C'mon, man. What the fuck?
Things were moving along quite well with this show and then BAM!, it goes gay.
Kurt should've told them, "Aww hell naw."
Someone needs to launch a service that does nothing but warn people about gay shit in movies and TV shows.
Lesbians existing is gay propaganda now?
shareYea, especially when nearly every show and movie now seems to think it needs to include a gay storyline when actual gay people are pretty rare in society (about 7% of the population). Writers over-representing them and constantly including homosexual storylines is not done for creative reasons.
share>Yea, especially when nearly every show and movie now seems to think it needs to include a gay storyline when actual gay people are pretty rare in society (about 7% of the population).
TV shows can have up to 20-40 main and supporting characters over their run. If not more for long-running series.
It is statistically likely with those numbers that you would expect to see at least one LGBT character.
In most shows, for the vast majority of their characters there is no emphasis placed at all on their sexuality. You never know if they are gay or straight or whatever because it is unimportant to the story. I suppose if you want to you can make one of those characters gay, but never tell anyone outside the writer's room.
share>In most shows, for the vast majority of their characters there is no emphasis placed at all on their sexuality.
This is sometimes true. I am not saying all shows have indepth romance storylines if they have gay people, but there is usually a reference to them being gay. Monarch also focused on her brothers relationship with May, which was also arguably pointless. They both were. But whether or not Cate treated on her female partner or a male partner wouldn't have changed the pointlessness of the plotlines. It was just there to parallel her fathers infidelity.
Skavau’s job is to gaslight you into thinking woke doesn’t exist so there’s no point calling it out and resisting it.
Fortunately, he’s absolutely terrible at it.
Disproportionate media representation is a form of propaganda.
Dont deny it.
TV shows can have up to 20-40 main and supporting characters over their run. If not more for long-running series.
It is statistically likely with those numbers that you would expect to see at least one LGBT character.
Expecting only gay people to be present in 1 show out of 10 would be severely underrepresenting them because each TV show, funnily enough, has more than 1 character.
Not when its every other fucking lead. supporting characters Idgaf about.
shareSkavau’s job is to gaslight you into thinking woke doesn’t exist so there’s no point calling it out and resisting it.
Fortunately, he’s absolutely terrible at it.
Now watch him try to deny this (to trick you into thinking he’s credible) but still attempt to convince you that it’s nothing to worry about and there’s therefore no need to call it out or resist it. Check it out 👇
Except I've told you repeatedly that I don't claim that "woke" doesn't exist. I simply debate that it is somehow destroying modern tv/film, or that it is as people oft-describe here.
You continue to strawman my position.
It's not "every other fucking lead".
shareit is and stfu.
shareI'll do whatever I like. I can name countless shows, modern shows, in the last 5 years where the lead character is not homosexual. Would you like me to do this?
shareGo for it 🤣
shareNo problem. Here we go.
Chernobyl, The Witcher, The Queen's Gambit, House of the Dragon, Ted Lasso, Reacher, Halo, The Bear, Severance, Mare of Easttown, Andor, Only Murders in the Building, Lupin, The Wheel of Time, Beef, Silo, Shadow and Bone, 1883, 1899, The Peripheral, The Night Agent, The Terminal List, Black Bird, Maid, See, Alice in Borderland, Foundation, Normal People, Dopesick, Slow Horses, Shrinking, From, Snowpiercer, The Diplomat, The Great, Virgin River, The Old Man, Devs, The Righteous Gemstones, Hanna, Gangs of London, All the Light We Cannot See, Warrior, Superman & Lois, Tokyo Vice, Fubar, The Continental, Station Eleven, Citadel, Outer Range, Perry Mason, Mr & Mrs. Smith, Scenes from a Marriage, We Own this City, Time, The Tourist, One Day, Twisted Metal, Night Sky, Godfather of Harlem, True Story, We Crashed, The Rings of Power, Hawkeye, Bridgerton, After Life, Dahmer: Monster, One Piece, Dexter: New Blood, The Undoing, The Outsider, Unorthodox, Inventing Anna
I can keep going. None of these, to my knowledge, have homosexual leads. Many have homosexual character(s) but not actual leads.
