office because your average moviegoer is not a feminist. Same thing
@@geraldvance7925 Why do you assume that movies featuring good queer representation are not good stories? If that’s what the audience cares about, then why wouldn’t showrunners strive to have a good queer story, thus appealing to the built in queer audience of 7-20% of the country plus all the people looking for a good story?
@@anony-missy because the crowd that that would appeal to judges movies based on representation instead of good storytelling. Removing parts of a film for other countries takes away from the movie. Movies like Charlie's Angels Terminator dark fate and birds of prey did poorly at the box office. The last three years of Doctor Who have been the worst Doctor Who ever. But people keep saying it's great because of the diversity. It's all about the message and not the story unfortunately.
@@geraldvance7925 But why are you assuming that just having the representation automatically makes it bad? Are you saying there is no way to make movies with good representation and a good story?