What's wrong with making someone gay or female for the sake of being that? That's a way to create depth for a character, and even if it doesn't add much to the story it helps bring a sense of liveliness to the world to give mundane details. Also, it seems that in your mind someone being straight or white or male or whatever is the default, so if someone decides to do forego that they're going to automatically get extra scrutiny and will either pass or fail the seemingly arbitrary test of whether or not this diversity is acceptable.

How is being straight or male any less deep? That's not a way to add depth to a character on the contrary it's a way to make a character feel shallow. If the reason they are there is due to race, orentaorien, or gender then by definition that is shallow and the character lacks depth because they're reason for being there is due to their orentaorien, gender or sex. 

Depth to a character is added through conflict. And if the setting is right that conflict can be attributed to their race, gender, ethnicity or what ever else. 

But putting a female character instead of a male character does not add depth to the character itself or the world, and the concept of that is ridiculous. 

I didn't say that being straight or male was less deep, in fact if you read my whole post my meaning was very clear. If a character is straight or male nobody bats an eye because it's the "default" and people just expect it, but when they are not it is noticed and thus placed under special scrutiny, and for some reason has to be deemed relevant or understandable whereas for the default they don't have to face the same test.

1. That's the point isn't it? We have no clue if they're better yet because of this forced diversity movement, just hire the woman anyway whether she's as good as the other guy or not. Isn't that what's going on? It's like companies have token positions for certain types of people simply to fill the slot and be labeled as diverse.

2. Yes, if the homosexual nature or change of character into female is part of the story. But what if it isn't? The two examples I mentioned, Ghostbusters and Troy fall of a city, show it well.

Ghostbusters went all female. For what? Does it make a difference whether they're female or male? No, they did it just to force the concept of a female Ghostbusters team. It's not because we needed female leads because the story is female driven. In fact, it's a movie about shooting energy weapons that take a lot of strength. Look at the original Ghostbusters, how the actors struggled to fire those weapons. So basically, change it so that the weapons require no effort so we can be "inclusive". The fact is those roles didn't need to be all female. Mix them then if you want. But why all female? Just forced diversity.

And homosexual Achilles. Really? Do I need to explain this nonsense? It's a blatant effort to just add a homosexual character in the show. That's why his character sucked. It doesn't fit. It simply doesn't. In the show, he's constantly ridiculed for his homosexuality, but in the original, he's supposed to be this admired conquering hero. How does that make sense? It's clear they just decided to make his character like that for forced diversity. I have nothing against having a homosexual character but why do you have to force it when it simply doesn't fit?

1. Sorry but I won't explain something so obvious anymore. It's simply too obvious.

2. Like I said, how heavy are proton packs? How much recoil is there in shooting energy weapons? Did you watch the original? They struggled to fire that stuff. Because it was heavy.

So why change the parameters of the franchise? The proton packs should behave the same way yes? If not, why not just make a whole different franchise? Well obviously, if we retain the original Ghostbusters lore, we can't have females lugging around all that heavy equipment. But nooooo nevermind the lore, nevermind the concept, just all female! Don't matter whether we stick to the story!

3. Don't watch it. The series absolutely sucks.

What, you didn't study Greek mythology in middle school? If you have any idea about Achilles whatsoever, you know that this rendition was absolutely trash. Again, why fool around with the lore? Why fool around with the characters parameters?

Let me ask you a different question.

What if we made Lara Croft into a man? It would suck. Why? Coz that character was meant to be a strong female breaking barriers. It won't make any sense whatsoever if she were a man.

That's the same as what's going on with changing the gender or sexual orientation of established characters. It doesn't make sense with the story background and motivations of the character!

Are the new Ghostbusters supposed to be the same characters as the old ones? I'm almost sure that they're not.

It's taking exceptional movies and transforming them into mediocre ones. That's the real travesty.

Do not care one iota about diversity. Whatever talent works for the score ought be the talent involved in the production. Much like sports, nobody cares about diversity because it is entirely irrelevant. Talent is what is entertaining, not a gender confused person in a non-binary relationship with a toaster.

2. Oh wow you know what that's called? RETCON. And that's supposed to be ok right?

3. Oh yeah Wikipedia. I love it. How about you find anything where patroclus is somehow Achilles lover rather than his blood relation?

Please. Ridiculous argument coz you aren't a fan. You don't get it. Tampering with story and lore for the sake of diversity is not acceptable. Make your own franchise. Don't tamper with what people already invest their time on.

Having characters being openly gay when their sexuality has nothing to do with the plot or their story is a real pet peeve of mine. If there's a romance subplot where they have a love interest, that's fine, but you don't see every straight character announcing "I'M STRAIGHT" randomly. It just comes across as forced and weird.