- This topic has 296 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Timon and Pumbaa I could see together romantically. As for Tweedle #2…. Are we sure his “brother” was really his biological brother >_> cause I could see those two as a coupling. But then again, the tweedles are brothers in the original Alice story (right?) so maybe I’m just wrong.
[adrotate group="5"]"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICThe thing is that while proper depiction of queer romance is an *additional* problem the idea that having queer romance, even of this sort needs some sort of specialist treatement rather than ideally having it is kind of crappy. I’d rather see them try than not at all. Even if it’s imperfect, it’s a start. Just because it’s hard doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try at all.
I was talking specifically about the case of SQ, and how both Emma and Regina would need to be portrayed as questioning their orientation. Granted it’s not something I have personal experience with, but I’d imagine it’s not just a case of waking up one day and being all, “Oh, so I guess I’m into chicks now, huh, oh well,” and carrying on like it’s not affecting you on a deeper, personal, potentially confronting and confusing level. Jane’s known for being a master of the deeper character moments, which is why I said she’d be the only writer I feel would be trustworthy with that particular same sex story line. It’s a particular case that would involve a whole lot of particular development that I just don’t think this show would have time for, so they’d likely botch it up.
If it’s just a case of showing a relationship between two people who happen to be of the same sex, who haven’t been previously established as being straight, then none of the writers should have any problem writing that story, because they just need to write it like they would any other romance.
There HAS been plenty of tension between Emma & Regina in the last few eps – like their little moment where Emma told her she always knows when she’s lying – so it’d hardly be out of left field.
In previous posts the heteronormative mindset has been discussed. If we see two women sitting side by side, the automatic first impression is that they’re just friends. And that’s a valid argument. But I see a flipside to that as well, because any time Emma and Regina so much as look at each other, Swen’s automatic first impression is that they’re more than friends. (And I’m not saying that as a dig at Swen, because hell, I’m an SFer who still sees SF connotations in the present story line, even after they’ve buried Neal, so we all view things through our own subjective lens and with our own bias, that’s just how TV viewing works.) I’ll say that the “forbidden fruit” line was some very interesting wording, but for me, that’s the only time I’ve seen SQ so blatantly implied. The scene where Emma said she knows Regina and when she’s lying and smiled at her, what I saw in that scene was that Emma now has a new appreciation for Regina. She’s got a lifetime of memories with Henry, a new understanding of being a mother, which is a new level she can truly relate to Regina on, (even if the memories weren’t real), and all of that was a gift from Regina. So in present day it’s only natural that Emma will look at Regina differently, speak to her differently, treat her differently, work with her differently. But that doesn’t automatically mean that that evolution in their relationship equates to romance.
(And for the record, I wouldn’t be seeing it differently if Emma was Emmett. Like RG said, it’s all the attempted murder and stuff that gets me. If someone had dedicated their life’s mission to destroying my mother, I couldn’t fall in love with that person, no matter their redemption arc.)
Gaultheria wrote (some pages back):
I think they have to be very careful about messing with people’s (especially children’s) sense of identity.
The problem is, that we have fixed pictures in our heads. One True Love is defined to some people still in a narrow sense, that means a woman and a man meant to be with each other, to build a family, to have children, to marry. While more people by now have become tolerant if it comes to same sex/gender relationships, for many it still goes beyond the imagination and acceptance of same sex/gender relationships as normal relationships, as being true love, and more importantly as good to build a family and have children and be married. And then there is Disney (at least in some parts of this world) delivering an important chunk of imagery what true love looks like (princess finding her prince), becoming kinda the stock of societal images people get in their heads on from childhood. If I want to change societal images of what is acceptable and defined as true love, and that I want to, I have to mess with people’s minds, question that stock of images we all have in our heads, use them differently, change them, offer new ones. If I let the old set untouched nothing will change.
Genderswapping, changing ethnicity are possibilities to jolt that (old) set of images, is a good way, and I say it is even the most radical one, it’s for example questioning gender images as well, and it means to change 2 characters even when creating a queer couple, of one character the gender, for both their sexual orientation. But there are still people who hate that new Battlestar Galactica made Starbuck a woman, if they had made her queer, having affairs with women it would have been only the icing on the top. Breaking up an OTP is not more of an issue in my opinion (instead of questioning gender roles though questioning the model of OTP, but both means questioning fundamental ideas thriving in storybooks). The only convenient way is to create new characters without all the burden of Disney and Grimm and other traditions. It is a way to bring in more diversity, but to reach a different level of acceptance still will have to shake up common conceptions and receptions, and that means to me, shake up characters that have tradition and baggage, characters people already do have some connection to and like, who have been in the middle of attention already, and not add new characters, who easily can be kept on the sidelines. Shaking up things is never comfortable and nice.
