Currently Online 
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Incorrect. I opposed the relative young age- and sudden addition of females to the First Order, which is supposed to be derived from the pretty much wholly male remnants of the old Empire. Does this mean that I don't like those groups? Does this make me a sexist? No, it simply means that I don't want them to change up an already established universe for the sake of sending political messages. I also opposed Rey's sudden mastery of the force; not because she is female, but because it was already established that wielding force powers require training. Would adding a gay character ruin the Star Wars universe? Of course not, but we haven't seen an openly gay character in any of the movies up to this point. Suddenly adding them now would make them nothing more but tokens; a product of our time added to meet a quota. We didn't need them before and we don't need them now, because gay people are perfectly capable of identifying with straight characters, just as I am able to identify with gay characters in the Mass Effect universe. Still, I suppose JJ Abrams' existing alterations make this topic a total non issue. Adding trans, gay and other minority characters actually makes perfect sense in his Star Wars universe. |
"I opposed the relative young age- and sudden addition of females to the First Order, which is supposed to be derived from the pretty much wholly male remnants of the old Empire. Does this mean that I don't like those groups? Does this make me a sexist? No, it simply means that I don't want them to change up an already established universe for the sake of sending political messages. I also opposed Rey's sudden mastery of the force; not because she is female, but because it was already established that wielding force powers require training."
That's a different situation. Is there a canonical reason that there shouldn't be gay people in the Star Wars universe? Sure we haven't seen gay people before, but we only know the sexuality of a dozen or so characters, so it's not like we've established that there are no gay characters in Star Wars. And since there doesn't seem to be any special way that humans in the Star Wars universe vary from us (besides their mitochlorians or whatever), it seems more logical that their would be gay characters than not.
And that's just humans. There are also tons of alien species whos mating habits we know little of. What we do know is that interspecies attraction does not seem especially uncommon or taboo. If giant slugs are attracted to humans with gold bikinis, and nobody seems to think this is especially odd, then it doesn't seem like gay love would be a stretch in this universe.
Would adding a gay character ruin the Star Wars universe? Of course not, but we haven't seen an openly gay character in any of the movies up to this point. Suddenly adding them now would make them nothing more but tokens; a product of our time added to meet a quota.
And, this is the silly part. You're suggesting special rules on making gay characters. We can't have them now because we didn't have them before.
We had different directors, different actors, and yes different times. It's not the 70's anymore, and not only has the audience changed, but so have the directors and the writers. JJ Abrams was 10 when A New Hope came out. His way of thinking is naturally going to be a bit different than George Lucas who is about 20 years older than him. And since times have changed, for the better, and we could now have gay characters, why should we be beholden to antiquated mentalities?
And they just may want to include gay characters because they want to have a gay character. Yet, you're saying any attempt to add a gay character is automatically a "token" character. Can't it just be because the writer wanted to add them? Because when you make new characters you want to give them character traits to distinguish them from other characters?
We didn't have any greasy fry cook characters til episode II. Does that mean Dexter Jettster is a token greasy fry cook? We didn't have any monocle wearing characters until Gorga the Hutt. Is he a token monocle wearing character? We didn't have any asthmatic droids episode III. Is general grievus a token asthmatic droid? The Star Wars universe adds different species and different kind of characters all the time. No reason why a character, human or otherwise, who likes the same gender would be out of place.
We could add all sorts of new character traits that weren't in the older movies. Yet... when it's homosexuality, it's suddenly a different story. Why is there some sort of special rule for gay characters?
We didn't need them before and we don't need them now, because gay people are perfectly capable of identifying with straight characters, just as I am able to identify with gay characters in the Mass Effect universe.
No we don't need gay characters. Just like we don't need any of the things I mentioned before. We don't need to have Professor X and Magneto play chess, we don't need Deadpool to love Chimichangas, we don't need to know Bud from Kill Bill works in a strip club, we don't need Ron to have so many siblings in Harry Potter. We don't need female characters, we don't need BB8, didn't need to have Kylo Ren be related to Han, we didn't need Rey to live on a desert planet, we didn't need a black stormtrooper, we didn't need a female protagonist, we didn't need to have Starkiller base, and we didn't need Chewbacca to shoot Kylo. None of these things are needed. They're simply the way that the writers chose to go. They could have written it another way, but they didn't.
And this is the problem. Apparently it's wrong for a writer or a director to put in a gay character for whatever reason he chooses.. He can do anything else for any reason he likes, so long as it doesn't contradict the established story, but for gay characters there has to be some sort of extra special reason. It's ridiculous.
