Speculation Should there be gay characters in the ST?

I guess I'm still curious as to what extent people want a gay character in the films. How would that be portrayed? Someone mentioned Dumbledore being vaguely hinted as being gay. And while personally that thought never once crossed my mind, I thought the author at one point revealed that she viewed the character as being gay. But that never came up in the films (I never read the novels), and why should it? Why would Dumbledore be mentioning that to Harry or Snape or whomever? But conveying homosexuality is not as easy as showing someone of a different race. The latter is all visual. Mace never once mentioned something about being black. For homosexuality, they can make it more obvious by doing something like they did with Ziro the Hutt and make a more effeminate male character. I would think that would be considered offensive as stereotyping (?) but I don't know. Not every gay male is effeminate or fits that kind of stereotype, and not every gay female fits the stereotype of being masculine. There are many that you would never guess unless explicitly told or shown. I would think that would be preferable and less offensive, but it also would require either dialogue mentioning the character's sexuality, which I would think it would be more like Dumbledore in that, regardless of a character being gay or not, that it wouldn't come up.

To have it come up without it explicitly being talked about could alternatively involve simply showing it. For instance, I had mentioned that for instance had Owen or Bail been gay, it could have occurred without any dialogue to point out "hey, I'm gay" or call attention to it like its weird. For instance had Bail mentioned that he and his partner would be interested to have Leia since they had talked about adopting a baby girl and then we see Bail return to Alderaan, hand off Leia to another man, and then sit down next to him. The idea would get across without altering the story in any way and without any character having to go out of his/her way to call attention to their sexual orientation through dialogue. Would that be acceptable as an acknowledgement of homosexuality in the Star Wars universe, or is the interest in having the central romance being a same sex one (like had Han or Leia been gay for example)? I would think that would be far less likely to happen.

 

I dunno you could just have a character who's no differently written then others just interested in the same gender. They don't have to be a stereotype. It's not that difficult.

 

unless george lucas himself publicly approves it before/when its announced then no;hes retired now but its still his universe and he and only he should have final say on such an issue, not TPTB at disney nor mrs.kennedy, only GL himself

 

ok first of all r2 and 3po are gay .. and they are in every single movie .. 3po even had a nude scene .. r2 squirted some of his oily goo in a few scenes too .. also i am pretty sure anakin was bi curious .. and the emperor was like that old perv on family guy .. jealous of anakins love of padme he had to turn him against her .. considering anakin had no arms or legs he needed the emperor to .. you know .. help relieve the stress from time to time .. which is why we saw darth doing some what of a walk of shame when caught with out his helmet on after an intimate interaction with the emperor in empire .. i am pretty sure all the clones were gay too .. there were like no chicks at the clone factory

 

I may not agree with the lifestyle, but I never understood why people think gay jokes are ok. It's rather offensive.

 

It's devolved into an arguement.

GAH! Mods, can you PLEASE lock this mess already? Such hot-button issues shouldn't even be posted here. There's a political forum elsewhere. Things like this are what tear the fandom apart and have everyone hating each other...when in all likelihood none of us will ever meet.

We all like Star Wars...can't we just leave it at that and keep the discussion on whether or not Luke will come back or who might be directing the film? Please???

 

It really depends on how the character(s) is/are written. If it's just to have a token gay character, then no thanks. If it's to have a believable (well, as believable as anything or anyone can be in a setting with aliens, magic, lightsabers, robots, etc.) character who just happens to be gay, then sure, why not?

Sexuality isn't the only defining characteristic of a person. In most cases, it's not even the most important characteristic out of many.

 

not really a joke but more (no pun intended) of an honest observation .. do you really think r2 and c3po were not intended to have gay overtones? i think it would be more offensive to insist that they are strait

 

Now this can agree with

 

Maybe there already was . Who cares ? Not to be insensitive or rude but I don't see any reason to make a big deal about some one's sexuality in a Star Wars film. People were convinced that dumbledore was homosexual, but did it add anything to the story? No, it just made the character open to ridicule and the butt end of jokes... (hehe...)

I considered that he was gay and I thought, "Well , that's nice. Good for him." And that's all the more I felt worth entertaining it. I didn't really need to see him holding hands with the janitor and sneeking into the closet and giggling . I didn't really care .

Focusing any of the story on some one's sexuality seems like a waste of time. When I see gay characters in films , TV some times it feels forced. As if they added a gay character just to be able to say that they went there with it. And it usually just turns into a joke.

