Does hollywood try too hard to include lgbt in their movies?

The film industry has gone far too woke. They are going to put themselves out of business.

They feel the need to have any super hero be a mixed race female, probably trans or lesbian... They will be 5'0" and will order 6' tall guys around like children... while being able to knock them out with a single punch. It's so ridiculous, it makes the films unwatchable.
Ok now next time you see these characters, imagine it is Serena Williams. You think you could beat her in a boxing match lol? NOPE

Tom Cruise and Sylvester Stallone are both very short guys and played in like 50 action films combined in leading roles far less believable than Serena Williams being a super hero. She would annihilate them.
 
I see a lot of mentions of Hollywood. But Netflix, Disney, Amazon... These are global companies and their revenue has increasingly came from global sources. Not just US.

Why would they limit their films/shows to ideas from, the glory days of hollywood or Murican comic books. That is absurd, and just bad business.

Also, in US, majority of kids born today are nonwhite. So why would disney cartoons not feature more diverse characters? Its their market.
Your totally right, and I'm all for it.
I like what they did with Ms. Marvel, and it's good that they open horizon. And I'm all for new adaptation IF it's make sense.

A black little orphan Annie, cool ! (they imagine a different version)
A black James Bond, I feel like they push too much and break the continuity.
A gay James bond, well they would break the character profile. (note they did replace 007 by a women...)
A gay main hero, I love (The Boy's, game of throne, etc)

What I'm not hot about, and by that I'm not against, just worry that it will turn out bad for LGBTQ, is quota.

When, you see out place LGBTQ character only for visibility. You could argue "why out of place" well it's all up to you. That's why I'm asking here if you see those out of place character.

I point out "Lightyear" movie it's a good example.
 
Quota is bad because, the viewer feel like it's imposed, force, you can feel that when it doesn't bring nothing to the story. One could argue, why would it's make a difference black/white, gay/straight?

I point out "Lightyear" movie it's a good example because black women + lesbian + married to a different culture + insemination + kid for a 1 sequence of 2 sec. with no reason except "buzz is missing out with time travel". It could be a granny with a cat, we would have figured out.
 
Quota is bad because, the viewer feel like it's imposed, force, you can feel that when it doesn't bring nothing to the story. One could argue, why would it's make a difference black/white, gay/straight?

I point out "Lightyear" movie it's a good example because black women + lesbian + married to a different culture + insemination + kid for a 1 sequence of 2 sec. with no reason except "buzz is missing out with time travel". It could be a granny with a cat, we would have figured out.
Quota is what you have be it sexual diversity or racial - but leaning towards being excessive.
If the quota is to be applied then percentage-wise is the way to go - but what are the percentages going to be made up of gay lesbian trans black white yellow hearing or sight impaired - the list is endless.
Whatever the situation it should not be a quota decision but the most suitable person for the job.
 
I'd say yes 'hollywood' does seem to have an agenda to shoehorn particular brands of reprensetation into films where it doesnt particularly fit or isnt needed.

I think the biggest problem is when they [hollywood writers] take established source material and change/morph/bend charaters backgrounds, sexuality etc to make the movie they want to make, to send a policitical message they want to send. Instead of just telling the story how the original source tells it. Although I think this has always been an issue with hollywood, on another level, with how much 'artistic lisecene' should a writer have when dealing with someone elses work (in my view, they should have very little and treat the source with the upmost respect).

If they were instead inventing new stories and new charaters, I wouldnt have a problem with however they wanted to dipict original charaters in their own creation. It might even get a better reception and make the characters more likeable going that way.

Quite often movies/series are hamstrung from the offset because they have already irked the fandom by meddling with long estalished lore and charaters that fans are emotionally invested in and creating uneccissary debate. Many times you see now movies/series get ratioed and boycotted by the fans of the source material and hollywood press cry the alt right shit on their show. Its actually people from all over the political specrum who are pretty pissed off with it all. New upcoming LOTR series to air on amazon prime, is another classic example of this current problem.

