J.J. Abrams Says Gay Characters Are Coming to Star Wars
- Thread starter PatrickJS
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In order to do the latter, you must do the former.ravenshrike said:
By saying diversity is good, he's automatically saying that the alternative is bad. It's just science.erttheking said:
Dumbledore is a really bad example, because he had to go and get a crush on Wizard Hitler mk1. And then turning on Grindy when he finally realized the guy was kind of a dick got his sister killed, which led to his crippling Atonement Syndrome, which ended up getting him killed at the worst possible moment (I can only assume that a fear of falling back into old habits is also why he didn't let the Order kill Death Eaters).JimB said:
The moral being, don't think with your dick, folks. It fucks everything up for decades and it may or may not extend WW2.
I'm not straight, but I don't like checklisting tokenism. It's great if one happens to be gay as PART of their character, but JJ isn't subtle at all and there's a habit of some people to show how "forward thinking" they are by shining a spotlight on a character for that one and only atrribute, which is really annoying. The flaming or extremely campy trope is equally irritating, but that doesn't fit star wars' style.
Of course he answered a question so it'll be a wait-and-see situation.
I think this is what people are assuming they'll see:
Of course he answered a question so it'll be a wait-and-see situation.
I think this is what people are assuming they'll see:
Meh, I'm indifferent to that. But if that cesspool of the internet (yes, 4chan has lost the title to Tumblr) wants something, then it is very nearly by definition a bad thing.erttheking said:
You know, it's easy to coast on good publicity when you don't have to do anything. You're not breaking boundaries by including gay characters anymore. Plenty of people were quiet about homosexuality when it was a controversial movement. Now that the stigmas are gone, all these companies and businessmen are coming out of the woodwork to preach about inclusivity. For you're just now jumping on the bandwagon, that's great, but don't act like you're on the bleeding edge of human rights.
I'm not saying Abrams is doing this, since he was just answering a question, but I've noticed this a lot lately.
I'm not saying Abrams is doing this, since he was just answering a question, but I've noticed this a lot lately.
I would be perfectly fine with it if they have gay characters.thaluikhain said:
To me this however is like going "Star wars! all new all star! all wars! now including!: Gays!Women!and POC'S!".
I don't need to see it advertised everywhere, at the very most after the dust has settled and the movie is out we can drop all the articles of how the new starwars had a strong and divers cast.
But then that's critics/fans pointing that out and not the producers of the movie.
I'm ... I'm okay with this.Nurb said:...
I think this is what people are assuming they'll see:
What a silly thing to say...JimB said:
Harry and ron's parents are parents in the traditional sense M/F stereotype meaning they had to be heterosexual, same goes for draco's
Harry ends up with Ginny
Ron ends up with Hermoine
All characters are straight, the Harry-Ginny thing is big in the story.
Relationships were a big thing in Harry potter, the only excuse you could make for Dumbledore is that in that sense when comparing him to the rest his only heterosexual counterpart would have to be Mcgonnagal and the Grindelwald thing was equally unclear.
It's ridiculous to say that heterosexual relationships did not matter in the Harry Potter stories because they mattered a lot.
Yup, they can be a real useful shorthand.erttheking said:
Now, I guess I should mention that I have zero problem with gay characters in Star Wars, and I always assumed that some of them would have to be anyway, just on percentages. I just don't want to see Tumblr get their way on anything because that will only encourage them to think they're relevant. If most of Tumblr disappeared overnight, leaving only the strange comics and weird porn - aka the only worthwhile parts of Tumblr - the internet would be a vastly better place.
You don't have a problem with them, you just consider spiting tumblr to be more important. Think that they're relevant? Well I hate to break it to you, so many of them have such a wide variety of opinions that they're going to get what they want just from the sheer law of averages. Or are you advocating that I should go out and vote for Donald Trump just to make it so that Tumblr doesn't get what they want? And them thinking that they're relevant? So what?infohippie said:
The internet would be a better place. I fail to see how the massive amount of fan art, stories, support that people find among friends, the communities that sprung up around certain media going away would make the internet a better place. Be honest and say "I don't like it and I want it to go away because I don't like it." That's all it is.
I am not the one who set the ground rules for this method of determining what is and is not to be included in a story. Sexual orientation can, according to faefrost's rules, only be included if it informs the story; and in this context, to inform the story means to permeate or pervade with manifest effect. How does it matter that Harry's parents are male and female? The only thing that serves the story of "good wizard vs. bad wizard" is that one of his parents blessed him with protection; nothing about their monogamous, heterosexual relationship serves that story. Likewise, the only thing that matters about "good wizard vs. bad wizard" that is served by Ron's home life and his heterosexual parents is...nothing, actually. All of that probably should have been left out, by the standard being argued for.Politrukk said:
Now, you might argue that these relationships don't directly permeate the story and shouldn't need to because they enrich the characters and make them more robust and three-dimensional, but if you do that, you must be prepared to demonstrate how only heterosexuality is capable of such a feat.
Oh I don't really mind if the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual to be fair, I saw a flaw in your reasoning.JimB said:
At least in what I presumed your reasoning was.
The relationships need not be heterosexual by nature but in Harry Potter they are and they actually do drive the story.
Seeing as Harry Potter is a book and not a game "sidequests" don't really exist.
The events in the Chamber of Secrets for example are in part caused by Ginny's obsession with Harry, later on Harry's obsession with Cho drives the story and LilyXJames VS Snape's love for Lily are huge parts of the story.
I think this might be why people saw issues with the entire Dumbledore thing because it was never explicitly stated in a story that is rife with direct exhibition.
It would be like suddenly concluding Wolverine must have had cancer all along because we know Deadpool has cancer (and their abilities are born from the same principle and noted down as such)
Retroactive insertion of plot elements or judging existing works with new assertions falls flat in reasoning.
But back to your example : I find that if you look at it thoroughly Harry Potter is driven by the romances a lot more than one might think.
They can only be heterosexual because they were written as such, Rowling is always free to write about how they break up and decide to be gay but in and taking the the original work as a base you can't suddenly state that Harry Potter is gay/was gay all along because it is not written as such.
Anyway we're derailing the topic a bit here.
I thought the point of raising the complaint with the Dumbledore example was more about how that character's sexuality was entirely a non-issue in the story itself and seemed like it was tacked on after the fact and pushed for publicity by some like a freakshow attraction. Not that only heterosexuality can enrich a character, but the question of why make a big deal of their sexuality when it doesn't affect the story any more than Argus Filch being straight. Now compare that to another trait of that character that DOES affect the character, how they interact with the world and what their motivations are, like the fact Fitch was a Squib. In the harry potter world, the character not having magic would be a lot more important to note, especially given the themes later on in the books. No one cares what gender Fitch is attracted to (though his relationship with his cat may raise eyebrows), it doesn't affect the story in any way, so no one bothers to mention it. Yet the gay character is treated different when the trait has the exact same amount of effect on the character and story. Really not hard to see why people would point it out as an example of doing things poorly.JimB said:
Character relationships and sexuality can give depth and complexity to characters, but being done when lacking a point should be noted as just that as well. Ron's family life being so much better then Harry's was demonstrated by the loving family environment. Harry's parents relationship showing he was a wanted child but tragedy happened demonstrated the evil of Voldemort in taking it away. The sexuality of the relationships there actually don't matter in context of the story (Harry could have been adopted by gay parents, Ron's folks could have been a gay couple, the points of those parts of the story would have been the same there.) But the relationships, even harry's own attractions and relationships, demonstrated the character's personality and growth over time.
What did Dumbledore being advertised as gay after the fact actually do for the story though? How did it enrich the character any more then knowing their favorite color? Honestly, it doesn't, all the enrichment of it stems from public perception of the trait itself, not how or why the trait impacts and gives dimension to the character. And that is probably why people call it out. The promotion of a trait that affects nothing in the character or story but still being treated as important.
Tying that in to this question answered, given the use of the trait as a crutch or quick "look at me" sort of thing, I can see why people would take one look at this news and think to themselves that it is the same situation of a character being given a trait of sexuality for no other reason then an appeal to a subset of the audience and feel patronized to for it. Add into that the fact the trait is not unique (there has been both canonical and non-canonical examples of gay characters) and that it is coming from someone that I am pretty sure is much less attached to the project then last time around, and it really does look like some sort of baity, publicity-generating statement of the same sort as a trashy hollywood gossip story. "You'll never guess which starwars character was discovered to be gay! Click here to find out."
You know, I had a whole big response typed out where I was applying the rubric as it had been written and applying what I hope were the self-evidently ridiculous results--in short, I was taking you seriously, Politrukk--and then I deleted it all because I got to this line.
Shame on you. Shame on you.Politrukk said:
I was serious, as written the characters are all married(heterosexually) aren't they? it's a bit rough in phrasing but accepting that you are gay is also in a sense a decision (you could keep the illusion going for yourself till you die if you aren't comfortable with coming out).JimB said:
I'm actually supportive of the current scientific view that being gay has to do with specific areas in your brain being proportioned/activated in different manners hence the factor having been in a ways decided from birth (although ethically irresponsible this also implies that it could be altered by altering those parts of the brain or that brain function). So normally that would imply from birth.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
But you are suddenly changing the dynamic because what was written for 7 books does not include the "gay parents" it very specifically specifies that Lily is a woman and that James is a man and that Severus Snape vied for Lily's affections leading him to become the character he is.runic knight said:
A lot in Harry Potter actually IS tied to classic gender roles.
The problem is that JK Rowling basically invokes Death of the author upon herself both with Black Hermoine,Non Ginger Ron and Gay Dumbledore.
