ST Openly-gay characters in Star Wars thread: READ WARNING IN OPENING POST

riiight. Riight. lol

 

Ok, I'm going to try to channel the minds over at Disney/LFL for a moment and put my personal feelings aside, first clarifying that I'm all for including LGBT people into the Star Wars universe.

Is Disney ever going to put a gay relationship front and center much like a Han and Leia romance? Wouldn't that be the most inclusive way they could do it, by treating a gay romance the same way as a straight one? From a politically correct standpoint, yes, BUT Disney/LFL have a higher agenda than being politically correct: making money.

As much as it sucks to admit, there is still a MASSIVE portion of western society, as well as cultures all over the world that are active markets for Disney/LFL, that still frown upon the LGBT communities. In this respect, I think the "making money" part of their decision trumps the "make a sociopolitical statement" part. The thing is, if they alienate a portion of society by making a political statement they will most definitely make less money. As much as I'd like Star Wars fans to be progressive and wouldn't miss the ones who are filled with hatred towards the LGBT community if they boycotted Star Wars for a decision like this (which they probably would), I don't think it really is in their agenda to put a Han/Leia type romance with a gay twist into their movies quite yet because, unfortunately, the world isn't ready to be that progressive. Disney/LFL is in the business of making movies for everyone and that includes people with old fashioned views of society, not just the progressive.

However, it has been made clear that they already have incorporated gay characters into the canon as a way of testing the waters and I honestly don't think they liked the way it segregated the fan base. While making progressive choices is definitely a good thing IMO, they also want to try and maintain a strong fan base that is mostly all on the same page for financial reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Ya know, this thread is a mess and all, but I like getting myself in situations that I should probably spare. So let's do this.

What exactly IS the problem with a gay character on Star Wars? It's something exactly simple, it can be explained with one line, that doesn't even take 10 seconds, if it's not between Poe and Finn it won't be a huge part of the movie (and if it IS, then it's only a big part of the movie because they are important parts of the movie, not because they aren't straight).

I mean, really, I've headcanoned Luke as asexual for years now, lesbian Sabine in Rebels is something I've said often before that I can get around and would enjoy, and honestly, this isn't even just about representation - if 1% of the population is asexual, that still means that out of 100 characters in SW, one of them is ace. Does it have to be said? Maybe not, but saying 'oh, I'm not into that' 'women?' 'anyone, really' is simple. Gay characters can be done just as easily.

It's not a big deal to portray it, and it would be nice. It's not pandering. It's how life goes, and Star Wars has always taken bases from real life, sexualities besides heterosexuality just haven't been done in the movies yet.

 

They don't even have to spend much time talking about it. Just show the characters kissing at one or two points, or a quick "I love you" or something like that. Not hard to do actually.

 

The use of the word "politically correct" in that context makes no sense. It isn't "politically correct" to put a gay couple front and centre in Star Wars.
All political correctness is is a kind of institutionalised system by which we attempt to consider the feelings of people who perhaps have been persecuted or who haven't been treated with dignity and respect.
Putting a gay couple front and centre would be bold, I agree. But it wouldn't be "politically correct". What would be politically correct would be, well, exactly what JJ said; Star Wars is inclusive, so it's inevitable there'll be gay people in it at some point.

Politically correct isn't a dirty word. We should stop using it as such. Even if you don't like the concept of it, don't use it as short hand - say what you mean, articulate it. Saying "JJ just wants this because of PC" doesn't actually make any sense - not in that that's not his motivations, but in its literally impossible to extract meaning from that combination of words. You need to go further. If you're saying "JJ advocates gay people in Star Wars because of a politically correct agenda", then have the intellectual bravery to break down what you mean by that, and explore why you disagree.

Because, when you break it down, in this context I don't really see what would be wrong with a "politically correct agenda" bout potential gay characters in Star Wars. For me, what that means is this:

"JJ recognises that since 1977, society has changed, and throughout history, pop culture has moved with the times. In 2016, homosexuality exists in a completely different context to how it has done throughout the twentieth century. Putting gay characters in a mainstream family film would have been unthinkable in 1977. Gay kids like Star Wars just as much as straight kids do. He personally sees no reason that gay people couldn't be part of Star Wars. He also knows that society has marginalised and made life difficult for gay people throughout modern history. Against that context, the answer to the question can we have gay people in Star Wars, could only be "why not?""