Many have homosexual character(s) but not actual leads.
The claim, specifically, was that homosexual characters were *leads*. They weren't.
>And the list of series that includes them are in the hundreds.
So? There's nearly a thousand TV shows made every year.
And the ones without them are becoming more rare.
shareI'd like some data based on that, please. It's obviously declined in the last 10 years because gay people are just accepted as normal. Most TV shows still prominently follow heterosexual people.
In many shows, the sexuality one way or another doesn't matter that much anyway.
Gay propaganda?? All one has to do is look at Godzilla X Kong: The Gay Empire the way they're making that movie feel when they show clips.. I'm not sure how modern day audiences will react to Baby Kong and if that's not bad enough, Godzilla now has pink fins to reel in the Barbie crowd, which is unusual given the awesomeness of MINUS ONE
shareGodzilla now has pink fins to reel in the Barbie crowd
BKB may well be completely speculating here.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/why-godzilla-pink-godzilla-x-kong-the-new-empire-explained#:~:text=As%20per%20speculations%20and%20analysis,it%20acquired%20the%20pink%20form.
"pink things = woke" is beyond silly really.
Yeah, I don't think it is gay at least, unless of course the pink Godzilla is male.
Do they really think a pink monster is going to be scary?
Ah, after reading the article you posted, it turned out to be the same Godzilla, just turned pink.
I'd say it is an idea beyond stupid.
That could kill the Godzilla show for me.
At the risk of being a killjoy, Prime:
Not anticipating shout-outs to Wokeness in any contemporary American series or film makes less sense than expecting Pam Anderson to wake up a brilliant neurosurgeon tomorrow
The subject matter and, especially, Kurt Russell's inclusion, made me hopeful that this would be something of a throwback to an earlier, better time in entertainment.
shareWhen do you think entertainment, TV, was better?
shareI think it was a period after cold war was over, when entertainment was less about propaganda, more about pure entertainment.
I think from the 90s, started with movies like "Jurassic park" and TV shows like "Friends" to about the time Disney took over Marvel and Lucas film, it was like a period of renaissance.
After that it all went downhill.
Nowadays it is all about the "message", entertainment is about propaganda once again like never before. Probably more so than the cold war period.
To think of it, Disney started all this.
>I think from the 90s, started with movies like "Jurassic park" and TV shows like "Friends" to about the time Disney took over Marvel and Lucas film, it was like a period of renaissance.
TV shows in the 1990s were mostly just police/legal/medical procedurals with an episodic "monster of the week" format. And family sitcoms. For every Friends, there were twenty generic family/friend sitcoms that we've all forgotten.
It was a very bland time. The budgets were lower, the shows were much more samey and bland. Unless you like watching cop shows. There was nothing on the scale of Game of Thrones in the 1990s.
There's also the prominence of international media content now. In the nineties and noughties it was just American content, with a smattering of UK content. That was it. Now a lot of money is being poured into international content, especially Korea - which has hugely diversified modern media. It's also much easier to find and watch newer content legally or illegally, the genres are more varied (there's much more speculative fiction being made in the 2010s than there was in the 80s, 90s and 00s). TV is just way more diverse than it was in the 1990s.
>To think of it, Disney started all this.
Dude, you really, really need to look beyond Disney for modern entertainment.
It is not just Disney anymore, maybe they started it, but now it is everywhere.
shareWhat modern TV have you watched, may I ask?
shareOther than this one, mostly were comic book series.
Other than that:
Halo
House of dragons
His Dark Materials
YOU
Citidal
Emily in Paris
Man Like Mobeen
Dexter
Never Have I Ever
The Sex Lives of College Girls
Those are what I remember watched recently.
Dude... why did you watch Emily in Paris lmao
>Other than this one, mostly were comic book series.
And I think we're getting the nub of the problem here with how you view modern TV. A lot of the shows you just listed there got poor ratings too.
I am a sucker for rom-coms.
