- This topic has 296 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Crystal: It makes me sad and angry too.
In regards to Elsa, as I said earlier in chat this morning, I’m fine with her going either way (being gay, straight or simply not having a love interest at all, that is). But my MAIN concern with this character is that I dont want whatever relationship she has to overshadow that of her sisterly relationship with Anna. Regardless of the gender, Elsa’s relationship with Anna should be first and foremost and if it gets the backseat just to showcase Elsa being in love with whomever then I will be very disappointed and will flip so many orcas. Same with Merida and her relationship to her mother. A relationship is nice but there are other aspects to the character that shouldn’t be ignored.
TheWatcher, I partially share your view. I don’t want other vital relationships suffer for any romance (queer or het romance) – unless it brings a good story and character development, building tension that gets resolved, when the romance becomes pretty much a plot device to test other relationships. On the other hand I don’t want them to simply retell the movies in OUaT, but they should keep the essence intact, that means work with the great relationship Elsa had with her sister Anna, or if ever Merida would come to the show, the same goes for Merida’s relationship with her mother. I would be okay though, if what they tell starts after the events in the movie, Elsa’s relationship with her sister is something set or maybe something to get control of her powers again, but it doesn’t have to be the central driving moment of Elsa’s story in OUaT. In general I prefer them to keep the essence of characters they use from fairy tales or fiction (like that the Evil Queen has some jealousy issues, or that Rumplestiltskin an archetype trickster), but take a different perspective on it, which although is always open for discussion, the characers are interpreted by different people in different ways, even archetypes.
Is there a WRONG way for ONCE to do an LGBT relationship? In other words, as a member of that community (Crystal and others who are reading this and are)–is there a way that would NOT be acceptable for your community–if we leave anything abusive or manipulative, ect.
There are different opinions about that possible, we’re a diverse group of people 😉
One certainly wrong way would be to make it joke (the new MTV show “Faking it” is walking a very, very fine line there as comedy at the moment, it can tip any time into the wrong direction).
Another is to do the famous sweep week lesbian kiss. This refers to the impression, that a number of shows came up with some story, in which one of their regular female characters was discovering feelings for a female friend or a guest character (Bi the Way female character), leading to a lesbian kiss or at the least the hint of one – and it was done noteworthy often for episodes airing during the sweep weeks (a time Nielsen does a deeper assessment of audience, it happens in February, May, July, November). The attraction regularly lasts only one or a few episode, and later is at worst even totally forgotten. Often the character has soon, mostly in the same season, a “normal” love interest, aka hetero romance. At worst it was just two women making out drunken on a party. If something is probably a sweep week lesbian kiss often becomes already clear, when the network uses it to promote the episode. The kiss is done more for sensation than for good story telling reasons, and hardly ever has lasting effects on the sexual identity of the regular character. Seeing women kiss is something a lot more accepted and even part of some fantasies without questioning sexual orientation (I always cringe when some use Katy Perry’s song “I kissed a girl” as soundtrack for any girl-on-girl, lesbian adoration video -listen to the lyrics and watch the original music video, it’s more a woman making out for the fun of her boyfriend, although some people see the song differently). Examples: L.A Law, Picket Fences, Ally McBeal, The O.C., Friends, Fringe.
Because of being more about sensation than about same gender/sex attraction or relationship, sweep week lesbian kiss is only partially what is discussed by now as queer baiting. The latter aims directly and primarily at attracting queer audience. It means that a show plays with subtext, teasing something, in the show and sometimes even on interviews and panels, but never lets anything happen, and at worst even denigrates queer people at some point – most outstanding example for that is IMO UK series Sherlock. Other shows discussed in connection of queer baiting are Supernatural and Rizzoli&Isles. Seen people question by now as well, if OUaT does it too, with how they write and play Regina and Emma and with Mulan. I don’t share the assessment, that OUaT is doing it, but they are moving on thin ice.
OUaT produced mixed reactions to what they did with Mulan, though from what I gathered over all most were glad, that with Mulan there finally is one queer character on the show. It was a mixed message. On one hand the writers reacted to chemistry between characters as they were played on the show, like the not so hidden subtext in the scene when Mulan puts the heart back into Aurora, they saw a chance and took it, and it fitted quite nicely in the story with what Mulan said to Neal. On the other hand at the same time the made it a tragic love story, not only that Aurora and Philip are a more or less a set true love pairing (thanks to the Disney movie), but they made Aurora even pregnant. I still wonder why they did the latter, because in my view it served this season only one purpose, to make absolutely sure that Mulan and Aurora as pairing are no option, as if Aurora and Philip being classical Disney pairing wasn’t already enough. Separating a Disney OTP when they are about to have a child, when they have children is a no go with a mainstream audience. And polyamory is something that goes beyond the horizon of mainstream network broadcast and the horizon of a majority of queer people as well. So it was a mixed message: Yes, Mulan loves a woman, but she can’t have her, she has to leave and has to go her own merry way, maybe with the faint hope to find her beautiful Shang, but Shang being a female leader and warrior herself, somewhere someday. Or to find another woman to truly love and be loved by. Unfortunately for us Jamie Chung was not much available for the rest of the season (but fortunate for her to get more work), so Mulan’s story is in limbo at the moment. Even besides being the only openly queer character on OUaT so far, I think people would like to learn, what happened to Mulan, what she is doing, she has grown on people as character regardless her sexual orientation.
Coming out stories are important, because particular young queer struggle with their identity and experience bullying, but it has a down side, they focus too much on that in our societies same gender/sex relationship still are defined or seen mostly as different kind of love. On a show about fairy tale love though I wish for queer romance to be not something special but a love story to be told like others, with drama and character development coming from two people being in and/or exploring their love for each other, two people who happen to be queer.
The wrong way to do a queer relationship on OUaT: to only tease it, make it love that will not happen because the other is already proven to be in love with someone else, without offering soon hope for another at least, to only mention it by the way, although that shouldn’t hold them back to have queer couples in the background crowd, but this is a show about love, so making it something in the background is not enough, and to not offer at least a substantiated hope for a happy ending.
[adrotate group="5"]¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
here are different opinions about that possible, we’re a diverse group of people
Absolutely! I’d love to hear (see?) all the different responses to my question
One certainly wrong way would be to make it joke (the new MTV show “Faking it” is walking a very, very fine line there as comedy at the moment, it can tip any time into the wrong direction).
Definitely agree with that one
The wrong way to do a queer relationship on OUaT: to only tease it, make it love that will not happen because the other is already proven to be in love with someone else, without offering soon hope for another at least, to only mention it by the way, although that shouldn’t hold them back to have queer couples in the background crowd, but this is a show about love, so making it something in the background is not enough, and to not offer at least a substantiated hope for a happy ending.
My biggest issue with what they did with SleepingWarrior was that was A) almost too vague. To this day, I see people claiming that she was going to speak to Philip, not Aurora, about her love, and B) it felt fan pander-y. A and E know the popularity of the ship and are constantly getting asked about same-sex relationships on their show. So a 5 min clip of Mulan about to express her love only to be denied felt like a way to introduce the concept but then quickly kill, while simultaneously writing off Mulan (since Jamie went other places)and keeping Philip/Aurora’s happy ending.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"On the other hand at the same time the made it a tragic love story, not only that Aurora and Philip are a more or less a set true love pairing (thanks to the Disney movie), but they made Aurora even pregnant. I still wonder why they did the latter, because in my view it served this season only one purpose, to make absolutely sure that Mulan and Aurora as pairing are no option, as if Aurora and Philip being classical Disney pairing wasn’t already enough.
Safe to say that is indeed the only reason they made Aurora pregnant. They may have used the pregnancy as a minor plot point in 3B when Zelena threatened it to keep Philora in line, but they could have achieved her threatening them some other way, didn’t have to be an unborn child. Though, by the time they devised the pregnancy plot device, I’m guessing they’d have already known that neither Sarah or Jamie would be available long term, due to their new shows. Perhaps they would have explored it more, and not had the plot device pregnancy if both actresses (and Julian who plays Philip) would have been available, but instead they had to shut that story potential down? Guess we’ll never know for sure.
As it stands, SleepingWarrior does just feel like a half hearted attempt to placate a section of the fandom. They can rectify that if they’re sure to snag Jamie now that she’s available (she’s doing an indie film in Hong Kong, which I guess she’s working on right now because she tweeted about Hong Kong a couple of hours ago. And she’s rumoured to be doing a voice for an animated movie, but I dunno how much time that eats up out of her schedule, not as much as a live action movie would, I assume?). I’d say pretty much everyone would love to see more of Mulan in her own right. The number of tumblr posts I saw about it when she was just missing from the Merry Men in 3B with no explanation. Everyone wants to know what’s up with her.
I pretty much agree with most everything Myril has said.
I feel like between stepping up the Swanqueen subtext in recent eps(a ship they won’t let sail but won’t let die either – “keep watching”, bugger off A&E) and the Mulan stuff OUAT has already very much done things the “wrong” way. I feel being 3 seasons in and dealing with the themes OUAT does not having a single unambiguously queer character is actually pretty shameful.
One thing I DO want to add is that it is absolutely wrong and offensive to treat queer romance as something that you have to spend 3+ seasons figuring out, that you have to “get around to” that has to be done “the right way”, whereas we can have problematic relationships like Rumbelle as of the finale until the Unicorns come home. Queer people are not aliens. While it is certainly true that straight people are not going to fully understand the subtleties of being queer and doing queer romance, just about anyone can have two dudes or two women have a romantic relationship just like a man and a dude and have it be passable. If you’re not trying to do commentary on LGBT issues, just be inclusive, it’s absolutely not that difficult to do. While I dislike when it’s glossed over – having a character just randomly mention having or looking for a partner of the same sex/gender, or hell drop that they’re trans, is not hard to do. And you can just continue on then – having a queer character you can take your time expanding on.
The concept of the “Checklist” too – again this is insanely heteronormative. We need no excuse for yet another straight cis white couple. As far as I’m concerned, EVERYTHING EVER with a sizeable cast of characters should contain at least one queer character. There is centuries of exclusion to make up for in fiction, even if you had nothing but queer romances in all fiction for a year it would barely make a dent. Straight people have so much more to draw on. The talk of putting in a queer character “just for the sake of it” being wrong is really horrible to me, because first off you should be able to include queer characters without even thinking about it, if you’re not then something’s up and frankly it’s better to go to a conscience effort to fix that than not.
So that’s the thing that offends me most about the attitudes in this show and that I find in fandoms in general.
Uhara, a character some people regard as Tokenism, made a HUGE difference to empowering young black women.
Of course I don’t want a “token” character, I want an actual well fleshed out character and there is zero reason why A&E can’t hire a queer writer(or even have Jane Espensen write).
I don't cause commotions, I am one.
Is there a WRONG way for ONCE to do an LGBT relationship? In other words, as a member of that community (Crystal and others who are reading this and are)–is there a way that would NOT be acceptable for your community–if we leave anything abusive or manipulative, ect.
There are several things I’ve noticed when it comes to shows introducing (or more aptly; using) lesbian and bi women characters (I can’t say I know much about the treatment of queer male or trans characters, sorry).
First, I’ve noticed that sometimes, when the ratings seem to be lagging, a lesbian storyline is introduced and promoted quite ‘in-your-facey’. Usually consisting of an attractive, already-established character, and a mysterious, sexy newcomer, these types of ‘look at the hot lesbos’ relationships often consist of a lot of steamy scenes, and then when the novelty wares off they often end in tragedy or infidelity. One example of this is from a Spanish cop show I used to watch where one of the main characters (a very attractive young csi) fell in love with, and eventually married, a mysterious, rebellious newcomer (a very attractive cop), only for it to end in tragedy when, on their wedding day, a bunch of gangsters showed up and killed the csi! There are countless other examples from tv shows of all genres, but this is especially prevalent in soap operas.
Second is the lesbian tease. This is mostly used to drum up ratings, and consists of shallow, one week teasing; ‘feeling’ discovery scenes, awkward encounters, some self doubt, a steamy kiss scene or two, followed by the acknowledgement that it was ‘just a phase’, and then apparent amnesia on everybody’s part! These are really annoying and leave a VERY nasty taste in my mouth. I’ve noticed this kind of ‘story line’ a few times on a certain Australian soap!!!!!!