Maybe I'm just immature but I never felt that cinema ultimately benefieted from gay characters unless it was an artsy film or the plot revolved around their sexuality in some way and made me think deeply on it.

 

Using that argument why bother adding minorities or females in strong roles at all?

 

the insinuation that being gay is a lifestyle is considerably more offensive than anything that guy said.

 

Males can play roles gay or straight , I just don't need to watch a film that focuses on their sexual preferences... Same with women.

If I wanted to watch a film that focused on gay sexual relationships, I'd watch a gay fan version of James Bond, which James Bond in itself is a very sexist film series. I'm open to gay characters but I don't think they should make a big long side story about a gay character just because he's gay... Why not just have a parade in the film where people run around screaming I'm gay? Gay people run out of the closet these days and slap people across the face and scream down their throats "I'm gay!"...

I know that might sound ignorant to you but I really don't care who is gay or straight. I don't see why gay people should care either. A sutble scene or a scene with gay characters is fine with me though.

They have serious roles that center on sexuality , romances , etc etc, but I don't see why a star wars family film series needs to focus on a character's sexual orientation.

 

Apologies for offending you with my choice of wording. I do still strive to show respect to those who disagree me on this issue. So far this topic has gotten way off. It is not my intention to offend.

 

Daaaaaaaaamm, You is Fiesty..

 

Gotta get in here before this locks down. Please leave political agendas out out SW. Lets have ALL religions in SW too! Lets make sure we shove as much adult BS into a kids movie as possible! Lets be sure and include "Syrian Rebels" in there somewhere so that our 7 year olds get a head start on thinking that conformity is expected and do not DARE have an opinion otherwise! I dont care what color your love bug is. Please don't do these things just for the sake of doing them.

Brought to you by: Unpopular Opinions For Dummies

 

Folks, I'm beginning to see the line separating "fun and spirited discussion" from "mad descent into lunacy" on the horizon, and for all that, we haven't really accomplished much. I think there's a general consensus that the primary interest here has to be what is going to make for a damned good Star Wars movie; as long as a gay character can be added in a way that is organic to the story and doesn't put that primary interest at risk, if it enhances the story rather than detracts from it, if it doesn't form a stumbling block to the natural flow of the film, then it seems people here in general have no specific objection to doing so, and neither do I. But it must be there for the right reasons - to make the movie better - rather than to have one simply for the sake of having one.

In the end, it will depend entirely on execution, and there's no way to know whether they will have executed it right or not beforehand; we would simply have to wait for it and hope it works out. And to tell you the truth, it's that uncertainty that scares me, not the idea in principle. If I were to be really honest with myself, I have no social, philosophical, cultural, moral or ethical reason to oppose the concept - it's just that I don't want to go into this movie hoping it will be good; I want the confidence that I will go into it knowing it will be good. And it's that nebulous gap separating hoping and knowing which is really what would give me pause when the idea of experimenting in this fashion is raised. The film will definitely have to take some risks, as they all do (ANH was nothing if not one great big risk, and half the reason TESB is so good, after all, is because they were willing to take risks, but in such cases we're usually talking about risks with the storyline, not of character; TPM took a risk with a major character and it's still catching flak over it; need I name names?). The sole question that has any true relevance in such a subject is: would taking this kind of risk make the film better than it would be if they chose not to take such a chance, or at least as good as it would otherwise be? Those who would hesitate before taking the plunge would argue that it's a pretty big risk to take just to satisfy a segment of the viewership, even though one concedes that this segment has a very legitimate reason to want to see that happen.

I'll be the first one to admit that it sounds like my priorities are utterly skewed when I say that there's a lot at stake, but there is: I do not want to be disappointed by these films. Period. To be specific, having a LGBT character would not disappoint me at all, but having the execution be off when they choose to have one could disappoint me. I don't want a character included that I have to just tolerate, who's scenes I have to grudgingly sit through, while waiting for the film to get back to the point; I had my fill of that with the prequels. I'm not at all saying that a LGBT character would definitely do that, but the potential is there; I'm not saying Arndt, a good writer with an established record of good work, would write such a character in a disappointing fashion - in fact, such an idea could be safer in his hands than in anyone's. And, as CooperTFN has argued, there are indeed ways to make such a character work in a way that meets all my criteria. But I can't guarantee that would be the case, and that's the only thing that keeps me from endorsing the idea wholeheartedly.