I'm talking generally. The example of lightyear given by the OP is tricky. Its a spinoff of a charater thats a toy. Orindinarly i'd say its 'hollywoods' own creation so they can do what they wana do. However, its also a film aimed at kids. I'm not sure complex sexuality 'representation' is really needed in a kids film.
 
I'm talking generally. The example of lightyear given by the OP is tricky. Its a spinoff of a charater thats a toy. Orindinarly i'd say its 'hollywoods' own creation so they can do what they wana do. However, its also a film aimed at kids. I'm not sure complex sexuality 'representation' is really needed in a kids film.
Kids need to see that LGBTQ people are normal people, too. It's not too complex for a kid to learn that other kids have two mothers/fathers.
 
I'd say yes 'hollywood' does seem to have an agenda to shoehorn particular brands of reprensetation into films where it doesnt particularly fit or isnt needed.

I think the biggest problem is when they [hollywood writers] take established source material and change/morph/bend charaters backgrounds, sexuality etc to make the movie they want to make, to send a policitical message they want to send. Instead of just telling the story how the original source tells it. Although I think this has always been an issue with hollywood, on another level, with how much 'artistic lisecene' should a writer have when dealing with someone elses work (in my view, they should have very little and treat the source with the upmost respect).

If they were instead inventing new stories and new charaters, I wouldnt have a problem with however they wanted to dipict original charaters in their own creation. It might even get a better reception and make the characters more likeable going that way.

Quite often movies/series are hamstrung from the offset because they have already irked the fandom by meddling with long estalished lore and charaters that fans are emotionally invested in and creating uneccissary debate. Many times you see now movies/series get ratioed and boycotted by the fans of the source material and hollywood press cry the alt right shit on their show. Its actually people from all over the political specrum who are pretty pissed off with it all. New upcoming LOTR series to air on amazon prime, is another classic example of this current problem.

I'm talking generally. The example of lightyear given by the OP is tricky. Its a spinoff of a charater thats a toy. Orindinarly i'd say its 'hollywoods' own creation so they can do what they wana do. However, its also a film aimed at kids. I'm not sure complex sexuality 'representation' is really needed in a kids film.
I really like your view on this, I was worry that all this was a new trend and It would certainly backfire on LGBTQ community.

But if it's a pattern that Hollywood used to deal with, I'm certain LGBTQ will find a way to get the better out of it.

Still, sometime hollywood choice are not for the best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HorsemanUK
Kids need to see that LGBTQ people are normal people, too. It's not too complex for a kid to learn that other kids have two mothers/fathers.

This is a dangerous subject, I'm a father with 4 kid's I would gladly support my kid if he where gay to expose him to a life style that would help him and reflect is value. But my four kid are at this point not showing any sign in that direction.

So, yes exposed, but I care that the main character reflect my kid's values too. I would say the best ration is something similar to the reality. Right now, I see a LGBTQ character in every tv show. It's a trend, and I know it's so that society can accept the diversity. Good! But use it wisely.

I'm not Gay or LGBTQ, to me it's a minority taking their place in society that's how I view all this.
loll MisterB would say stats say otherwise, but yeah, human nature is like that.

As I straight white men, I would say use that exposure wisely, not forced on.

But I'm not LGBTQ, for you should it be exposed no matter, the more the better?
Does Hollywood need quota?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HorsemanUK
This is a dangerous subject, I'm a father with 4 kid's I would gladly support my kid if he where gay to expose him to a life style that would help him and reflect is value. But my four kid are at this point not showing any sign in that direction.

So, yes exposed, but I care that the main character reflect my kid's values too. I would say the best ration is something similar to the reality. Right now, I see a LGBTQ character in every tv show. It's a trend, and I know it's so that society can accept the diversity. Good! But use it wisely.

I'm not Gay or LGBTQ, to me it's a minority taking their place in society that's how I view all this.
loll MisterB would say stats say otherwise, but yeah, human nature is like that.