As in the Author JK Rowling that wrote the original 7 books is apparently dead because despite her expressive writing style and the character design choices that she made with the movies coming out.
JK Rowling as an author and in the original books is a very expressive writer she takes every pain and detail to show us that the Weasleys are Ginger that Draco Malfoy is blonde (Actually the entire Mud-blood thing could be interpreted as a race issue where someone like Malfoy fits the blond hair blue eyes stereotype and these others are called MUD-blood mud=brown to my knowledge).
She shows us that Lupin loves Tonks, that Ginny loves Harry,That Fleur loves her Weasley, that Severus loves Lily,etc.
She shows us very clear features for many characters.
Both Hermoine suddenly being black and Dumbledore being gay within her writing style would have featured prominently it is impossible to take how the books were written and then claim from that source alone we should have interpreted it as such.
Rowling is re-interpreting her own work which means she should either amend it:
1 She could write a "Rita Skeeter Article" about Dumbledore's diary being found or something of the kind in which he expresses that he's gay and adding that as "canon" (although this is a bit sketchy).
2 If it's so damn important she could write a pre-quel written from Dumbledores perspective where we actually see him identifying as a gay man.
3 She could re-write the books to suit these new changes (very bad choice to my opinion).
Rowling currently seems to be either A badly and falsely using controversial topics to draw attention back to her work B To be abusing her own writing with bad re-interpretations and additions to illustrate her current opinion on sociopolitical issues.
Back on topic:
I wholeheartedly agree with your view on Abrams's comments.
In our modern society explicitly stating that you're including a gay or a black person just feels like you're doing it for the attention.
Why not cast 5 gays 2 blacks 5 women and then let us see the movie and find out?
Drawing attention to either the character being played being gay or the actor playing the character being gay is doing it for the attention.
Ser Loras Tyrell is uncontroversially gay, Renly Baratheon is uncontroversially gay and Jim Parsons is a gay man that uncontroversially plays a socially awkward straight man in Sheldon Cooper.
There's no reason to point out every gay character in GoT because there are many and it is acceptable.
Just to toss my two (or three, or four) cents into the discussion:
1. As others have already pointed out, this was Abrams answering a question he was asked, not making some unprovoked announcement. And I'll also point out that while, yes, he is not in a position of authority over the future direction of the Star Wars universe, he HAS worked closely with the people writing the next installments in the series, because of the obvious need for establishing plot threads that they will then be continuing with, or laying groundwork for their ideas in the film he WAS in charge of. So yes, he's in a position to quite likely know such things.
2. This is Disney we're talking about. The same Disney that welcomes annual "Gay Day" celebrations at its parks. The same Disney that, quite a few years ago now (and well before same-sex marriage was legal in ANY state, never mind ALL of them), decided to extend family health benefits to the partners of their gay and lesbian employees -- and, when threatened with a boycott by a large Southern church denomination for this insult to "family values", not only did not back down, but made a simple, one-sentence reply: "Since when is it a 'family value' to deny someone health care?"
Disney itself is nothing if not inclusive. They handled the appearance of a lesbian couple on one of their Disney Channel TV shows a little over two years ago with suitably matter-of-fact no-big-deal grace ([link]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/28/disney-channel-aired-its-first-gay-couple-it-was-fine.html[/link]). I trust them to handle the introduction of one or more identifiably gay characters to the Star Wars canon with similar, suitable care, if for no other reason than they are a VERY savvy marketing company that will take pains not to insult a market segment that they already enjoy a very good relationship with.
1. As others have already pointed out, this was Abrams answering a question he was asked, not making some unprovoked announcement. And I'll also point out that while, yes, he is not in a position of authority over the future direction of the Star Wars universe, he HAS worked closely with the people writing the next installments in the series, because of the obvious need for establishing plot threads that they will then be continuing with, or laying groundwork for their ideas in the film he WAS in charge of. So yes, he's in a position to quite likely know such things.
2. This is Disney we're talking about. The same Disney that welcomes annual "Gay Day" celebrations at its parks. The same Disney that, quite a few years ago now (and well before same-sex marriage was legal in ANY state, never mind ALL of them), decided to extend family health benefits to the partners of their gay and lesbian employees -- and, when threatened with a boycott by a large Southern church denomination for this insult to "family values", not only did not back down, but made a simple, one-sentence reply: "Since when is it a 'family value' to deny someone health care?"
Disney itself is nothing if not inclusive. They handled the appearance of a lesbian couple on one of their Disney Channel TV shows a little over two years ago with suitably matter-of-fact no-big-deal grace ([link]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/28/disney-channel-aired-its-first-gay-couple-it-was-fine.html[/link]). I trust them to handle the introduction of one or more identifiably gay characters to the Star Wars canon with similar, suitable care, if for no other reason than they are a VERY savvy marketing company that will take pains not to insult a market segment that they already enjoy a very good relationship with.