Just remembered I also watched "Only Murders in the Building" and "Reacher" recently.
Anyway, we all have our preferences.
>I am a sucker for rom-coms.
I mean given the context of this thread, and where you stand, I'd assume chic-flics were completely unappealing to you.
>Just remembered I also watched "Only Murders in the Building" and "Reacher" recently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79rtcCnaeyo&ab_channel=JoBloStreaming%26TVTrailers (Warrior)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEQP4VVuyrY&t=87s (Severance)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrwycJ08PSA&t=81s (Dark)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0QwBp_da28 (The Expanse)
What do you think of stuff like Succession, Chernobyl, Better Call Saul? The prestige dramas the 2010s and 2020s are known for?
The Expanse I already watched, just not recently.
Warrior, Succession and Better Call Saul I tried, they were so boring I could not pass the first episode.
Severance I give up after reading the introduction, it was just not the sort of thing I am interested.
Dark I haven't tried, though it is not something appealing to me either.
Chernobyl however is on my list to watch.
You and I seem to have very different taste.
>Warrior, Succession and Better Call Saul I tried, they were so boring I could not pass the first episode.
Yeah you may have odd tastes to think this. Those shows are all highly praised. Succession is regarded by some as the best show of all time. BCS up there too.
>You and I have very different taste.
Clearly, but the strength of modern TV is their dystopian, sci-fi thrillers (Severance, Dark, Silo) and high budget historical fiction (Warrior, Black Sails, Shogun). You just didn't get that in the 90s and 00s.
Silo is the same, I also watched Foundation, neither would draw me in.
I haven't decided to give up on them as yet, but they are just not very interesting, I think they require a lot of patience.
Succession I know was very highly regarded, but I just could not get into it. It is very slow, maybe they need the right type of person, I mean art movie sort of person to enjoy it.
There's no accounting for taste, but you see why someone into dystopian/sci-fi/ historical fiction would prefer now to the 90s, right?
shareI guess so.
I like GoT a lot, but that is more fantasy genre.
High Fantasy has always been slim-pickings be it 90s or 10s.
Game of Thrones and HOTD are the obvious stand-outs but the 90s had low-budget tripe like Xena and Hercules. I mean, there's no competition here: fantasy is obviously better in the 10s.
Yeah, as time goes on, and big streaming giants like Amazon pouring money in, high budget TV shows are more of a norm now.
But that is no guarantee of quality, Citidal and the new Lord of Rings series could have used better scripts.
It isn't, but there is still plenty of well-written content
shareIn my view, the best decade for movies was the 90s. There were so many great films in the 90s, and the emphasis from the big studios was largely on making broadly crowd-pleasing films that weren't pushing a political message and that were designed to appeal to as many people as possible.
For TV, the best era was probably right around 2010, because production quality was high but far-left messaging and philosophy had not yet seeped into every nook and cranny of the industry.
>In my view, the best decade for movies was the 90s. There were so many great films in the 90s, and the emphasis from the big studios was largely on making broadly crowd-pleasing films that weren't pushing a political message and that were designed to appeal to as many people as possible.
Can't speak for movies. Don't watch enough of them.
>For TV, the best era was probably right around 2010, because production quality was high but far-left messaging and philosophy had not yet seeped into every nook and cranny of the industry.
Can I ask, what modern TV have you watched... post-2015 onwards?
Off the top of my head (and I'll include mini-series):
Game of Thrones*
Silo
Monarch*
Lessons in Chemistry
A Small Light**
For All Mankind*
All the Light We Cannot See
Westworld*
Cobra Kai
Tulsa King
Yellowstone / 1883 / 1923 (grouping these since they're all related)*
Rings of Power
Wheel of Time*
The Peripheral
Fargo
Stranger Things*
Godless*
The OA
The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel*
* All shows with gay shit shoved into the storyline unnecessarily.
** A Small Light is a particularly egregious example, because it is about Anne Frank and the girl who tried to save the Frank family (Miep Gies). In the show, they give Miep a gay adopted brother even though, by the admission of the producer himself, they "took liberties" and there is no evidence that Miep had a gay brother.
