Fandom and entitlement

Lotherio

@Pandora said in Fandom and entitlement:

Relationships are so rarely important to movies that aren't billed as romances, yet so often gay relationships seem to have this expectation of relevance, like gays are a distraction that had better have a good excuse for existing.

I think this is not viewed in the right context. No one is saying anyone needs a good excuse for existing, that seems more a slippery slope. Like lots of hetero marriages don't make it on the big screen and/or play no relevant part.

Like - we all remember the first superman. Remember General Zod and Ursa. Surprise, they're married. That heterosexual relationship did not contribute or distract from the movie in any way. No one is saying bad guys need a good excuse to have a relationship or anything. It just wasn't relevant to the movie.

Roz

It's definitely true that there are much bigger benchmarks for gay relationships -- similar to a lot of diversity issues in this context -- wherein people want to have REASONS for them to exist/be included, because "Idk gay people exist in the world so sometimes people in stories are gay?" is not good enough.

I think that some issue people have taken with the Dumbledore/Grindelwald relationship not being explicit enough (not in terms of SEX, just in terms of it being made clearer text instead of subtext) is the desire to not have some people try to insist that the romance elements aren't there because, basically, that plausible deniability will always exist in subtext, and audiences often seem to require a lot more PROOF to accept that a queer relationship is canon vs a straight relationship. Subtext is accepted way more implicitly as fact for straight relationships in media in general. I understand the desire for audiences who really appreciate seeing queer romances included, even in backstory, to want to not have to see others refute their existence because ~subtext isn't text~ or whatever. (And again, this is nothing to do with actual sex scenes.)

I didn't like the explanation the movie came up with for Dumbledore's lack of involvement, but only because it felt like kind of a cheap magical reasoning where I was a lot more intrigued by the idea of him being unable to face his former love for purely human reasons of emotion. I just found that idea more interesting from a story and character perspective, not so much that I needed the romance to be core to the plot.

Ghost

I think that realistically there are a few factors/questions that need to be kept in mind when it comes to "how X is depicted" (be it so-called whitewashing, racial casting, queerness in major film franchises, etc):

Understanding that the public is divided to a crazy degree on all things, one has to understand that there is no perfect answer

All a movie studio can do is try to not do something purposefully offensive while trying to implement content (I.e. you may have preferred more from Dumby/Grindy, but the final depiction may be where writers (or the final cut) felt the content was best without distracting from the rest of the story)

At what point is 'good enough'?

You hear a lot about how movies need to do more of this, less of that, more representation here, more screen time for this, but you dont really ever hear about what the end goal is. 10+ years ago people were hoping to see more positive queer relationships on screen, and since then it's become more regular to see queer sex scenes, relationships, etc. At what point has the goal been met? At what point are people moving the goalposts because they want more?

This is all rhetorical, mind you.

Arkandel

@Ghost Probably as long as we're still talking about it we're not there yet.

Kanye Qwest

I think when depicting it doesn't spark a lot of "that was forced" or "why is this this way" discussion. Or, you know, when representation comes anywhere close to approximating human experience.

Ghost

@Arkandel Maybe! I mean, just today a coworker of mine was telling me about how great Rocketman, but still mentioned that some "guy on guy" stuff on screen happened and he joked about covering his eyes like he was some kid refusing to eat asparagus.

I think there have also been some major strides, but you're always gonna have people that jabber about character relationships. Who should Brienne of Tarth fuck? Are Poe and Finn shipworthy? Iirc there was also some outcry recently about some character who was once believed to be gay, but then started sleeping with a female character, and despite writers talking about pansexuality some people felt like that character's queerness was erased.

I don't think this topic is really about movies as it is people identifying/weighing public judgment on them through response to TV and movie decisions, which, if I'm right, means that movie casting decisions, awards given, and decisions in scripts aren't going to be the answer. Its just one so-called battleground to a bigger conversation that cannot be solved by tv and film.

insomniac7809

Here's my only thoughts on the Grindledore thing:

It's not about showing sex scenes in a kids' movie.

But when Lupin and Tonks got together, it was acknowledged that they were in a relationship, even though the relationship doesn't really matter for the plot. Say it and move on.

That Grindlewald and Dumbledore are together is buried in subtext, even though their history is a major plot point in the narrative.

I don't believe this has anything to do with what works best for the story, as opposed to being too chickenshit to acknowledge a gay relationship in text rather than subtext.

Sparks

@insomniac7809 said in Fandom and entitlement:

But when Lupin and Tonks got together, it was acknowledged that they were in a relationship, even though the relationship doesn't really matter for the plot. Say it and move on.

That Grindlewald and Dumbledore are together is buried in subtext, even though their history is a major plot point in the narrative.

This.

Straight relationships are acknowledged in the text of major stories, whether or not they're relevant to the plot. We've seen people get away with more on TV in recent years, but in movies? Anything else gets buried in the subtext.

In Captain Marvel, are Carol Danvers and Maria Rambeau in love? Like 70 or 80% of the fanbase say yes (and Brie Larsen sure as heck implies it constantly in interviews). Is that ever openly stated in the film? No. The subtext is, admittedly, extremely loud, but it remains subtext.

(And, I will note, unlike many straight relationships which get acknowledged in text, Carol's relationship with Maria and Monica actually is relevant to the plotline. The film just never openly defines what that plot-relevant relationship is, leaving themselves wiggle room.)

