What's new

Other Random question of the day

Crayons

Iconoclast
Um... excuse me? What is unnecessary about being LGBT+ inclusive???

I assume it's changing the sexuality of a character at the very end of a series or movie without giving them an actual reason or event that sparked the change whether it was shown or not. Like, there are a few characters I have seen in media (of which I don't remember) that were straight for the longest time, and then they all of a sudden switch sexualities at the very end
This is the only bad way to have positive LGBT+ representation. If a straight character is straight don't shoehorn the gay into them. This only ever happens with female characters presumably because male hollywood producers are less terrified by the idea of wlw than mlm since it doesn't threaten their fragile masculinity. I think this is getting less common now than it was in the 2000s and early 2010s. Back then it was everywhere.

LGBT+ representation is NOT pandering. No, no, no, no, no. The straight white male has been pandered to for decades by always being the focal point and hero role. Time for that to stop and let other people get a chance to have tv shows/movies made about them.
 

Idea

The Pun Tyrant The Gif Hydra
Is unneccessary LGBT theming in media considered pandering to said community?
As with many things with stories, I would say "necessity" isn't particularly a relevant factor. Like a character doesn't have to need to be gay for their inclusion to not be pandering. A character can just...be gay. I think the problem starts when that's the only leg you have to stand on though, or when you start using it as an excuse to cudgel against legitimate criticism, and pandering starts when you try to make a character's superficial elements the selling point as opposed to actual elements of the movie. A trailer for a movie about a character exploring their sexuality or overcoming oppression isn't pandering, or at least isn't necessarily pandering. A trailer which seems to bank entirely on the gender of the character on-screen when movie is intended to be about something else entirely is pandering.

Well, it's a lot more complex than this, namely the concentration can be a factor as well, but fundamentally pandering is a question of intent. Saying something is or isn't pandering can only be identified if you could read the mind of the people making the product. That said, while representation is not bad of course, but lets not kind ourselves, 99% of the reason a company does anything is for profit. I'm of course not saying it's the case every time, but for companies and hollywood and possibly others entities that aren't coming to mind right now, pandering isn't the anomaly, pandering is the default state, for any aspect of their marketing, PR and general stances on issues.
 

The Dreamer of the Lore

Greetings from the chatty scissors.
Random question of the day:

Is unneccessary LGBT theming in media considered pandering to said community?
Well, I dont feel is pandering to have LGBT+ characters on a story or them being the point of the story. I believe is pandering when you try to change solid characters to fit in the spectrum to get more viewers. Having character variety is never bad. I believe is pandering when you pull out a change that makes absolutely no sense for the sake of viewership.
 
Since people have asked what I consider pandering to the LGBT+ community, I'll explain:

What I consider pandering to the LGBT+ community is trying to convert a character that previously wasn't established to be LGBT+ to said group in order to score points with the LGBT+ community, like people said. What I also consider pandering to the LGBT+ community is calling for a character who doesn't have an established sexuality such as Sonic the Hedgehog to be made into an LGBT+ character, and so on.
 

LofiCat

ₕₒw ₘᵤcₕ cₐₙ yₒᵤ fᵢₜ ᵤₙdₑᵣ ₘy ₛₖᵢₙ
Random question of the day:

Is unneccessary LGBT theming in media considered pandering to said community?
I say that it depends on the perspective of the audience and the overall opinion of them, since, everyone has different feelings and stuffs, but, it’s not all the people, but how the movie/show/game etc. treats the LGBT(Q+?) on their themes, setting and overall plot.