>* All shows with gay shit shoved into the storyline unnecessarily.
What was the "gay shit" shoved into Game of Thrones unnecessarily?
How about Westworld? What makes it "unnecessary"?
>Wheel of Time*
What are you referring to here?
>A Small Light**
"A Small Light asserts that Miep Gies had a gay brother, Casmir 'Cas' Nieuwenburg, who was unrelated to her by blood. In the series, he is a son of her foster parents in Amsterdam. When she is unable to find a job, due to both laziness and a lack of employment options, her foster parents suggest that she marry her brother, Cas (Laurie Kynaston). Both Cas and Miep are shocked by the idea and we learn that part of the reason is because Cas is a gay man. If you're familiar with Anne Frank's story but never knew about Miep Gies' gay brother, it's because this aspect of the story is entirely fictional.
A Small Light writer Tony Phelan commented on this during an interview with RadioTimes, "And then we took some liberties in the character of Cas, her brother. We know that Miep had five foster brothers – statistically probably one of them was gay," he said. "But deciding to make Cas gay allowed us into the world of the Café 't Manje and the fact that the queer community in the Netherlands was very active in the Dutch resistance."
Artistic licence, to a degree.
What are some examples, in your opinion, of acceptable gay depictions in TV?
Re: Game of Thrones, there were multiple homo characters in that show.
Re: Wheel of Time, totally unnecessary lesbian relationship between Moiraine and Siuan.
Re: A Small Light, they're taking artistic license regarding real people in a show about a very serious subject? Will you argue that is for "creative reasons" and not political ones?
>Re: Game of Thrones, there were multiple homo characters in that show.
So? That was directly from the source material. And it was relevant to their characterisation.
How was that unneccessary?
>Re: Wheel of Time, totally unnecessary lesbian relationship between Moiraine and Siuan.
Would it have been as equally unnecessary if Siuan was a man?
>Re: A Small Light, they're taking artistic license regarding real people in a show about a very serious subject? Will you argue that is for "creative reasons" and not political ones?
I just gave you their explanations. Take from it what you will.
I understand it was taken from the source material. I pass the blame on through the showrunners to Martin also.
And it would've been fine if Siuan was a man because males and female were meant for each other. That is normal and natural human sexuality, not deviant sexuality.
In regard to A Small Light, I don't know if they use one of her actual brother's name or not, but if they day, they defamed a dead person for no good reason.
>I understand it was taken from the source material. I pass the blame on through the showrunners to Martin also.
Why? What "blame" should they have to actually following the source material?
Why was it "unnecessary" that they were gay in Game of Thrones?
>And it would've been fine if Siuan was a man because males and female were meant for each other. That is normal and natural human sexuality, not deviant sexuality.
So here we are then.
You literally think that any depiction of a homosexual in fiction is unacceptable. That gay people should never be portrayed ever.
I wouldn't mind gay people being portrayed in storylines as cautionary tales. Essentially my belief is that we shouldn't normalize homosexuality anymore than we would want to normalize kleptomania. It's not that I am without understanding that people have natural urges to do unfortunate shit. I just think that we should fight such urges.
share>I wouldn't mind gay people being portrayed in storylines as cautionary tales.
So you only accept negative depictions? Why?
>Essentially my belief is that we shouldn't normalize homosexuality anymore than we would want to normalize kleptomania.
This, apparently, is your religiously derived belief. Why should society be forced to hold to this?
You complain of "gay propaganda", but your definition of it appears to be nothing more than "gay people being portrayed as people".
It is my religiously-derived belief, yes. It is also my belief based upon the simple observation of the human body and reproductive system, and my conclusions regarding the obvious reality of how things were designed to work.
The fact of the matter is that nearly all of America was on the same page regarding this issue until just in the last decade or two. The reality is that my view, for most of this country's--and its society's--existence, has been the standard, normal view on this issue. And I still suspect that the average American does not really want to see two dudes kissing.
>It is my religiously-derived belief, yes.
And plenty of people do not share that, or aren't religious.
