Amy Schumer to play Barbie in live-action film

[Grumman]

With Iceman, Marvel Comics was not willing to devote the necessary time (number of issues), meaning it seems a "gay virus" infected him- an insulting idea to real-world gays who'll undoubtedly say, "We're not like this!" as well provoking fear in Christian fundamentalists and other conservatives regarding what may happen if they allow their children to associate with homosexuals.

Worse than that, there's actually a logical vector by which he was "infected": when a man who has shown a fair bit of evidence that he is heterosexual and zero evidence that he is homosexual suddenly decides he is homosexual after a powerful psychic invades his mind and tells him he is homosexual, that raises the possibility that the psychic made him doubt his heterosexuality, or worse, made him homosexual.

So isn't this issue just lazy writing?

In a broad sense, yes. They are being shitty people out of laziness - trying to leech off of other people's hard work to serve their agenda, instead of doing the job properly.

[Q99]

Personally, I don't have a problem with characters being reinvented/revealed as gay... but you do have to put in the work. Iceman would've made plenty of sense as Bi (bisexual characters themselves being plenty underrepresented, unless you count morally ambiguous semi-villains like Loki, Harley Quinn, etc. where they make up around 80% of the population), but gay just seemed odd, yes a number of LGBT fans I know said it seemed sloppy, and overall it was not the best of efforts.

Meanwhile, reboot Alan Scott being gay was good. Shatterstar and Richtor getting together in X-Factor worked. Etc.. Turning characters gay is just fine, no real different than any change/reveal in a character. Do it well and all, but things should never be done not-well.

(One thing I dislike in comics in general is when a writer decides "I'll do a big reveal!.. at the end of my run." Pawning over the responsibility and effort to someone else. Unless the next person is in on the planning, it kinda sucks)

[TheFeniX]

It's really hard (at least for me) to deal with anything being focused on when it's not all that important. It doesn't matter what it is. As stupid as that might sounds it's...... I just realized that sounds really stupid. So let's just give a hetero example to try and explain my stupid.

I watched a movie with the wife. I think it was written by the Twilight lady. It's about aliens that took over the minds of everyone on Earth. Anyways, the lead character is in a cave and they're all like 5 seconds from being found out and mind controlled, whatever. Point is: shit is looking grim. So, what's it time for? Love triangle between her and two doods, one of which has made overt threats to kill her, which she finds attractive for some reason. Also, dedicated make-out scenes. It would be like James Bond shagging the female lead on top of the nuclear bomb they needed to disarm while it's still ticking. It's dumb. I hate the writers of the movie and myself for sitting through it.

And lazy writing, or even just writing in general, ends up in unfortunate implications territory, even when it doesn't apply to the source material. I recall in the original ending of Star Trek: DS9: Kassidy was supposed to be pregnant when Sisko "dies," but Brooks felt they were playing into the "absentee black father" stereotype (myth really from what I know), so the idea was scrapped.

So, you starting rolling up all these issues with minority characters that's been discussed and it's no surprise Movies and Comics are filled with Straight white guys and women, whereas Television has a much better representation, but still deals with it's own issues.

You really need good writers to pull this stuff off. You fuck up writing a white guy, no one cares, they just don't give you any money. You fuck up with a minority and there is the "no money" part AND you've pissed off everyone.

[The Romulan Republic]

Personally, I don't have a problem with characters being reinvented/revealed as gay... but you do have to put in the work. Iceman would've made plenty of sense as Bi (bisexual characters themselves being plenty underrepresented, unless you count morally ambiguous semi-villains like Loki, Harley Quinn, etc. where they make up around 80% of the population), but gay just seemed odd, yes a number of LGBT fans I know said it seemed sloppy, and overall it was not the best of efforts.

Meanwhile, reboot Alan Scott being gay was good. Shatterstar and Richtor getting together in X-Factor worked. Etc.. Turning characters gay is just fine, no real different than any change/reveal in a character. Do it well and all, but things should never be done not-well.

(One thing I dislike in comics in general is when a writer decides "I'll do a big reveal!.. at the end of my run." Pawning over the responsibility and effort to someone else. Unless the next person is in on the planning, it kinda sucks)

I'd think it would actually be easier to change an established character's orientation to bisexual rather than gay, since you wouldn't have to retcon away any previous heterosexual loves they may have had.

[Kojiro]

So isn't this issue just lazy writing?

I think that there's lazy writing the serves the plot or rule of cool, which people are more forgiving of because ultimately it adds to the overall story. Changing a character for real word reasons is akin to product placement. It's not in there for anything to do with the story, it's there as advertising to readers. That makes it lazy and gratuitous which a lot of people don't like, compounded by the fact they're changing a beloved character.

[Lord Revan]

Personally, I don't have a problem with characters being reinvented/revealed as gay... but you do have to put in the work. Iceman would've made plenty of sense as Bi (bisexual characters themselves being plenty underrepresented, unless you count morally ambiguous semi-villains like Loki, Harley Quinn, etc. where they make up around 80% of the population), but gay just seemed odd, yes a number of LGBT fans I know said it seemed sloppy, and overall it was not the best of efforts.

Meanwhile, reboot Alan Scott being gay was good. Shatterstar and Richtor getting together in X-Factor worked. Etc.. Turning characters gay is just fine, no real different than any change/reveal in a character. Do it well and all, but things should never be done not-well.

(One thing I dislike in comics in general is when a writer decides "I'll do a big reveal!.. at the end of my run." Pawning over the responsibility and effort to someone else. Unless the next person is in on the planning, it kinda sucks)

I'd think it would actually be easier to change an established character's orientation to bisexual rather than gay, since you wouldn't have to retcon away any previous heterosexual loves they may have had.

You'd think it would be so but it's not really. Unless the character in question is a villain (which has it's own issues, it shares with fully homosexual villains) due to history of using bisexuality (specially female bisexuality) for fanservice, bisexual characters (again especially female ones) have something of reputations of being "fake". Also they're not seen as "progessive" as even an offensively stereotypical homosexual character, again thanks to the history of using that style of characters for fanservice.

These aren't my personal views on the matter, but why "bisexual" isn't used as much to make characters member of a sexual minority.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hmm, reminds me of how on Buffy, when they decided to make Willow gay, then from season four on they basically insisted she was completely homosexual, not bisexual, even though she'd not only been in relationships with boys previously on the show (which could be the case for a gay person who hadn't "come out"), but obviously been attracted to and in love with boys, and those relationships being a huge part of her character development. It would, to my mind, have probably made more sense to say Willow was bisexual, and her subsequent girlfriends Tara and Kennedy were their 100% gay characters, but noooooo. And I'm not just talking what would have worked better in political terms, but what would have made more sense from a continuity/characterization perspective.

I wonder how much that sort of thing happens for political reasons.

You could even say that it has the unfortunate side-affect of implying that sexual orientation is a choice, when you have a character go from "clearly established as straight" to "clearly established as gay" like flipping a fucking (no pun intended) switch.

[General Zod]

Hmm, reminds me of how on Buffy, when they decided to make Willow gay, then from season four on they basically insisted she was completely homosexual, not bisexual, even though she'd not only been in relationships with boys previously on the show (which could be the case for a gay person who hadn't "come out"), but obviously been attracted to and in love with boys, and those relationships being a huge part of her character development. It would, to my mind, have probably made more sense to say Willow was bisexual, and her subsequent girlfriends Tara and Kennedy were their 100% gay characters, but noooooo. And I'm not just talking what would have worked better in political terms, but what would have made more sense from a continuity/characterization perspective.

I wonder how much that sort of thing happens for political reasons.

You could even say that it has the unfortunate side-affect of implying that sexual orientation is a choice, when you have a character go from "clearly established as straight" to "clearly established as straight" like flipping a fucking (no pun intended) switch.

Sudden changes make more sense for characters that are supposed to be teens and still figuring out their sexuality.

[The Romulan Republic]

I suppose that's true. Its just an example of the phenomenon I'm familiar with- it would no doubt be worse if it was a 30-some character or something.

[General Zod]

I suppose that's true. Its just an example of the phenomenon I'm familiar with- it would no doubt be worse if it was a 30-some character or something.

At least with Iceman there was some buildup leading up to it. I seem to remember he was displaying some pretty heavy homophobic tendancies towards Northstar during that plotline that was likely a result of internal conflict. So it's not like they completely pulled it out of the blue.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, that helps.

Also helps that comics continuity tends to be such a mess anyway that one is tempted to say "Continuity? What continuity?"

[TheFeniX]

Even based on the movies, Iceman turning out to be gay wouldn't exactly fill me with confusion. He's young, had this Fire and Ice vibe going with Pyro, and he falls for a girl whose power makes physical intimacy fatal. It would have been a bit on the nose with the "Can't you just not be a mutant (read: gay)" line, but it wouldn't be a stretch. Pyro's mannerisms in X2 also come off as less "annoyed my buddy scored a solid woman and they're goodie two shoes" and more "Rogue stole my soulmate." Considering the narrative the director was already pushing, I wouldn't be surprised if this was intentional.

Whatever, maybe I read to much into things.

[Elheru Aran]

Even based on the movies, Iceman turning out to be gay wouldn't exactly fill me with confusion. He's young, had this Fire and Ice vibe going with Pyro, and he falls for a girl whose power makes physical intimacy fatal. It would have been a bit on the nose with the "Can't you just not be a mutant (read: gay)" line, but it wouldn't be a stretch. Pyro's mannerisms in X2 also come off as less "annoyed my buddy scored a solid woman and they're goodie two shoes" and more "Rogue stole my soulmate." Considering the narrative the director was already pushing, I wouldn't be surprised if this was intentional.

Whatever, maybe I read to much into things.

Not really, actually. You're not the first one to notice the whole "mutants=gays" parable running through that trilogy. I don't think they made Iceman gay in the comics until *after* the trilogy or at least the first couple of movies, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if that was at least partially inspired by what you're commenting on.

[Q99]

One of the weirdest things about Iceman's thing: This was past-Iceman pulled to the present (all the original 5 are currently running around).

Current Iceman, some 10+ years older, is still running around.

Part of what pissed people off wasn't the change itself, but how Adult Bobby handles it was insufficiently handled, and, well, teenage-Jean outed two people without permission. Not cool!

Sudden changes make more sense for characters that are supposed to be teens and still figuring out their sexuality.

Yes, and revelations of sexuality do definitely happen. Heck, somethings they happen to 40 year olds in real life, let alone teens, it's just less common later on (though still not exactly unheard of, in no small part due to old attitudes to sexuality and lack of encouragement of self-examination).

You'd think it would be so but it's not really. Unless the character in question is a villain (which has it's own issues, it shares with fully homosexual villains) due to history of using bisexuality (specially female bisexuality) for fanservice, bisexual characters (again especially female ones) have something of reputations of being "fake". Also they're not seen as "progessive" as even an offensively stereotypical homosexual character, again thanks to the history of using that style of characters for fanservice.

These aren't my personal views on the matter, but why "bisexual" isn't used as much to make characters member of a sexual minority.

There's some people who view it that way, but an increasingly number of people are annoyed with the bad handling of bisexuality and those views (especially bis being fake, ugh!), the association with it and promiscuity, etc.. Really, a bi monogamous heroic character would be much more needed representation than a gay character.

[Lord Revan]

You'd think it would be so but it's not really. Unless the character in question is a villain (which has it's own issues, it shares with fully homosexual villains) due to history of using bisexuality (specially female bisexuality) for fanservice, bisexual characters (again especially female ones) have something of reputations of being "fake". Also they're not seen as "progessive" as even an offensively stereotypical homosexual character, again thanks to the history of using that style of characters for fanservice.

These aren't my personal views on the matter, but why "bisexual" isn't used as much to make characters member of a sexual minority.

There's some people who view it that way, but an increasingly number of people are annoyed with the bad handling of bisexuality and those views (especially bis being fake, ugh!), the association with it and promiscuity, etc.. Really, a bi monogamous heroic character would be much more needed representation than a gay character.

That much is obvious. Problem there is that entertainment industry as a whole is rather conservative in some issues (ok lazy might be a better word then conservative) so those views about bisexuals take time to die off as much as we'd like to see them gone now. Essentially I'm not saying a well writen monogamous Bisexual character isn't needed they sure are, but rather changing a established character's sexuality to bisexual would probably seen as a cheap trick and not "real" by signifigant enough portion of the public that it's simpler (or at least it's seen by the writers as being simpler) to change the character from straight to gay then from straight to bi.

[Joun_Lord]

]That much is obvious. Problem there is that entertainment industry as a whole is rather conservative in some issues (ok lazy might be a better word then conservative) so those views about bisexuals take time to die off as much as we'd like to see them gone now. Essentially I'm not saying a well writen monogamous Bisexual character isn't needed they sure are, but rather changing a established character's sexuality to bisexual would probably seen as a cheap trick and not "real" by signifigant enough portion of the public that it's simpler (or at least it's seen by the writers as being simpler) to change the character from straight to gay then from straight to bi.

I think its laziness and fanserviness for bisexuality (and even homosexuality in some cases) but also leaves room open for more possibilities. In some cases making a character gay or bi is done because of an absence of character, the character is their sexuality. It becomes a significant part of who they are rather then just another trait. Its not a character who is gay or bi but a bi or gay character. Its a crutch writers can use to change up a character for whatever reason without actually putting any work in it. Making a character gay or bi in a believable would take some work especially if they were already established as straight. Actually have to show the transition, the accepting themselves and all. For already gay or bi character they actually have to show them as, for lack of a better term, normal and not some bi or gay stereotype.

Being bi means the writer can have the character flirt with either sex, be with either sex, is not constrained in making relations even the small amount of restraint having a gay or straight character would have. I look at some instances of Poison Ivy as an example of this. She can flirt with Bats (once you go green your peen will sting?) to titillate 12 year olds who want to bone a plant lady (I guess I can't blame them, redheads are my kryptonite) and then give those same 12 year old more thrills chills and spills (if you get my meaning) when she acts like more then friends with Harley Quinn.

Personally my main problem with making a character gay or bi has always been the laziness. A character that has really bothered me recently is Sara Lance from Arrowverse. Starting out her characterization after she became bi was not bad. She was shagging the boss's daughter but it was a committed relationship. She still had feelings for Oliver, even sexual ones because dem pecs. She was bi but not done to titillate or give fan service.

Move to Legends of Tomorrow and she is now apparently completely gay, which to be fair maybe she always was but just her emotional connection to Oliver made her attracted to him or something, but being gay is pretty much one of her main character traits. She goes around history sleeping with women even in times when that would be deadly. It seems to be done to titillate, to have the audience get some James Wood to see her with some hot chick. It seems to be done rather then exploring her character. More recently they've been focusing more on her character and she hasn't been chasing every pretty nurse or Salem housewife.

It just seems really freaking disrespectful to gay women to show them as massive horndogs always chasing tail. Its really disrespectful to the character that much of the time she is reduced to "horny lesbian".

But her being written so poorly is just a problem with the show, all the characters tend to be written to varying degrees of shit. Poor Mick Rory has been completely shat on, reduced back to a dumb thug despite the growth he showed as a person emotionally and mentally after being Chronos. I honestly thought he'd be leading the team or contributing more because of his Time Lord......I mean Time Master training but nope, dumb thug who don't know shit about time travel.

[General Zod]

]That much is obvious. Problem there is that entertainment industry as a whole is rather conservative in some issues (ok lazy might be a better word then conservative) so those views about bisexuals take time to die off as much as we'd like to see them gone now. Essentially I'm not saying a well writen monogamous Bisexual character isn't needed they sure are, but rather changing a established character's sexuality to bisexual would probably seen as a cheap trick and not "real" by signifigant enough portion of the public that it's simpler (or at least it's seen by the writers as being simpler) to change the character from straight to gay then from straight to bi.

I think its laziness and fanserviness for bisexuality (and even homosexuality in some cases) but also leaves room open for more possibilities. In some cases making a character gay or bi is done because of an absence of character, the character is their sexuality. It becomes a significant part of who they are rather then just another trait. Its not a character who is gay or bi but a bi or gay character. Its a crutch writers can use to change up a character for whatever reason without actually putting any work in it. Making a character gay or bi in a believable would take some work especially if they were already established as straight. Actually have to show the transition, the accepting themselves and all. For already gay or bi character they actually have to show them as, for lack of a better term, normal and not some bi or gay stereotype.

Being bi means the writer can have the character flirt with either sex, be with either sex, is not constrained in making relations even the small amount of restraint having a gay or straight character would have. I look at some instances of Poison Ivy as an example of this. She can flirt with Bats (once you go green your peen will sting?) to titillate 12 year olds who want to bone a plant lady (I guess I can't blame them, redheads are my kryptonite) and then give those same 12 year old more thrills chills and spills (if you get my meaning) when she acts like more then friends with Harley Quinn.

Personally my main problem with making a character gay or bi has always been the laziness. A character that has really bothered me recently is Sara Lance from Arrowverse. Starting out her characterization after she became bi was not bad. She was shagging the boss's daughter but it was a committed relationship. She still had feelings for Oliver, even sexual ones because dem pecs. She was bi but not done to titillate or give fan service.

Move to Legends of Tomorrow and she is now apparently completely gay, which to be fair maybe she always was but just her emotional connection to Oliver made her attracted to him or something, but being gay is pretty much one of her main character traits. She goes around history sleeping with women even in times when that would be deadly. It seems to be done to titillate, to have the audience get some James Wood to see her with some hot chick. It seems to be done rather then exploring her character. More recently they've been focusing more on her character and she hasn't been chasing every pretty nurse or Salem housewife.

It just seems really freaking disrespectful to gay women to show them as massive horndogs always chasing tail. Its really disrespectful to the character that much of the time she is reduced to "horny lesbian".

But her being written so poorly is just a problem with the show, all the characters tend to be written to varying degrees of shit. Poor Mick Rory has been completely shat on, reduced back to a dumb thug despite the growth he showed as a person emotionally and mentally after being Chronos. I honestly thought he'd be leading the team or contributing more because of his Time Lord......I mean Time Master training but nope, dumb thug who don't know shit about time travel.

Hollywood is basically nothing but stereotypes that people don't get upset about unless they disagree with them.

[Lord Revan]

Well sometimes they slip up and you get the actually well done characters but it's not common, I think the US age-rating is (at least) partly to blame for the rather bland writing in hollywood and US network TV.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know about that. I don't particularly like the implication that you need more "adult subject matter" (i.e. swearing, sex, and violence) in order to make a well-written character. Oh, those things can be part of a good character, if done well, and I don't like writers' hands being tied unnecessarily (though I don't think parental content warnings on material is unreasonable in and of itself), but its perfectly possible to write a compelling character at a PG level.

Ultimately, I suspect (though I cannot say for certain) that its largely a case of the industry valuing gimmickry, spectacle, and PR/marketing in general over quality writing. I've often felt that if their was one weak link in various Hollywood films, it was the script.

[Gandalf]

Well sometimes they slip up and you get the actually well done characters but it's not common, I think the US age-rating is (at least) partly to blame for the rather bland writing in hollywood and US network TV.

Pretty much. It's why subscription TV (and now streaming) has been beating network stuff ever since The Sopranos.

What the hell would Tony Soprano look like if he was at CBS? To afford James Gandolfini alone, the show would need to be in a prime time slot, and there goes the language/violence that made the show so intense and fantastic.

[Adam Reynolds]

The problem with American network TV is not standards getting in the way of storytelling, it is the glut of content that must be created. An American broadcast TV series needs to have around 24 episodes each season.

The reason HBO or Netflix do better is because they can make their season only 10 episodes. British shows do the same thing with seasons ranging from 3-8 episodes a season. The limited run time makes the writing process much easier and makes those formats far superior at telling stories.

Even network shows that often have fairly clever writing, like Person of Interest, still run into the problem that they need the filler episodes that get in the way of telling a more specific story. My favorite broadcast TV show, Community, which often had downright brilliant writing within its odd sitcom genre roulette format, was still constrained by the need to create a large number of episodes each season.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, but the problem in films is similar, that of needing to deliver a product on a set schedule. This was a major problem in The Force Awakens, in which they were going to meet that Christmas deadline regardless of quality. it definitely shows. The other underlying problem in films is all of the different departments that must be involved in the process, such that you cannot always wait until a quality script has been finished.

[Q99]

I don't know about that. I don't particularly like the implication that you need more "adult subject matter" (i.e. swearing, sex, and violence) in order to make a well-written character. Oh, those things can be part of a good character, if done well, and I don't like writers' hands being tied unnecessarily (though I don't think parental content warnings on material is unreasonable in and of itself), but its perfectly possible to write a compelling character at a PG level.

Ultimately, I suspect (though I cannot say for certain) that its largely a case of the industry valuing gimmickry, spectacle, and PR/marketing in general over quality writing. I've often felt that if their was one weak link in various Hollywood films, it was the script.

Ironically, there are kids shows out there now that I love because they do well-developed characters better than many 'adult' shows. Often because they don't feel the need to do shocking character deaths, or breakups-for-drama, or such.

[TheFeniX]

Ironically, there are kids shows out there now that I love because they do well-developed characters better than many 'adult' shows. Often because they don't feel the need to do shocking character deaths, or breakups-for-drama, or such.

Censors, for some reason, tend to look at kids shows from a different perspective. As long as it's not overt, they ignore it. You can look back to Rocko's Modern Life and his job as a phone sex operator in the first (IIRC) episode. And this mentality doesn't seem to have changed much since cartoons continue to make sexual references to this day. Also of note, the "rubber stamping" of certain shows, like with Ren and Stimpy. The way the story goes from what I remember is Nick approved it based on "we have a slot to fill and here's a pitch about a Crazy Chihuahua and Stupid Cat: Approved." The CEO of Nickelodeon was getting her kids ready for school and an episode of R&S was on. A whoooole lot of people got fired.

Anyways, I used to watch all those HBO interviews. I don't recall what series this was for (could have been Sopranos, Rome, or Oz), but one of the writers talked about how easy HBO was coming from his old job in Television. Namely, gore and boobs were out, that was a given. But other things would get pegged because one sensor didn't like it. A big point was "the casualness" of certain things. I think it was the Sopranos because I recall one guy talking about a "fan" who asked: "Why does Tony hang out in a strip club all the time?" The answer was "because he can."

That doesn't play in TV: it needs a "good" answer. For an example, I'll mention another one I recall from TV (House): his preference for prostitutes and how casual he was about using them and even how "normal/hot/not like methheads" they looked, and also them acting like mostly normal people. This was a problem for some of the censors. Hookers and the people who use them should not be "good people." There needed to be some kind of message here (which there was, but ignoring that) that hookers are illegal and House shouldn't "get away" with using them.

If this were on HBO: House could bang all the hookers he wanted "because he can."

Thankfully, they got that shit past the censors because it does add to the character. But even with all that, TV has kind of gone downhill, but I grew up watching ER once a week and that show had no problems characterizing a diverse cast. The problem plaguing TV with stereotypes seems to be more about the emphasis on SitComs as those are terrible about it. Even those where the characters start out as normal people, as the show goes on, they narrow their characterization down for cheap laughs.