When people talk about wanting to see a movie commit to showing a visible gay relationship, I think what they mean is not "the story has to be rewritten to focus on this" but rather, "It would've been nice if, while changing absolutely nothing else in the film, at some point Carol or Maria had even one line that referred to the other as their girlfriend or partner to surface that relationship from subtext into text."

Ghost

@Sparks I have high hopes that with all of the potential "Young Avengers" build up in endgame and the Wanda/Vision show coming up that we're about to get the most adorable and legit gay Marvel couple (at least my own personal fave) soon:

Hulkling and Wiccan

Kanye Qwest

@Sparks Ugh, and in Endgame, you never even see Carol ASK about Marie, or mention her, or see her face as one of the missing. I get it, she had a fun weekend kicking around with her pal Fury, but I don't really think that he's the reason she rushed back to Earth after the snap.

Warma Sheen

@insomniac7809 said in Fandom and entitlement:

I don't believe this has anything to do with what works best for the story, as opposed to being too chickenshit to acknowledge a gay relationship in text rather than subtext.

This. Except what you call 'chickenshit' the execs call 'good business', like @Ghost said previously. If the last 3 years has shown anything, it is that hate is not extinct in the world. At all. Even a little bit. There are still many racists, bigots, and all manner of adjacent haters, all of whom are consumers. And not just in Western countries. There are plenty of movie dollars to be made all over the world, many of whom are no where near as "inclusive" as the US.

Trading smaller cash returns for openly acknowledging potentially scandalous text in a movie isn't good business. Even in Hollywood. Its sucks. But that's the world we live in.

Sparks

@Kanye-Qwest said in Fandom and entitlement:

@Sparks Ugh, and in Endgame, you never even see Carol ASK about Marie, or mention her, or see her face as one of the missing. I get it, she had a fun weekend kicking around with her pal Fury, but I don't really think that he's the reason she rushed back to Earth after the snap.

To be fair, Endgame was written and filmed before Captain Marvel, which is why Carol's out-of-uniform look is so different in Endgame; they hadn't even settled on her aesthetic yet. When Endgame was written, they may not have yet known how that relationship would shake out and so didn't want to risk contradicting something.

I'll let them slide on that one just for reasons of production practicality.

Auspice

@Sparks said in Fandom and entitlement:

@Kanye-Qwest said in Fandom and entitlement:

@Sparks Ugh, and in Endgame, you never even see Carol ASK about Marie, or mention her, or see her face as one of the missing. I get it, she had a fun weekend kicking around with her pal Fury, but I don't really think that he's the reason she rushed back to Earth after the snap.

To be fair, Endgame was written and filmed before Captain Marvel, which is why Carol's out-of-uniform look is so different in Endgame; they hadn't even settled on her aesthetic yet. When Endgame was written, they may not have yet known how that relationship would shake out and so didn't want to risk contradicting something.

I'll let them slide on that one just for reasons of production practicality.

They also didn't know when CM2 will be set (between the early 90s and modern? After current day?) so things could change there, too.

insomniac7809

@Warma-Sheen said in Fandom and entitlement:

@insomniac7809 said in Fandom and entitlement:

I don't believe this has anything to do with what works best for the story, as opposed to being too chickenshit to acknowledge a gay relationship in text rather than subtext.

This. Except what you call 'chickenshit' the execs call 'good business', like @Ghost said previously. If the last 3 years has shown anything, it is that hate is not extinct in the world. At all. Even a little bit. There are still many racists, bigots, and all manner of adjacent haters, all of whom are consumers. And not just in Western countries. There are plenty of movie dollars to be made all over the world, many of whom are no where near as "inclusive" as the US.

Trading smaller cash returns for openly acknowledging potentially scandalous text in a movie isn't good business. Even in Hollywood. Its sucks. But that's the world we live in.

"We wrote a gay couple but didn't acknowledge it" doesn't stop being chickenshit because it might annoy China or Russia.

Ghost

Not that I think it's entirely right, but when you're attempting to finance a movie that costs over 170 million to make + 100 million in advertising, and you're told that not digging too deeply into any subject matter in the movie could be the difference between losing 10 million or profiting 50+ million...it may not be the entitlement answer people want, but for the super high budget money making projects these movies are, it makes sense.

There are movies where it's wrong to avoid the content, and movies where it's more reasonable to downplay it. In the end you've got to understand that the huge budget movie companies that fund these movies are less concerned about whether or not specific wishes are met and more about the investment.

Pandora

@Ghost That's entirely unrelated to my comment, which is about the post-screening lamentations of movie-goers, not your imagined process of how casting decisions are made.

Ghost

@Pandora It wasnt meant to be related to your comment. My knowledge of casting decisions comes from a contact/family friend I have in the movie industry. Feel free to disagree as you wish.

Pandora

@Ghost said in Fandom and entitlement:

@Pandora It wasnt meant to be related to your comment.

Do you even pay attention when posting? I obviously responded to the post in which you quoted me.

Ghost

@Pandora said in Fandom and entitlement:

@Ghost said in Fandom and entitlement:

@Pandora It wasnt meant to be related to your comment.

Do you even pay attention when posting? I obviously responded to the post in which you quoted me.

Apparently not. You mean the one from 11 hours ago? Uh, sure? Anyway my response was to insomniac's post but it wasn't directly to him so I didn't tag him.

Pandora

@Ghost said in Fandom and entitlement:

Apparently not. You mean the one from 11 hours ago? Uh, sure? Anyway my response was to insomniac's post but it wasn't directly to him so I didn't tag him.

Yes, 11 hours ago. We can't all be around 24/7 like you, @Ghost some of us have real lives.