> It is also my belief based upon the simple observation of the human body and reproductive system
People do not only have sex just to procreate. Haven't done for a long time.
>The fact of the matter is that nearly all of America was on the same page regarding this issue until just in the last decade or two.
No, they weren't. There were gay people on TV in the 1990s.
>The reality is that my view, for most of this country's--and its society's--existence, has been the standard, normal view on this issue. And I still suspect that the average American does not really want to see two dudes kissing.
Straight people are probably not interested in watching a gay romance show. Would they object if a show they're watching happens to include gay characters though? No.
And I will ask again: Why should society be forced to hold to this?
I suspect we're just going in circles here so I will just answer your last question: Because it is God's will and the morally right thing to do.
I'm sure you'll just respond again with, "Not everyone is religious or believes that." Yeah, I know. Not everyone believes the earth is round either.
>I suspect we're just going in circles here so I will just answer your last question: Because it is God's will and the morally right thing to do.
I don't give a fuck about "god's will". I'm not a christian. US society has the first amendment.
You seem to have social values more inclined to Iran than the USA.
>I'm sure you'll just respond again with, "Not everyone is religious or believes that." Yeah, I know. Not everyone believes the earth is round either.
So are you suggesting you want the USA to be a theocracy?
It is very clear to me that you have no regard for God's will. It was unnecessary to state that.
As for the USA being a theocracy, what I would instead like is for Americans of their own free will to choose to be a decent and moral people. But we've been headed in the wrong direction on that since the 1960s.
>It is very clear to me that you have no regard for God's will. It was unnecessary to state that.
Right. But my question is why should someone else "having regard" for a god's will remotely matter to me? Why would you expect non-religious people to care?
>As for the USA being a theocracy, what I would instead like is for Americans of their own free will to choose to be a decent and moral people. But we've been headed in the wrong direction on that since the 1960s.
Less and less people are religious every year. That's a demographic shift. People don't tend to have any problems with LGBT people in fiction anymore. Why should people care that you dislike it for religious reasons?
This is a question that can easily be reversed: Why should Christian folk care that unbelievers object to what it is that we want to see in our entertainment?
In any case, the fact of the matter is this: If Hollywood pushes a bunch of gay stuff into movies and shows, then they are going to alienate a large part of their hoped-for audience, and they're doing it all for a tiny portion of society. NOT pushing gay stuff into movies and shows doesn't make the 7% of gay folks hate those movies and shows, though.
It seems then that it's just good economics, at least most of the time, to try to please as many people as possible.
>This is a question that can easily be reversed: Why should Christian folk care that unbelievers object to what it is that we want to see in our entertainment?
I don't. But you don't get to dictate to unbelievers what entertainment we make. You don't get to call for censorship based on your religious beliefs.
But this has nothing to do with "gay propaganda", and everything to do with your religious puritanism.
>In any case, the fact of the matter is this: If Hollywood pushes a bunch of gay stuff into movies and shows, then they are going to alienate a large part of their hoped-for audience, and they're doing it all for a tiny portion of society.
Except that many LGBT themed shows, or TV shows with LGBT people as characters have been very successful. There's no reason to think this alienates enough people to damage viewership. So your premise is just wrong.
What are some examples, in your opinion, of acceptable gay depictions in TV?
shareI think that if gay people want to have shows and movies, then they should do that in specifically gay productions (e.g. that show The L Word from back in the day). It doesn't belong in mainstream entertainment that is meant to cater toward a broad range of people with varying social viewpoints.
Basically, what we see today is that Hollywood just decided to say, "Fuck Christians and other conservatives."
>I think that if gay people want to have shows and movies, then they should do that in specifically gay productions (e.g. that show The L Word from back in the day).
Why?
Why should they be effectively segregated from TV? Fiction is a mirror of reality. Gay people exist.
>It doesn't belong in mainstream entertainment that is meant to cater toward a broad range of people with varying social viewpoints.
Why the fuck not?
>Basically, what we see today is that Hollywood just decided to say, "Fuck Christians and other conservatives."