You might not have heard of it, but there are a few people claiming, that Frozen already is an attempt to indoctrinate children to accept same sex/gender relationship – and all that Frozen is showing is one princess not getting happily married in the end to a real man but stay unmarried. Elsa is a new character and some find even that scary and outrageous, even with there being just a possibility and more subtext than maintext.
Because Tara was brought up: When in Buffy Tara came into play a number of people disliked her, because she got in the way of Willow and Oz relationship. She was no all friendly welcomed (Amber Benson tells about an incident in the beginning on a fan meeting, where she heard fans talk about how much they hated her character and wanted the character to go away). Good if it has been mostly forgotten by now, and good that those embracing Willow and Tara were a loud group of fans, but it wasn’t an all easy peaceful transition. Nowadays some shipping war would rage all over the web, I am sure about that, and go away after while, with some fans leaving eventually, and new fans won. That war would be a tad more fervent because of having a political touch, but it would rage, people never like if something they’ve grown found of is been taken away.
Even if bringing in 2 fully new, unknown characters without any traditional story background there would be discussion, but it would be one, which could be easily ignored. Unless you take popular iconic characters or make the characters the main protagonist it means creating just some more niche characters. That might help to stabilize tolerance, but to reach more acceptance have to be make it less easy and shake up things right in the middle of attention.
PriceofMagic wrote:
In the case of SwanQueen, it’s not going to happen ever. Ignoring the fact that not only are Regina and Emma related but Regina has tried to kill Emma’s family a lot, both women are heterosexual and have shown no inclination whatsoever for people of the same sex. If there was any plan to make either Regina or Emma homosexual or bi, there would’ve been some hint in the last 2.5 seasons to trigger the transition. To make either character suddenly homosexual would not only be poor writing but a plot device.
As much as I agree, that SQ will not happen, that is not because Emma and Regina so far having been only shown in relationship with men nor because of Regina having tried to kill Emma (so did Spike, trying to kill Buffy and her loved ones, which didn’t stop any Spike Buffy shippers to ship them either, and that is okay), or because of no hints of bisexuality so far. Nothing of that stands against changing their story over time, and it could be done without retcon. This is a fairy tale soap opera after all, bringing the most unlikely characters together is happening all the time (Romeo and Juliet trope, and not all stories using it end as tragic).
The very simple reason, that it’s not going to happen is, that the writers have no intention to go there. Whatever vague statement they sometimes give, they don’t have that intention, they made that much clear IMO already. Yup, there might be still a number of SWanQueen shippers dreaming it could change, and I marvel at the strength of their hope, but I don’t share that hope.
The arguments used against a romantic relationship of Emma and Regina though are interpretations, one point of view. But this is fairy tale, fiction, nothing is impossible. And please, and no offense, that both have been so far shown just dating men and that there have been no hints it could be different is no good argument. It’s based on the assumption, that one’s sexual orientation has to show as teenager, latest in our 20s, and that things then have to be settled for the rest of one’s life, that there has to have been hints at least. That is maybe right for a majority, but it’s no axiomatic fact of life, it’s culture. That argument is bias, is based on what is called heteronormativity. That is particular what SwanQueen fans get riled up about, and though I am no shipper, something I will argue against any time as well.
TheWatcher wrote:
As in input here, I think most of the evidence for SQ isn’t as…potent as SQ shippers think it is. (…)
Guess have to give a try to give a bit of background of living as queer person (summoning up our alphabet community with one word, which though is disputed, just saying for those not aware, be careful when using it).
It’s not that long ago, that queer relationships were against the laws even in our so modern, democratic Western nations – and in even in a few of them still are, at least to some degree. And there are still many places in this world where queer people barely can live their lives at all, where they can go to prison for it, be punished physically and even executed, and many more where they can’t do it openly or only in very, very shy form. Even if law doesn’t stand against queer, that still doesn’t mean, they can show their affections openly, they might still be attacked, beaten up and even get killed for it.
Queer people have their places to go, where they can be more open, but most of the world we move in on daily base is not that open, even not in Western cultures. Many still aren’t out at work places for example, fearing they might lose their jobs or just the good relations they have with co-workers.
So subtext is for queer people something not just in fiction, books, TV, movie, it’s going on in real life, something queer people learn to use and decode out of necessity. That includes more covert flirting, finding each other despite that we can’t show openly affection. It’s not just about reading subtext, but as well about reading all the subtle signs of attraction and affection humans do show, better and earlier than most have to read them, because queer people have to, they need to be able to see signs when other might still overlook them. Of course it is possible to misread, to misunderstand signs of affection and attraction, because they might be just signs of liking and friendship at times.