As I straight white men, I would say use that exposure wisely, not forced on.

But I'm not LGBTQ, for you should it be exposed no matter, the more the better?
Does Hollywood need quota?
Still raising the old "stats" argument, eh? Of course facts, like accurate stats matter. Why? Because in your opening post, you relied on stats to make your "case".

Which now that the thread has progressed, and I see a common theme in your posts, I'm wondering exactly why this bothers you as much as it does?

I ask that because my experience as a gay man (close to 50 years now!) tells me that those truly straight men I know don't give a fuck about whether a man or a woman sleeps with a woman or a man. Or what the LGBTQ+ representation is on TV, in the movies or elsewhere. Because people who are secure in who and what they are don't give a fuck about any of that.

I've also learned that those who protest/complain or are otherwise negative about LGBTQ+ folks or laser-focused as you seem to be are those who are struggling with their own insecurities about their sexuality. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angelo123
This is a dangerous subject, I'm a father with 4 kid's I would gladly support my kid if he where gay to expose him to a life style that would help him and reflect is value. But my four kid are at this point not showing any sign in that direction.

So, yes exposed, but I care that the main character reflect my kid's values too. I would say the best ration is something similar to the reality. Right now, I see a LGBTQ character in every tv show. It's a trend, and I know it's so that society can accept the diversity. Good! But use it wisely.

I'm not Gay or LGBTQ, to me it's a minority taking their place in society that's how I view all this.
loll MisterB would say stats say otherwise, but yeah, human nature is like that.

As I straight white men, I would say use that exposure wisely, not forced on.

But I'm not LGBTQ, for you should it be exposed no matter, the more the better?
Does Hollywood need quota?
And by the way, here in Canada, we have kid show with a trans.
"barbada"
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=barbada
Barbada - Bande-annonce

I think, we have a open mind about all this.
 
This is a dangerous subject, I'm a father with 4 kid's I would gladly support my kid if he where gay to expose him to a life style that would help him and reflect is value. But my four kid are at this point not showing any sign in that direction.

So, yes exposed, but I care that the main character reflect my kid's values too. I would say the best ration is something similar to the reality. Right now, I see a LGBTQ character in every tv show. It's a trend, and I know it's so that society can accept the diversity. Good! But use it wisely.

I'm not Gay or LGBTQ, to me it's a minority taking their place in society that's how I view all this.
loll MisterB would say stats say otherwise, but yeah, human nature is like that.

As I straight white men, I would say use that exposure wisely, not forced on.

But I'm not LGBTQ, for you should it be exposed no matter, the more the better?
Does Hollywood need quota?
I have a different opinion, and I think most of LGBTQ members agree with me. And I think it's weird that you always bring up the discussion of a quota. Why? What do you want to hear?

Tbh, this is a gay porn site. Why do we even discuss this here? I should move on and watch some dick pics instead...
 
Still raising the old "stats" argument, eh? Of course facts, like accurate stats matter. Why? Because in your opening post, you relied on stats to make your "case".

Which now that the thread has progressed, and I see a common theme in your posts, I'm wondering exactly why this bothers you as much as it does?

I ask that because my experience as a gay man (close to 50 years now!) tells me that those truly straight men I know don't give a fuck about whether a man or a woman sleeps with a woman or a man. Or what the LGBTQ+ representation is on TV, in the movies or elsewhere. Because people who are secure in who and what they are don't give a fuck about any of that.

I've also learned that those who protest/complain or are otherwise negative about LGBTQ+ folks or laser-focused as you seem to be are those who are struggling with their own insecurities about their sexuality. ;)

I don't give a fuck actually, LGBTQ is not my community, how hollywood use LGBTQ is not my concern.
It's you're, I was just trying to start a discussion. I think I have a respect in my tone and did say I approve LGBTQ presence on TV and movies.

It's not a question of right or wrong, I did say it was a open question. I'm not against anything. I'm not hot for some, but it's normal, I'm not in your community.

Why are you so focussed on nailing it to my personality? Do I need to be LGBTQ to talk about it?

I maybe have started wrong with my stats, It not making the subject less important.

But hey, I think I wasted enough time on this post, I did learn some new views and thanks to all of you.
I don't need to justify my personality every time I want to discuss a subject.

I did like talking to you MisterB, I you did bring some good points.
 
I don't give a fuck actually, LGBTQ is not my community, how hollywood use LGBTQ is not my concern.
It's you're, I was just trying to start a discussion. I think I have a respect in my tone and did say I approve LGBTQ presence on TV and movies.

It's not a question of right or wrong, I did say it was a open question. I'm not against anything. I'm not hot for some, but it's normal, I'm not in your community.

Why are you so focussed on nailing it to my personality? Do I need to be LGBTQ to talk about it?

I maybe have started wrong with my stats, It not making the subject less important.

But hey, I think I wasted enough time on this post, I did learn some new views and thanks to all of you.
I don't need to justify my personality every time I want to discuss a subject.

I did like talking to you MisterB, I you did bring some good points.
I do give a fuck, especially when someone from outside my community starts a thread about something that's supposedly important to him, wants to discuss it and supplies nonfactual stats to support his observation.

My intent was to participate in a thread topic that I thought from reading the first post was about open discussion. Maybe a chance for me to learn something about or from my straight brethren that I'm not aware of.

I've provided you with my thoughts about why Hollywood now seems to have a plethora of characters/roles/actors who are not straight white males. That the bottom line is simple: Money. It always somehow about the Money.

And that's reinforced by the increasing number of actors and characters in TV shows and movies as well as television/internet/print ads that feature folks who are more representative of today's demographic, such as interracial couples with bi-racial children, as well as older/younger couples, where it's not just a man who is older. These two demographics, like LGBTQ+, are more prevalent than ever. Because marketers know this is a growing market from which to tap the wealth. Money.

I've enjoyed a lot of our discussion too! I'm glad to read that you've learned some new perspectives that a few of us have shared. Because that's what discussion is about. Sharing different perspectives and maybe learning something about that which we did not know we didn't know.

I know that I'm never too old to learn something new. And I can assure you I've learned some things here at LPSG that I had no idea were even a thing, lol. ;)
 
My issue with Hollywood is it seems like mostly straight guys playing gay and not the more obviously gay men who you pick out as gay on the street playing gay characters. None of them would be into Barbra and Beyonce. I loved the priest in Grantchester as he really reads as gay. Same with Jack on Will and Grace.
 
stuff about canon being modified for gender/race: this is not changing canon. countless short non-athletic white guys have played roles like Vikings and other strongmen . also Jesus movies with Imaginary White Jesus (Mel Gibson has another in 2024)

James Bond as example of absurdity of canon argument: Below is a picture of Ian Fleming, who wrote the books based on his own life experiences. Yea that looks a lot like Sean Connery or whatever.

If Idris Elba as James Bond annoys you, that is sad. He is British and he is hot; that fits the Hollywood template for the role.
 

Attachments

Mate, not a fan of the tack of a straight person implicitly telling me "everything's fine, now. Equality's been reached." You may not have directly said that, but that's what it sounds like with the direction of your questioning. If equality had been reached, the gay apps and websites wouldn't be 30%+ faceless profiles, straight male actors wouldn't be praised for their "bravery" for playing a gay character, you wouldn't hear about hate crimes, you wouldn't see a lesbian couple getting their kid removed from school because the teachers don't want to explain their relationship, or the amount of shit trans people are getting from the media, or the way monkeypox is being reported.