And in the end, all the debating in the world isn't going to make a big difference: the people making this film will do what they will do, and it's pretty clear, given LFL's track record, that the opinions of fans like us won't keep them from making the movie they want to make. Arndt and company would include a LGBT character because they wish to and think it would be a good idea, not because we would want one. The purpose of this thread, apparently, is simply to let the fan community, and the people at LFL who are watching, know that there is a portion of the community that is in fact expressing interest in such a concept; I would argue that it has in fact done that - for better or worse, this thread has generated interesting and thoughtful discussion on the issue (and sometimes not-so-thoughtful), but at this point aren't we going in circles? Don't we risk descending into nonsense now that the old Leviticus chestnut has been hauled out? Arguing against the idea of a gay character on moral or ethical grounds is utterly pointless, because the LGBT community isn't going to be talked out of wanting someone they can identify with in these films (and shouldn't be) simply because the Bible tells them what they do is wrong - they've heard that one before, and they don't think it's funny - and they're not going to be convinced (and shouldn't be) that it can't be done, because, as we've discussed, there are clearly ways that it can be done that don't harm the films. It's not a question of can it work, because clearly there is the potential for it to work - but will it work? There is an answer to that, but I wouldn't know what that answer was until I see the finished product, and it's the question mark that scares me, the great big IF - and that's all.

 

The question of gay characters can be asked of really any franchise. "Should" there be a gay character? No, IMO. Not unless it adds anything. That question can be asked of any story and would equally devolve into back and forth name calling and everyone getting on their high horse over it. Should Jurassic Park have a gay character? Should the Avengers? Should the Alien franchise? Should the next Disney princess be a lesbian? Should one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles be gay? Answer no and somebody some where is going to call you a sexist. And someone's going to bust out the Bible passages. There are stories in which a character's sexuality is very relevant or improves upon the story in some way. If a known gay actor/actress was cast for the film, I wouldn't care. If it was decided that they wanted to add a gay character, I wouldn't protest. Can there be a gay character? Sure, why not? But when polling over whether or not there "should" be one. I don't see why there "should."

 

Agreed! Star Wars doesn't need messed up stuff in it like strippers and drug dealers, we don't want crap like pointless wars started by economic conglomerates involving slave labour and the exploitation of indigenous peoples. Just because people go around killing entire villages of people in real life don't mean we want someone doing that in Star Wars with a lightsaber, we don't need to see droids being brutally tortured on screen! What's next? Some idiot putting Nixon or Bush parallels into one of these movies? Jedi having secret affairs with politicians five years older than them?

Hey Lucasfilm, while you're busy ruining my jolly light-hearted romp about intergalactic war perpetrated by fascists by shoehorning in drugs and wierd people, why don't you just put a guy burning alive on screen or people being tortured by lightning? That would cap off the travesty.

 

Oh, and for those of you who would ask: how do you know if they've executed such an idea right or not? I point you to the case of Skyfall; a gay character was included there, and in fact, it's the main villain, played by Javier Bardem. I would argue that the decision to make him gay really did help that film, because it made him more interesting, made the interplay between him and Bond more interesting (case in point: Bardem makes a come-on play while interrogating Bond, saying "I guess there's a first time for everything" - the first time a man ever hit on Bond, in other words; Bond throws back, "What makes you think this is my first time?") In fact, the case can be made that Bardem's character is easily one of the best Bond villains EVER, so again, the precedent is there.

 

Think what you want, but that's what I beleive, but don't take it wrong, I don't think the people are detesible, but the thing commited.

 

I must say you do have a point here


Also, the first post on this thread said Michael Arndt is reported gay, i never heard of this, is there a link perhaps?

 

Using that argument why bother adding minorities or females in strong roles at all?[/quote]

ok i love star wars and all that but seriously .. there are no strong females or minorities in the star wars movie .. padme was practically a braindead clone .. leia was mostly along for the ride .. lando was a sidekick at best probably only thrown in due to the extremely white episode 4 .. i don't get the feeling that lucas cares for minorities after seeing a totally racist parody of the dumbest jamaican ever in jar jar .. and then there is the trade blockade guys who's lips move out of sync like a japaneese dubbed movie .. the vitriol in which lucas comes up with these characters would not set well in any anti racism / sexism type forum ..

that said .. what if 3po interupted han and lando in an almost kiss on the falcon??? there is a romance element so i suppose there could be a brokeback falcon type storyline in the new movies .. no offense but there probably are not enough gay people in the world to make up for the amount of corporate backlash that would follow .. if not "fan" backlash .. now if we got a couple sith sisters together .. baby steps .. baby steps

 

yarael poof?