TV Discussion Homosexuality in Star Wars Television

Because having an LGBT character just to have one isn't really a good reason as it comes across as pandering and ticking a box which in this case would solely be for diversity purposes, and in this instance I'm asking why is their sexual orientation important to the story? Really, you could extend that to homosexual and heterosexual romances in Star Wars and ask why is it important at all to show a romance if it isn't part of the story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's not about "just having one" It's about people seeing themselves and relating to characters that are created. People feel more connected to characters if they can see them in media.

 

I literally just said that relationships and by extension a character's orientation inclusion into the story should be questioned. And I included heterosexual and homosexual relationships. If it doesn't add anything to the story, then why?

Josh Gad's character LeFou in Beauty and the Beast was very, very subdued and you could argue that the character's love for Gaston added to the reason for the character's devotion and borderline worship of Gaston. It allowed the character to go beyond just being a sycophant like he was in the animated feature in the 90's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Like I said when you originally brought that up and said it was a need, it's not a need. It's a desire, and not a justification.

People find characters relatable, see themselves either in part or whole, even across genders.

(Sorry for the double post, I forgot to copy and paste into the previous post.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

jabberwalkie

Because it's meaningful to people to be able to see themselves in characters. That connection is very important to people. Connecting to the story is important too, but the way Lucasfilm and Disney have been inserting LGBT characters into the books has been great because it's just there. One of the characters mentions having two aunts and that's awesome. They have to take small steps at first, but eventually we will get it in television and movies.

Also jabberwalkie don't double post as it counts as a form of spam. Use the edit button to avoid double posting. Or wait until someone else posts after you before you post again. If it's been a day or more then you may post once more to keep the conversation going. But otherwise don't double post.

Who says it has to be a justification? Having characters that we can relate to is important. It's needed because it not only helps people feel good about themselves and happy to see people like them on television but also because it helps people become more open minded and tolerant.

 

I'm questioning the reasoning for why a character's sexual orientation has to be included at all. When the want is to have a character to relate to, then why is their sexuality a topic that needs to be related to. There's plenty of other character qualities to relate to.

Putting LGBT characters in, doesn't mean that individuals of the LGBT community will be happy with it or that it will guarantee the end result you desire. If acceptance is what is being sought, then seeking validation in fictional media seems like the wrong place to look for it. That acceptance seems like it should come from neighbors, friends, family, and coworkers just to name a few.

In fact, since you mentioned Once Upon a Time from what I recall the push back on Mulan was because of the change from the animated feature and the budding relationship with Shang (spelling?). I don't remember any cancel it calls then, just people upset over the change. If there has been anything since then, I haven't seen it since I stopped watching a couple of seasons ago. OUAT should be cancelled, but not because of that or LGBT character inclusion. It should be because the show's writing has gone past the sell by date and the cast doesn't even seem into it anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I never "feel like seeing myself" in a character. If I did, based on a box I tick on a census form or something, and knew there was some kind of initiative behind it, I would feel a little insulted. I'm not just speculating; I have when that was noticeably done, be it in a movie or someone's gestures.

It doesn't always "never warrant the question." I've seen lots of relationships in TV shows and movies get criticized as unnecessary. Another example is when the one or those few female characters in a property have to be romantically involved with somebody.

 

jabberwalkie

Because there are LGBT kids who need to see that representation in a positive light. They need to know that there are people and characters who they can look up to b cause they most likely don't have that in real life. And there are adults that need that too. It's not just "to tick off a box" It's about showing people that they are thought of too.

Not everyone in real life is accepting. Having characters and people on television that are LGBT that have families and postie people is what should be shown and needs to be shown. Because that's something that every person, including the LGBT community needs to know is out there for them.

I was talking about Ruby/Dorothy. Mulan is bisexual I think on OUAT. But the outrage wasn't about Mulan having feelings for another woman, but the fact that Ruby and Dorothy kissed on screen.

 

Making a gesture to say that someone is thought of doesn't necessarily have meaning behind it at all. I'd venture to say that would actually be worse if there's no meaning behind it, because then putting an LGBT in there just so that the community is thought of is practically just ticking a box. Perhaps you meant it some other way, but that's how I'm reading it at the moment.

Not everyone ever is, but you can surround yourself with people who support you for whatever reason. Most people don't get that part of having a well mental state is having groups of people who can support you emotionally. I wouldn't discount that escaping away into the tv realm as being a type of support, but it's a diversion and temporary. What should be sought is the more permanent support groups and not the escape.

Regardless, there's also no denying that it's becoming more accepted.

That must have been after I stopped watching, or I just didn't care at the time and it never even registered as something that people cared about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

jabberwalkie

I meant that saying it's just "ticking a box" isn't a good way to describe having LGBT characters included in Star Wars because it's not about that at all. There are lots of people who identify as part of the LGBT community including voice actors and authors. Having characters that identify as part of the LGBT community and including them in shows is very important in terms of representation. We need to have those characters so that people don't feel so alone. So that they can see that they are being shown in a positive light. It's so important.

Sometimes surrounding yourself with good people isn't easy for some people. I get what you mean, but it's also easier to escape to the tv world sometimes.

I'm certain places. But that's a discussion for our Official Homosexuality Thread.

It got intense.

 

I keep mentioning ticking a box, because the way you keep presenting it as it is for no other reason than for inclusiveness. There's nothing wrong with being inclusive, but like I said without meaning behind it, it literally is just that. And that's more or less what doing it for representation is.

A diverse cast does not mean that a character's sexuality has to be a topic, or that any of the characters' sexuality has to be mentioned. Regardless of their orientation.

 

I don’t think anyone here wants Star Wars to become like a teen soap where everyone hooks up with everyone and sexuality becomes a big deal in those stories. Star Wars is still, for the most part, adventure genre movies.

But there is always romance in Star Wars, in one way or another. Some people found Han/Leia part of the story more dramatic and relatable than the Luke/Vader part of the story. Both stories are still “Star Wars” as much as the space battles and the badass lightsaber fights. And even when there is no romance, you still have sometimes characters expressing feelings for another character like Luke with Leia. It’s human, and some people naturally relate with fictional characters that behave like they would do in their situations (like seeing a hologram of a very good looking princess in need of saving).

So it’s not like people are asking for the DNA of Star Wars to be altered and make every character with a clearly defined sexual orientation for the sake of diversity; it’s more that, the next time Star Wars writers want another Han/Leia romance, why not make it with two characters of the same gender this time? Or the next time they want a flirtatious Lando-type of character, why not make that male character flirt with the men instead?

It really doesn’t change the core components of Star Wars storytelling, But adding more diversity like that just makes the galaxy feel more inclusive to more fans. It’s really the same thing as making the new Jedi protagonist a female instead of a male, or making the Rogue One heroes a diverse bunch instead of the typically all-white heroes.

 

It can have meaning behind it, but it doesn't have to. Just because there's the gesture, doesn't mean there is anything behind it.

IF you're talking about as it pertains to the overall arc of the show, yes that was the complaint. If you're talking about character arcs, then I wouldn't say that's necessarily the case. The thing about filler episodes is that they're hit or miss as to how they're accepted for a number of reasons.

There's also no reason to assume that it would be the other way either, and this is being discussed on the basis as presented as the LGBT character's inclusion simply because the community exists. That doesn't necessitate that there would be any actual substance behind it beyond mere recognition. There's also no reason why there can't be substance behind it either, but the position is being discussed as recognition of existence and characters that recognize that existence because the community exists.

If anything, the LGBT community should not want to have a character that merely acknowledges their existence but a character that actually has a purpose behind it. I would think, maybe hope, that if it was the former that the LGBT community would be rightfully displeased over it.

This is what I was driving towards, getting someone to post a reason as to why or how a character inclusion would work and thus be more organic to the story. The Lando-type character fits that bill. Thanks La Calavera. A character that uses his smooth, suave personality in a different manner likely in business dealings. That by extension opens the door for a romance to happen if it works with the story.

 

jabberwalkie

It's not just acknowledging their existence, but being shown in a positive, loving light. That they are part of thr Star Wars community in a bigger way then just being fans. Star Wars is meant to be inclusive, so having LGBT characters helps achieve that. It means a lot, not just for the sake of having LGBT characters but because people who identify as LGBT need to be able to see and relate to people in the media too. It's very important to have that.

 

If Star Wars was meant to be inclusive, then this would have happened under Lucas' leadership. Now I think you can say that is the case now, but it wasn't always the case.

Every time you bring up an emotional need to be acknowledged, and there's no substantive reason for that it essentially amounts to what I've been saying. I get the feeling of wanting to be accepted, but including a character just for people to feel better about themselves is a rather poor reason for it. And like I said it's just not good enough, and basically is just ticking a box that acknowledges existence. The LGBT community should want more than that which will make them feel better about themselves.