I'm 35. As for what the situation is like for young LGBTs, yes, you can talk about broader trends that more will be out than in the past, and the coming out age is lowering over time, and being explicitly homophobic is less socially acceptable than it used to be. But in some parts of the west, you also have creeping homophobic and transphobic legislation (don't say gay bill in Florida as one example). The suicide rate is still considerably higher for them and so is the homelessness rate. There are far too many variables to the individual involved as to whether it is safe for them to be out and in the open, here are a few:

What are their friends like?
Are they in a co-ed school or a same gender school?
What is the general atmosphere at the school like?
What are their parents' political and social views like?
What are their parents' social circles like?
What are their siblings like?
Are they from a religious household? If so, what type of religious household?
Are any others out at their school?
Do they live in a rural area or an urban area?
What is their ethnic background?
What socioeconomic background do they come from?
How much pressure do they personally face to conform to heteronormative/patriarchal/cisnormative standards?

What can be said with 100% certainty is it was harder to grow up LGBT in the past than not being LGBT at the time, and it is still harder to grow up LGBT than it is to not be LGBT in the present, even with progress in the last few decades.

I think it's also likely that you're so used to seeing characters who are like you that you notice it more than people who aren't as used to being represented. Thinking about it as a quota system is not the right way, it's more a case of there need to be more POC in leading roles, more disabled people in leading roles, more women in leading roles, more LGBTs in leading roles etc. It's not a case of every single film/series needs some representation for every marginalised group out there. So this is why terms like "quota" and "politically correct" sound like a bit of a red flag to me.

I suspect when it comes to Disney and Pixar, when they do shove in one LGBT character, it's normally because they've had such a long period of being "family-friendly" (AKA a homophobic dog whistle) that they're trying to show they're learning, but of course, they'll only do this for very minor characters usually.

It's also worth remembering the positive portrayals that don't fall into a number of tropes have only really started to be more common in the last decade or so. Plenty of films end up with LGBT characters being killed or committing suicide, suffering serious problems surrounding their sexuality and loneliness/isolation. There's also been quite a few films where LGBT themes have been significantly toned down, one example of that was Alexander (about Alexander the Great).

Also regarding the stats, plenty of people are still very closeted and not in a position to come out, so the stats don't give you anything close to the full picture. But that's already been said.

Trying to be informative here.
The ultimate goal is what u said where the world is not on the basis of conformity in any way, where people simply be themselves and let the nature of the universe and human nature have its course. I've had a belief for a while, having experienced it myself and its a good example, its not bullying thats the problem its what u get bullied for, some bullying can have positive effects. In the same way sometimes "helping" minorities can be damaging and there's the truth really we don't need help we simply need to be let be. In conclusion, lgbtq in every movie slightly glorifies something that we simply want to normalise.
 
I just read an article that puts this whole Lightyear movie in another light for me...
Keep in mind, this reboot is intended as the in universe film franchise that spawned the Buzz Lightyear toy Andy gets in the 1st Toy Story movie...and through the rest of the franchise we've gotten peeks at the marketing material, which only highlight the characters of Zurg and Buzz...
So in the midst of all this talk of forced LGBT inclusion and undercover agendas from movies and media affecting children the marketing executives within the "Toy Story"-verse saw fit to only make action figures based upon the presumably cis white hetero males in the movie...some people are never satisfied...lol
 
I think so especially in the "cartoon" ones that come out. Seems like everyone is represented in them. Or even one person to represent every race or sexuality on the planet. If you don't you get a bunch of crybabies whining about it
good point, did you know, that in the last James bond, they included a 007 women to replace James.
Do you know that they plan to cast a black James bond in the future movies! (not official)

Hmmm, is hollywood is trying to hard?
She was a not a replacement for him. That was just in the storyline for that movie. I don't think they will replace him for a black actor but it would be a nice change for that series.
 
Yep, not only Hollywood but all the media.
Suddenly they're all woke and there doesn't seem to be a drama comedy or whatever that doesn't feature some group of oppressed people who, five years ago would turn up just inside the radar.
I just think it would be better if the media were truthful instead of changing the sex and race of a character just so the event could be hailed as representative/innovative. It's not, its untruthful

Agree