Noticing subtle signs of attraction and affection is something though not just queers do or have to, in some cultures flirting is something done a lot more decent and covert than in our very expressive modern Western pop culture. No, it doesn’t need to be a hug to express. Yes, a look lingering a second longer (well, that is one of the things people are noticing already about Emma and Regina), how close people stand, if they face each other or stand slightly turned away, if they have open arms are fold their arms, if one touches the other at upper arm or just the wrist, when they show reactions – all that can tell something. And guess some directors and editors have some idea of the importance of timing, cutting to someone, the role of close-up and how that works on emotions and perception.
Even when there are only subtle signs, not as strong, open, visible, in some readings, like queer reading, that already can be open flirting. It might be hard to get into, to see, understand, when you’re not living it on a daily basis, but everybody can learn it, one doesn’t have to be queer to see it 😉
thelonebamf
Kinda like your idea, but I want a queer couple be neither melodramatic with tragic end nor the comedy relief – because both has been done ad nauseam. And there is a problem with comedy, because being queer has been used as offensive and vilifying “joke”. It’s not difficult because queer people are sensitive or have no humor (we have, plenty), but it is difficult, because some people think it is a joke to be queer while claiming what they say is just comedy, fun, nothing offensive.Puh, and I of course have a lot of more thoughts on some things written, and some things to add, but need to finish breakfast and get ready and out of the house for family day. So more later.
One more thing:
Thanks to all participating for this open discussion!¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Kinda like your idea, but I want a queer couple be neither melodramatic with tragic end nor the comedy relief – because both has been done ad nauseam. And there is a problem with comedy, because being queer has been used as offensive and vilifying “joke”. It’s not difficult because queer people are sensitive or have no humor (we have, plenty), but it is difficult, because some people think it is a joke to be queer while claiming what they say is just comedy, fun, nothing offensive.
When they do introduce a queer couple on to the show, I’d like for the pair to be no different than, say, Snow or Charming. They should have ups and downs and be funny and struggles. And it shouldn’t be presented to the other characters as, “this is something different” but this is totally normal and accepted in the Enchanted Forest.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"*Reading back through @Myril post (which is excellent)*
And then there is Disney (at least in some parts of this world) delivering an important chunk of imagery what true love looks like (princess finding her prince), becoming kinda the stock of societal images people get in their heads on from childhood. If I want to change societal images of what is acceptable and defined as true love, and that I want to, I have to mess with people’s minds, question that stock of images we all have in our heads, use them differently, change them, offer new ones. If I let the old set untouched nothing will change.
Yes. And this is what I was trying to get at for several pages, but you did it better than I. If we want to people to accept same-sex pairing then you have to change the status quo. People will continue to think that True Love is one man and woman so long as their culture, through media, tells them that’s what it is. If ONCE wants to help break that idea, then the best way is to subvert the audiences expectations: take a well known character who is associated with a heterosexual pairing and make it a same-sex couple. You can show that the two types of love aren’t any different from each other. So, Hercules and Megera are a canonical couple in the Disney world. Split them up and put Hercules with Phil, his trainer, or another man. ONCE is the perfect place to do this because we’re already seeing the changes in Disney canon to suit ONCE’s overall message and theme of “this is what really happened.”
You might not have heard of it, but there are a few people claiming, that Frozen already is an attempt to indoctrinate children to accept same sex/gender relationship – and all that Frozen is showing is one princess not getting happily married in the end to a real man but stay unmarried. Elsa is a new character and some find even that scary and outrageous, even with there being just a possibility and more subtext than maintext.
I’ve heard. It took me watching the movie a second time but the idea of “conceal it, don’t feel it. don’t let it show” plays into it as well. I think Elsa is a great idea for a queer character on ONCE.
Because Tara was brought up: When in Buffy Tara came into play a number of people disliked her, because she got in the way of Willow and Oz relationship. She was no all friendly welcomed (Amber Benson tells about an incident in the beginning on a fan meeting, where she heard fans talk about how much they hated her character and wanted the character to go away).
Not only Tara, but Amber was treated roughly as well. People called her fat, ect, because they simply hated her character. It was only when the relationship really began develop and people saw how amazing it was that they really grew to love her. And this goes back to subverting audience expectations. Up until S4, people expected Willow to be in a heterosexual relationship because that’s how was presented: Oz and Xander. So when Joss turned the table and had her in an open relationship with a woman, people didn’t know what to think because it wasn’t want they were told to believe in the first place. But now Tara and Willow are one of the most loved couples on Buffy. So you can do the same thing with a canonical Disney couple–people will be shocked at first because it’s not what they expect but if A and E do their job and write it well, then people can love it and accept it as something normal.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Myril wrote
Because Tara was brought up: When in Buffy Tara came into play a number of people disliked her, because she got in the way of Willow and Oz relationship. She was no all friendly welcomed (Amber Benson tells about an incident in the beginning on a fan meeting, where she heard fans talk about how much they hated her character and wanted the character to go away). Good if it has been mostly forgotten by now, and good that those embracing Willow and Tara were a loud group of fans, but it wasn’t an all easy peaceful transition.