 

It's gonna "appease" people as much as straight characters "appease" people. Why does there need to be certain reasons? Why do gay people only get to appear in films if it has to do about being gay? It's this type of thinking that's annoying. Straight characters, or hell, straight white male characters have dominated entertainment for so long no one questions it cuz its considered the "norm." No one goes around questioning, "Well why does Luke have to be the main character? How does a white male impact the story? It's just pandering to the white male audience!" No one looks for extra justification with Han or Luke or Obi Wan. No one questioned Han and Leia's romance as pandering to straight people. People accept it. But you get a woman and a black guy in leads, people flip their ****, or having a gay character, all of a sudden there needs to be extra reasons like they don't deserve as much to appear in films or people are just looking for that evidence that there's some ulterior motive to having a minority character because that's not the "norm." It's gross.

Just like characters being straight doesn't have to benefit the story in some way, characters being gay should not have to benefit the story in some way.

 

Politically correct as in "progressive and all-inclusive." I'm not using it in a negative context at all and agree with the position, you're just expanding on my original point.

"All political correctness is is a kind of institutionalised system by which we attempt to consider the feelings of people who perhaps have been persecuted or who haven't been treated with dignity and respect."

Wouldn't putting a gay couple front and center fall squarely into the category of political correctness? I don't exactly see what the difference is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No, putting a gay couple front and centre would be; depicting a gay couple. Depicting a gay couple isn't a "politically correct" thing to do, just as "not putting a gay couple in a film" isn't politically incorrect.

We're dealing with nuance here. Being prepared to feature a gay couple in a mainstream film is, I suppose "politically correct", because it is an attitude that is tolerant and doesn't discriminate against gay people. Being against the idea of allowing a franchise you have authority in to depict gay people could be described as "politically incorrect" Actually putting a gay couple in a film is just a creative decision, that can come about because of a (written or unwritten) policy that is politically correct.

So, that's why this discussion is important now, I think. Because we're talking about hypotheticals and it's still making people angry even as a hypothetical. That's why I think it's important to not just argue that something IS politically correct, but to clarify why they disagree.

 

People often misinterpret a reduction in their privilege as a reduction in their rights, and they therefore reject it. Having predominately white, male, straight characters in the lead in entertainment for so long is a privilege for those who fit that description. Now that this privilege is being eroded, including in Star Wars, many of those who benefited from that privilege are unsurprisingly uncomfortable with the change. The best thing to do is understand that this change is contributing to more fairness, and allowing a broader number of people to feel connected to this fantasy world. And if you're against fairness, I'm not sure this is the right franchise for you.

 

It's funny you say that, as I was about to write "unless you are a hardcore fan of the dark side."

But even if you do like the philosophy of the darkside, that's not an argument for not representing the diversity of the world. The GFFA should show us racist organizations, xenophobic characters, criminals, authoritarians, democrats, kind people, mean people, straight people and gay people. In this context, there's no good argument for the exclusion of the depiction of gay individuals.

This isn't the Lord of the Rings, or other mythic stories which are based on established texts, and past cultures with specific looks and mores. This is a world set in a very diverse, space-faring, multi-species galaxy with a kabillion inhabitants. To demand that homosexuality not be present in this galaxy is ridiculous.

 

Which would make Snoke... Darth Gayplease

 

JabbatheHumanBeing

Not all in the same shot (unless it's a crowd shot). I think that would be confusing and a touch chaotic.

 

Can't tell if you're joking or not...

If not, of course I wasn't suggesting that we see all of these individuals in one shot.

If you were joking, never mind!

 

Yes, just sporting around. Thread gets into circular patterns sometimes, and just trying to divert for a minute.

 

*Darth Gaylord of the Sith

 

Who's to say there hasn't been one already?

"Luke, at that speed, will you be able to pull out in time?"
That wasn't just pilot talk. Biggs and Luke obviously have a history beyond friendship.

Actually, people often wonder if Luke would have children in the new canon (Rey for example) but what if he's gay or bisexual? Sure, he had a thing for Leia but we all know how that turned out.

Keep in mind, in Return Of The Jedi we see a giant slug with a Twi'lek slave girl and in The Force Awakens, we see a First Order spy getting cosy with someone who isn't of the same species. Inter-species couplings between sentients are clearly a thing in the Star Wars universe. They probably aren't common but they do exist. Relationships between people of the same gender of the same species seems pretty mundane by comparison.

As to the question of a relationship being front and centre, in principle I don't have a problem with it. What I have a problem with is when they make a big deal out of it. Such a thing should simply exist. There shouldn't be a big fanfare. There's a temptation to celebrate it as something profound but such a thing should be mundane, as if it happens all the time because you know, it does. Homosexuality exists in about 10% of most mammal species on Earth, not just humans. If that number translates to the GFFA, then it would be a common occurrence and rather than making it a big deal, it should be viewed no differently than any other relationship we've seen. The reality here is that there is still a lot of animosity towards same sex relationships but in the Star Wars galaxy, let's have them be a bit more enlightened and treat it as a normal, everyday thing.

 

Here is the REAL, UNADULTERATED, UNBIASED truth on statistics regarding the heterosexual vs. homosexual population:

No one knows the truth. There are so many hurdles of countless varieties that impede figuring out percentages of straights, gays, transgenders, whathaveyou that, at this point on the timeline of Our Cultural Development, there is no metric worth paying attention to for a Seeker Of Knowledge.

Some of the more obvious impediments to coming up with statistically significant figures:

- What is the definition of a heterosexual person? What is the definition of a homosexual person? Does one homosexual experience mean someone is homosexual? Does it mean they're bisexual? Is someone who has had two heterosexual experiences categorized as homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual? Is someone who has had 17 homosexual experiences but 214 heterosexual experiences "straight," "gay" or "bi?" Etc.

- As DavidSword79 pointed out, the level of honesty attributable to each data point will vary from culture to culture, and this variance--not to mention a mean "degree of honesty" that would serve as the foundation for determining this already nebulous notion of reliability--is impossible to quantify at this point on the timeline of Our Cultural Development.

There are about 100 others.

Even if there's a study or poll that presents any percentage or figure and considers it at all conclusive or even meaningful, there should be absolutely no assumption of statistical significance. There are no scientific polls that can come to a significant conclusion on this matter. There is no convenient binomial distribution from which we could infer any accurate representation of the sexual preference of a given population.

What do I think of this issue as it relates to characters in Star Wars?

I think that if someone feels that the explicit portrayal of a Star Wars character as sexually oriented one way or the other is of great importance, they're Star Wars-ing wrong.

 

...like the numbers are important in regards to a homosexual character in Star Wars....

 

BINGO...this is what I've been trying to get across the entire time. Well said.

 

Then I suppose that George Lucas was Star Wars-ing wrong for including the explicit portrayal of Star Wars characters as sexually oriented towards the opposite sex!

Han, Leia, Lando, Boba Fett, Anakin, Padme. Even Jabba! All showing explicit preferences for members of the opposite sex.

And in some cases, such as with Anakin and Padme, and Han and Leia, that explicit heterosexuality was a core element of their character arcs, and thus, of "great importance" to the story. I mean, Anakin becomes Darth Vader due to his desire to save the woman he loves/ marries/ gets pregnant, from dying. Han and Leia both "soften" with time, as characters, as their romantic love for each other grows. Etc.

In short, non-platonic love/ sexual attraction has been a significant part of Star Wars from the beginning. Not sure what's so different about it if it's homosexual.

 

You know what I meant--if they feel this way when it isn't essential to a plot element.

And I'm talking in terms of the audience of the writer's story. The author is free to do whatever the hell they want with a story, be it biased or unbiased, meaningful or not--as with any writer of any story.

So many of you are choosing to bloviate and moralize about this issue, drawing lines and establishing a dubious premise and framework. This doesn't facilitate the good-natured exchange of ideas. I won't attempt to stop anyone from doing so, but frankly, this is a Star Wars message board...come on.

And George Lucas has been Star Wars-ing wrong for decades.

 

I don't think there's much moralizing, to be honest. Mostly, people are just wondering why a different kind of romance would be inappropriate for a Star Wars franchise that has always shown us romance.

If the new "Han and Leia" is "Finn and Poe," for example, and it plays very similarly to the former in terms of its importance to the characters and story, what would be the issue? I suspect that for you, there would be no issue. But a number of people here reject the idea outright.