Am I making sense here? I feel like we are going in circles without actually making any progress here. So basically when the question of does this add anything and the response is that the character is there because this community is there and we want to show them we know they're there, but that doesn't go anywhere past that, it's just either not good enough to justify the reason for inclusion or to make it a topic worth mentioning without story to follow it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Agreed. On the Lit side, I love Sinjir. He has great taste in men. On the TV side, I love Kallus and Zeb. Their Brokeback Mountain Moon episode is a personal favorite. Zeb has great taste in Imperials.
(Btw, TSI, you have the patience of a saint.)

 

100% agreed.

To some, recognising the progressive nature of our culture is a bad thing. Or something.

Society is changing and it is time for media to catch up.

 

jabberwalkie

Back when the OT trilogy was happening being LGBT or showing homosexual relationships could get people in a lot of trouble. Like jail time trouble. It's different now, but there are people who won't react well. Lucasfilm is new hands now that has more LGBT characters in the new canon then there ever was in the Old EU.

It's not just about the community but about kids and people who are LGBT seeing characters in a postive way. They might not have that in real life, but to see their heroes and characters they love being just like them is so much more. It's something that helps people heal and accept themselves.

 

I'm well aware of the history and how the community was stigmatized for decades, well really persecuted for centuries/millennia.

Like I said, the community has been reflected in a positive light. Especially in recent years. To assume that kids can't see that or don't recognize it and should see it elsewhere so that they can feel better about themselves is myopic in scope. This entire board is evidence that communities are limited to not just the physical, real life relationships that support them but that online communities are part of that. In that regard, the online community can, and probably does, do more than visual media probably ever could for those kids.

 

jabberwalkie

Yeah, but Star Wars is very important to a lot of people. Having LGBT characters and people included in it as well is imprtant. No matter what other shows do in terms of representation.

 

You ever wondered why Star Wars has pushed lead female characters? No, it isn't to do with a "feminist agenda" - Demographics.

51% of the total US population is female. Between the ages of 15 - 64, girls out number boys by near 4 million. It is why, not just Star Wars, most huge franchises have begun to chase the female teenagers. It is why the real money is located. Yes, it is about *finally* creating proper role models, but there is also a commercial reason.

The same applies to LGBT. Yes, much smaller demographic, but a very lucrative market. Ever heard of the phrase "Pink Money" or "Pink Dollar"? The purchasing power of LGBT American adults is near $1 trillion.

$1 trillion.

LGBT America is worth more than all other minorities combined. Not even a top African American sports star can compete. And speaking of sports, the most common question asked by ADIDAS and Nike (when sponsoring) is the sexuality of the individual; yes, it really shouldn't boil down to capitalism, but there are strong economic reasons for not pursing LGBT inclusion.

Creating a popular LGBT Star Wars character, in a lead role, would have a marketing value worth more than what Disney paid for Lucas Films. I'm not joking, either. It wouldn't matter if the animated series or movie tanked, a single character would paint Disney pure gold.

 

Yeah, it's important to a lot of people, for a lot of different reasons.

Your point that you keep repeating is that they need something to feel better about themselves so they need to see representation in visual media. And like I've said, I get that. However, there's probably better places to seek validation/acceptance and support like I've pointed out. Is it important though? I think that's debatable, since I don't think that romance or sexual orientation need to be topics. Regardless of their orientation or preferences. This seems to be where we differ primarily, in that I don't think it has to be a topic dealt with/brought up to begin with or that it's worth mentioning overall if there's nothing more to it, and you do because it's something people need (well, really it's a desire as I've illustrated) to see for acceptance and self worth reasons.

Am I wrong? Because like I've said, how this comes across isn't really much more than satisfying a tick box on a show so that a segment can supposedly be satisfied for some reason with no real guarantee that it goes anywhere.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far. Sure, the spending potential is high but you're also talking about a product that differs substantially from a product that has a finite life cycle liked clothing. Not to mention that the American LGBT community (I can't speak with certainty for overseas nations, so I'm not even going to try on that end) is something like 3 to 5% of the total population. With clothing companies like Adidas and Nike you're looking at people purchasing a product multiple times through out their life, and the amount they're going to spend is naturally going to be more over their lifetime and appealing broadly makes sense there.

Most people don't go see movies more than once or twice in theaters, and it's no guarantee they'll buy physical media or digital media after the fact. Let alone other products relating to the franchise. So while the spending potential is high, the investment over the lifetime is likely to be lower.

 

jabberwalkie

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I've explained why it's so important. Why we need that representation in Star Wars. Some people cannot get that acceptance and validation in real life, which is why representation in media so important. It's not just "ticking a box." It's about real people seeing themselves in characters that they love.