And you apparently want Hollywood to say "Fuck liberals". Why should authors, writers and showrunners not be allowed to depict gay people just because conservatives (or some of them) don't like it? Why should all fiction only be made for conservatives (or rather: reactionaries) and fundamentalist christians?
Most people have no problem with LGBT people existing, and being portrayed in TV.
To be fair, I wouldn't mind mostly keeping politics and hot button political issues out of movies entirely. Look at a movie like Independence Day. Everyone should think that's a fun and enjoyable movie, regardless of your political, social or sexual persuasion. We need more movies like that.
In regard to your last statement, I don't know what crowd you run with, but in my circles everyone is sick of the gay shit. I literally got a text message just a few hours ago from someone complaining about more lesbian shit in some show that she just started watching.
>To be fair, I wouldn't mind mostly keeping politics and hot button political issues out of movies entirely.
Gay people existing and having relationships and being people isn't "political".
And some of the most interesting and enaging TV shows and films have always been political.
>Look at a movie like Independence Day. Everyone should think that's a fun and enjoyable movie, regardless of your political, social or sexual persuasion. We need more movies like that.
Not everything should be popcorn flics.
>In regard to your last statement, I don't know what crowd you run with, but in my circles everyone is sick of the gay shit.
You do realise some of Netflixs most successful shows have had lots of LGBT people in them, right? Numbers don't lie.
And since when is your anecdotal experience reflective of the norm?
And I will ask again: And you apparently want Hollywood to say "Fuck liberals". Why should authors, writers and showrunners not be allowed to depict gay people just because conservatives (or some of them) don't like it? Why should all fiction only be made for conservatives (or rather: reactionaries) and fundamentalist christians?
You can have "issue" movies, but they go in their own corner of the entertainment-sphere. I agree not everything has to be a popcorn movie. But the real point I'm getting at is that we need entertainment that everyone can enjoy and that is offensive to no one.
Here's an example of a film that isn't a popcorn flick: Apollo 13. Great movie that EVERYONE should be able to enjoy without getting uptight, unless they hate America, in which case they have bigger problems than not enjoying a movie.
In regard to your Netflix comment, there are plenty of people who suffer through the gay shit because a show is otherwise good. So they help to boost the numbers. But that doesn't shouldn't be taken as approval of everything in the show.
As for your last question, my question is: What is their interest in "depicting gay people?" Does it make the story better? If so, in what way? (Spoiler: It doesn't make the story better. It's done for reasons of political and social ideology.)
>You can have "issue" movies, but they go in their own corner of the entertainment-sphere.
Which means what? Battlestar Galactica was political. Mr. Robot was political. The Expanse was political. Severance is political.
>I agree not everything has to be a popcorn movie. But the real point I'm getting at is that we need entertainment that everyone can enjoy and that is offensive to no one.
And we have plenty of that? Hallmark movies are pretty inoffensive.
If gay people are "offensive" to you, that to me, sounds like a "you" problem - to be frank.
>In regard to your Netflix comment, there are plenty of people who suffer through the gay shit because a show is otherwise good. So they help to boost the numbers. But that doesn't shouldn't be taken as approval of everything in the show.
Heartstopper is literally a gay romance teen show. People watched it in big numbers.
Sex Education is about the sex lives of students.
They both did very well. Why is this?
>As for your last question, my question is: What is their interest in "depicting gay people?"
Gay people exist. Just like black people. Fiction is a mirror to reality. Why should they need a reason anymore than someone might "need" a reason to depict an interracial couple? Or a couple with a bit of an age-gap?
>Does it make the story better?
Does it make it worse?
>If so, in what way? (Spoiler: It doesn't make the story better. It's done for reasons of political and social ideology.)
So every single example of a gay person in fiction ever, they were always put in purely due to "political" and "social ideology"?
GAY PEOPLE EXIST...THEIR BEING IN A SHOW OR FILM IS NOT "shoved into the storyline"...JUST REALITY.
share>The Peripheral
It's funny. Did you miss the transwoman in Peripheral?
Like most other actors, Kurt had to tow the DEI line.
share