In my opinion (unnecessary?) LGBT theming isn’t pandering when used right and at the correct time, and (maybe, probably, I seriously have no idea if this makes sense) be somewhat important in the plot.

an small example of LGBT representation done right would be with She-Ra, a fairly known Netflix show. The LGBT there is used in a way where it’s something normal, as it should be, and it brings a nice uwu touch to the plot, not overall necessary, for all I could know they could replace Catra with a guy and it would be the same, but without the shock and overall representation of the community.

that for me is LGBT done right, there are many other examples, (Owl House, Adventure Time, Korra, etc. I haven’t watched any of them except for Owl House so no commentary) but for me She-Ra stands out the most.

now for the bad LGBT theming, this is, for me, where a character is made LGBT for no apparent reason, and brings 0 importance to the plot. Making a straight guy suddenly feel like he likes guys without any apparent affect to the story would be a bit of filler(?) I don’t know if this sounds right, but summarised, for me, I think that LGBT could be done right if it brings anything important, a message, or helps the main character cope with some life struggles(?) or overall helps the story, and on the other side, bad LGBT representation is when a show adds or makes a character LGBT with no apparent reason, story, and no overall apparent importance, it is done even worse if the show begins stereotyping, joking, or right down discriminating.

this is overall my opinion on adding unnecessary LGBT, or LGBT done wrong, I wanted to show the good point of view first for me and for others to first see what we’re basing ourselves on with talking about LGBT.

yeah tell me if I missed anything our sounded wrong I have no idea how to do rants.
 
(Correct if I'm wrong on this question, as I haven't seen the movie.)

Random question of the day:

If Iron Man started the argument that led to the Avengers fighting each other in Captain America: Civil War, doesn't that make him the movie's villain?
 

TheAceInTheDeck

A̵̟̔̄͋̅̒̿̓́͆͘ĉ̸̨̧̛͖̮̭͙̭̱͐̉͛̈́́͛͂ė̶̼̐̈́̓͂̀̈́̃̾͊̌̒̐͘͠
(Correct if I'm wrong on this question, as I haven't seen the movie.)

Random question of the day:

If Iron Man started the argument that led to the Avengers fighting each other in Captain America: Civil War, doesn't that make him the movie's villain?
yes

but im mourning soap so doesn't that make him the villain for making me sad?

its all in perspective.
 

Idea

The Pun Tyrant The Gif Hydra
(Correct if I'm wrong on this question, as I haven't seen the movie.)

Random question of the day:

If Iron Man started the argument that led to the Avengers fighting each other in Captain America: Civil War, doesn't that make him the movie's villain?
Nope, not really. Causing an argument, or even a problem, is not something that makes someone a villain, especially if not done on purpose. Heck, a lot of episodic shows have the heroes frequently be directly responsible for the episode's core issue. This makes a flawed character, not a villainous one. There's also one more reason why Tony Stark is not the villain, but me sharing it would be a major spoiler for the movie.
 

Idea

The Pun Tyrant The Gif Hydra
They are a bit like any other brand movie to be honest, be it sequels or book adaptations or just associated by name with a given franchise. They are pretty much like any other movie, but then also have to factor in the existing expectations of those, while having the advantage of a pre-existing popularity when it comes to box office (in the sense that even bad movies will attract some seats from fans of that other franchise just by the association itself), as well as a pre-existing story which may at times help write the plot since one doesn’t have to start from scratch.

All in all however, a lot of these movies just aren’t adapted with mindset of “let’s make a good movie” they are adapted with “let’s make a good (whatever the thing is that is being adapted) movie” at best and “let’s pander to (that thing)’s audience” at worst. You can’t properly incorporate the qualities of an entirely different medium, so you shouldn’t sacrifice your movie working as a movie itself first and foremost.
 

silent whisper

there lived a certain man in russia long ago
Ofc they probably are but at the same time now we have the internet anyone can spy on people so it’s not as bad I suppose
 

Idea

The Pun Tyrant The Gif Hydra
Random question of the day:

Is the FBI truly spying on Americans like the memes claim them to do?
I don't know if the FBI is, but we do know there was the whole scandal with Snowden as he exposed the fact that agencies (the CIA I believe) were actively taking people's private information, and I don't think there's been much of a correction since.

Oh and of course, there's the fact a lot of sites, namely google, are pretty much financed by a mix of ads and selling information.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top