The third is the ‘failed attempt’, which as the name suggests, attempts to portray a good lesbian character/relationship, but unfortunately often fails before it begins, as the character’s sole purpose is to be lesbian and have drama surrounding their lesbian-ness.
There are other examples of lesbian ‘usage’ in TV land, but I’m tired and can’t think straight atm (see what I did there?), so I’ll add them later. All I want to end on for the moment is how disheartening it can be to feel like I’m finally seeing a character I can connect with, only to have her be treated like a novelty, controversy causing, ratings magnet 🙁 It can really suck sometimes, so I hope that if OUAT does include an LGBT character they do right by us, instead of using/teasing/neglecting us.
"so there’s this new show….."
"there’s lesbians in it"What if instead of having Elsa be the love interest of a previously established character (Mulan, Tink, Red, ect) they introduce a totally new character? I know that they can’t do Narnia because of rights, but is it possible to introduce say “The Queen of Winter” which would have the Narnia-feel to it, without being Jadis?
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"What if instead of having Elsa be the love interest of a previously established character (Mulan, Tink, Red, ect) they introduce a totally new character? I know that they can’t do Narnia because of rights, but is it possible to introduce say “The Queen of Winter” which would have the Narnia-feel to it, without being Jadis?
Since Elsa will be a main player next season I feel that they can make her love-interest a new character without causing the relationship to feel too novelty-ish (as it would if two background characters were to become romantically involved, imo). In fact, I think I would prefer it if she already had an established relationship, as they can start off as a legitimate, respectable, serious couple from the get-go. I want the relationship to be one of honesty, integrity, mutual respect, and without any major power imbalance (a la Rumbelle).
Maybe she meets Merida at a ball to celebrate the two kingdom’s friendship and falls for her? That would be nice. Then maybe the writers can explore (and the viewers witness) the mother-daughter relationship and sisterly relationship angles when it comes to dealing with their love for, and acceptance of, one another.
"so there’s this new show….."
"there’s lesbians in it"What if instead of having Elsa be the love interest of a previously established character (Mulan, Tink, Red, ect) they introduce a totally new character? I know that they can’t do Narnia because of rights, but is it possible to introduce say “The Queen of Winter” which would have the Narnia-feel to it, without being Jadis?
The problem with having a new character is that it makes the whole thing feel like “The Queers are coming”. It makes the idea of the gay paring feel like something that doesn’t quite belong, it’s new, it’s not old OUAT, etc. whereas if you root it in an existing character it makes it feel more grounded somehow. having new characters come in as love interests does happen, as we’ve seen. But introducing a new couple of the show? It can be a harder sell sometimes. as much as I loved Ariel, ArielxEric wasn’t a ship people got behind or anything.
They need to root it in an existing character to make it feels like it belongs.
(That said I did like the idea of Glinda X Zelena too, and still hope it’s a possibility if she’s not truly dead somehow).
I don't cause commotions, I am one.
The only problem with introducing two new characters as a relationship (and this goes for any relationship, not just queer) is that you have to devote screentime to establish the two new characters as a couple which in turn takes screentime away from the already established beloved characters. When MAP were first introduced in season 2, nobody really cared for them BECAUSE they took time away from the beloved characters in Storybrooke. People wanted to know what was happening to their favourite characters in Storybrooke, not these new characters. When ever a new character has become beloved, normally their introduction was in an episode involving an already established beloved character. For example, Belle and Hook were introduced as part of a Rumple backstory. So if they did want to establish an LGBT relationship on the show, I think their best bet would be to have one half of the couple already be an established character.
Archie would be the perfect character to establish a potentially pre-existing LGBT relationship with because we don’t know much about him outside of his interactions with the main characters. He could’ve been in a relationship with another man since season 2. Just because we haven’t seen it on screen doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. The main characters interact with him enough that it’s completely plausible that one day they might run into him whilst he’s with his partner.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixI feel like while there should definitely be a gay male relationship, that doesn’t really help me with my problem of not feeling represented in the show. There is a sizeable queer female following of OUAT whereas I don’t think there is as much of a queer male one, so they should try and have something for that part of the fanbase first.
I don't cause commotions, I am one.
The topic ‘Out in Storybrooke: Who should have a Queery Tale romance?’ is closed to new replies.