| the-pi-guy said: 1. How do you know they are less talented? I'm not seeing this big fall in quality due to more females in the process. But there are plenty of women who get passed over despite being just as good as their male counterpart. 2. This point doesn't really make any sense. Why is being a woman being done for inclusion, while being a man isn't? If the gender doesnt matter, why does it matter if the main characters are female? Even including stuff like homosexuality. What does it matter? It's a characteristization, in which case it doesn't matter. Or it's part of the story, in which case that's their right to change their story however they see fit. 3. Yep. Everyone is in favor of that. At the end of the day, movies, games, etc are made by companies that want to maximize how much they are making. If that means that if enough people want to see a change over not seeing that change, they are going to make that change (or not) to make their bottom line better. |
As for number 1 have you seen the 2016 ghostbusters film? and before "rah rah sexism" there's a very good video I would advise watching about what went on around the launch of that film
I agree with OP completely, I'm perfectly happy to have anything in a film if it fits naturally in their, the """""semi"""" homo erotic lines between deadpool and Colossus even fit fine because of the background that Pool had just warped his mind to where happiness comes from anywhere that happiness comes from, so it fits perfectly him not giving a rats about how he comes off to others. Or negasonics gf in DP2 just fits where they were pushing that character, again it isn't out of place.
Something like Sulu visiting his male partner in the Yorktown in Star Trek Remake 3 that was handled completely wrong imo, it had no real impact in the film other than going "look guys, gays in space" not a single other member of the crew met up with their Significant other and the Sulu / family scene added nothing to the movie, if it at least came back into play later when the yorktown was under attack I would be okay with it, but it wasn't... just shoehorned in completely out of place.
It even pissed off the original actor of Sulu known gay actor George Takei as while he was gay... that character that he portrayed was not, Sulu was 100% straight in the original Trek, they just warped him as a "nod" to Takei's real life which again shouldn't have anything to do with the character in the film. To quote him from https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/687302/Star-Trek-Beyond-gay-Mr-Sulu-John-Cho-George-Takei-Anton-Yelchin-Karl-Urban "
However in a surprise response, Takei has said it is “really unfortunate” that Mr Sulu is revealed as gay in the new movie.
The actor revealed he has tried to convinced director Lin to create a new character with a same-sex partner, rather than “twisting” the ideas of the show’s creator, Gene Roddenberry.
Takei told Cho and Lin to: “Be imaginative and create a character who has a history of being gay.
“Rather than Sulu, who had been straight all this time, suddenly being revealed as being closeted.
“I urged them. He left me feeling that that was going to happen.”
Takei insisted Roddenberry was a “strong supporter of LGBT equality” but had never meant for Sulu’s character to be heterosexual.
He said: "I'm delighted that there's a gay character.
“Unfortunately, it's a twisting of Gene's creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it's really unfortunate."
Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive
