JJ Abrams says gay characters will "of course" be included in future Star Wars movies...

GAY CHARACTERS? What will Star Wars include next? Incest? Bestiality? Oh, wait...

I can sorta see it both ways. If Star Wars makes a character gay to fulfill some sort of SJW agenda, that's certainly their prerogative, and we all have our views. As wtfunny pointed out, our art will certainly reflect our worldview or the view of what we think the world could or should be.

On the other hand, when a certain type of character is inserted for social brownie points without furthering the plot in any way it comes off as incredibly ham handed; it almost has the opposite effect.

Basically: does the the character being gay contribute to the story line? Yes? That's great. Is the character being gay a distraction or detraction from the plot? If so, then it is rather annoying.

Stagger Lee wrote:

I can sorta see it both ways. If Star Wars makes a character gay to fulfill some sort of SJW agenda, that's certainly their prerogative, and we all have our views. As wtfunny pointed out, our art will certainly reflect our worldview or the view of what we think the world could or should be.

On the other hand, when a certain type of character is inserted for social brownie points without furthering the plot in any way it comes off as incredibly ham handed; it almost has the opposite effect.

Basically: does the the character being gay contribute to the story line? Yes? That's great. Is the character being gay a distraction or detraction from the plot? If so, then it is rather annoying.

Fair enough.

What do you think about what another poster threw out there: that Kylo Ren turn out gay, and have his frustration be the source of his anger --> dark side. Can you imagine they would do this? It would certainly be compelling, without glorifying sin.

Eternal Disapproving Headshake wrote:

GAY CHARACTERS? What will Star Wars include next? Incest? Bestiality? Oh, wait...

lol nice.

Wait... I got the incest reference... but bestiality? I am trying to remember any inter-species hanky-panky, but nothing is coming to mind... lil'help? :-)

"Well thought out", eh?

#NotSoMuch

Wtfunny wrote:

"Well thought out", eh?

#NotSoMuch

Thanks for adding to the discussion, as always, friend :-)

Again, I think it depends on your worldview. Since I don't believe in sin as a concept, I don't really are about a given character's sexual orientation. Does it drive the story? Is the character authentic? These are the things to which I am concerned. As for the scenario above, sure, why not?

Please, just no Semites.

Worldview my ass. It will be a marketing gimmick to get SJWs to pat themselves on the back, multiple years after the gay issue is relevant. Sad!

thejeff wrote:

Wait... I got the incest reference... but bestiality? I am trying to remember any inter-species hanky-panky, but nothing is coming to mind... lil'help? :-)

All implied. Everyone knows Luke had a Ewok fetish.

mmhhmmm

I don't understand this thinking at all. Why should gay people not exist for children? Explain how seeing a gay character on a movie is somehow a problem for a human being? You can have your children watch wars and people being killed and blowing up aliens and other science fiction creatures ... but a gay character is somehow problematic?

Do you wonder why folks like me might think you're bigoted?

Then hire a cover band.

Thats a try way street. SB 1/2 time show performers are contracted because of who they are, because of their work and their draw. Don't dismiss that simply because you personally object to the message. Which, let's be real, is exactly what you resent.. not the platform at all.

We do .. this thread is one of yours. :)

No it isn't. And Beyonce isn't Michelangelo. And if you think NBC and the SB would hire a painter for their 1/2 time show .. well, seeking of enlightened discussion ....

That doesn't make any of the SB performers lesser artists. At all.

WTF do you mean by "finally been eradicated"?

I think you show a little more of yourself than intended to.

that said ... then why would you object so vehemently to having gay characters in a film set in a time and place where gay people exist?

Welcome to the show, kid.

Your idea, where minorities have been excluded from that representation is precisely the reason WHY it's imperative that gay people and black folk and so on ARE included. And normalized.

I have no doubt you think it's no one else's fault.

Cause IS Real. It's very real. Don't you notice such things when you pull your head out to breathe?

lol at liberals wrote:

Worldview my ass. It will be a marketing gimmick to get SJWs to pat themselves on the back, multiple years after the gay issue is relevant. Sad!

Wow, I can't believe it actually took three pages for someone to throw the conservative/liberal bullsh*t into the conversation. How exactly is honestly portraying a gay character liberal? Are your critical thinking skills so poor that everything has to be made binary for you?

Doesn't it go something like this: "I disagree with your ideas, therefore liberalism."

thejeff wrote:

Eternal Disapproving Headshake wrote:

GAY CHARACTERS? What will Star Wars include next? Incest? Bestiality? Oh, wait...

lol nice.

Wait... I got the incest reference... but bestiality? I am trying to remember any inter-species hanky-panky, but nothing is coming to mind... lil'help? :-)

"I'd just as soon kiss a Wookie!"

"I can arrange that. You could use s good kiss!"

They are also coming out with a sequel to Brokeback Mountain. It is about two barrel racers and will be called Lickety Split Ridge. THAT one is gonna be a hit!

Chewbacca is a bear.

I can't believe it took three pages to point this out.

thejeff wrote:More to the point, I resent using an established platform to make a controversial socio-political stance[quote]thejeff wrote:

Lord Jeff, you're beginning to sound like the LRC co-founders

Homosexuality is a 'well-established platform.' It's practiced all over the world, goes on in the minds of all sorts of 'straight' people, and is commonplace among all sorts of species.

Including homosexuality in a film is not 'controversial', it's not 'a stance'. It's an accurate depiction of reality. Especially war-making reality, or realities where people have to travel far from home and have little access to women.

Abrahamic faiths (and many other cultures) make it out to be something impure. It's bigotry.

You're being a bigot. You have lots of company on these boards.

POTDUS wrote:

thejeff wrote:More to the point, I resent using an established platform to make a controversial socio-political stance[quote]thejeff wrote:

Lord Jeff, you're beginning to sound like the LRC co-founders

Homosexuality is a 'well-established platform.' It's practiced all over the world, goes on in the minds of all sorts of 'straight' people, and is commonplace among all sorts of species.

Including homosexuality in a film is not 'controversial', it's not 'a stance'. It's an accurate depiction of reality. Especially war-making reality, or realities where people have to travel far from home and have little access to women.

Abrahamic faiths (and many other cultures) make it out to be something impure. It's bigotry.

You're being a bigot. You have lots of company on these boards.

As over 80% of the German women (aged from 8 to 80) living East Germany during and after the end of WW2 were raped repeatedly by the invading Soviet troops, one could equally state that rape is a ‘well establish platform’ for the male species.

Doesn’t necessarily mean that we should flaunt the act or promote it, especially to our young schoolchildren.

By definition rape is not consensual and is a very poor comparison in this discussion. I am pretty sure this thread is focusing on consensual homosexual sex / relationships. Try again and this time put some thought in to it.

POTDUS wrote:

thejeff wrote:More to the point, I resent using an established platform to make a controversial socio-political stance[quote]thejeff wrote:

Lord Jeff, you're beginning to sound like the LRC co-founders

Homosexuality is a 'well-established platform.' It's practiced all over the world, goes on in the minds of all sorts of 'straight' people, and is commonplace among all sorts of species.

Including homosexuality in a film is not 'controversial', it's not 'a stance'. It's an accurate depiction of reality. Especially war-making reality, or realities where people have to travel far from home and have little access to women.

Abrahamic faiths (and many other cultures) make it out to be something impure. It's bigotry.

You're being a bigot. You have lots of company on these boards.

LRC is a platform. The Superbowl Halftime Show is a platform.

Homosexuality is an agenda. There is a difference.

Is your stance that just because something is practiced, it is acceptable? Surely, you see the shortcomings of that type of thought.

You call me a bigot. You realize that YOU are the one being close-minded towards other people's beliefs, I hope? The point of this thread is whether or not it is appropriate to use Star Wars to push an agenda, not the agenda itself.

Work on that knee jerk, buddy ;-)