When Tara came on to the scene in 2000, same-sex relationships didn’t really have a presence in the media. To show a same-sex relationship on-screen was to be pioneering. Same-sex relationships are more widely accepted since nowadays than they they were 20 years ago. Also the dislike for Tara in the beginning may be because she was seen as coming between the Willow/Oz relationship rather than because she was a lesbian. There were hints before Tara that Willow was going to become a lesbian. The Willow/Oz and Willow/Tara ship war is no different to the SF/CS ship war where both sides see the other person as coming between their pairing. The fact that in the Willow/Tara/Oz triangle, one person was a lesbian from the start whom some fans didn’t want coming between their preferred pairing, is an unfortunate coincidence. However, it’s the same sex relationship that “won” and lasted 3 seasons.
RumplesGirl wrote
Ok, I want to move away from “why SQ won’t happen” and ask this: out of all the characters who’s sexual identity is more ambiguous than others, who would you like to have a same-sex relationship and with with whom?
Just posting Screwball’s essay on this matter
Of the pre-existing characters on the show the characters whose sexual identities are more ambiguous are:
Archie-We’ve not seen him show ay interest in any of the female characters so him being gay wouldn’t be a bolt out of the blue. He might be a little too predictable though but since he owns Pongo, he could fall in love with Roger who owns Perdita.
Red- See Screwball’s essay. Red has been shown to have had relationships with men, but she is often shipped with various other female characters as well, perhaps more so than any other female character, which suggests that fans are picking up on undertones unless it is just Meghan Ory’s acting face as Screwball suggested.
Geppetto- He had a child made out of wood instead of the good old fashioned way, he spends a lot of time with Archie and the two of them are very close. The curse gave him a dead wife that never existed. However, I ship Granpetto because they are the physically oldest characters on the show and older people deserve love too.
Possibly Whale- The curse was designed to take away people’s happy endings yet it turned Whale into a womanizer? What if being a womanizer was Whale’s unhappy ending because Whale wasn’t into women?
Possibly the dwarves- Aside from Grumpy and Sneezy, the other dwarves don’t really have a presence on the show so they might not be the best option to explore the homosexuality topic with.
Henry- Henry would be the perfect character to explore the homosexuality topic. He’s a regular, he’s at that age when he’s going to start developing romantic feelings towards others, and if those feelings were towards a boy instead of a girl, Henry would find it confusing. Most of the adult role models in Henry’s life are in a true love heterosexual relationship so that would be even more confusing for Henry. It would give Henry a storyline outside of having to be saved or rescued that viewers of all ages could identify with. It would be an on-going storyline that could last seasons instead o being a “tick the box and it’s done” type one.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixPOM wroteSame-sex relationships are more widely accepted since nowadays than they they were 20 years ago
But are they? If we compare the landscape of TV, I’m not so sure we can make this claim that they are widely accepted. Since ONCE is a current American broadcast TV show, let’s just stay there. These are the queer characters and queer relationships I can think of, off the top of my head (note: I do not watch every single TV show on broadcast so I’m going to be missing a few. Feel free to fill in what I miss)
Charlie on Supernatural
Callie and Arizona on Grey’s Anatomy
Cyrus on Scandal
Cameron and Mitchell on Modern Family
Kurt and Blaine on Glee
Jenny on Two and A Half Men
Mulan on Once Upon a Time
That’s all I got right now. So can we really say that same-sex couples/queer characters are more widely accepted if I can only think of a handful currently on TV? There seems to be an idea that we should applaud showrunners for including a same-sex pairing or gay person because “oh good show! good for you! way to be innovative” and while I understand that mentality, it’s also something that should *be.* It shouldn’t be sensationalized or new and buzz worthy. And that’s what Adam and Eddy appear to be waiting for.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"The fact that you can list 7 shows off the top of your head that are currently running shows that include same-sex relationships and gay characters shows that it is becoming more common to include. Before, you’d be hard pushed to find more than 3 if you were lucky.
Not every show will include a gay character or same-sex relationship. Whether it should or not is open to debate.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixThe fact that you can list 7 shows off the top of your head that are currently running shows that include same-sex relationships and gay characters shows that it is becoming more common to include. Before, you’d be hard pushed to find more than 3 if you were lucky.
Seven out of how many? How many shows are on broadcast American TV? Because 7 looks like a good number until you say out of how many. There are roughly 70-100 shows on network TV from drama to comedy (so hour long vs half hour). So yeah, it’s getting better. But if all we’ve accomplished in 20 years is going form 3 to 7…that’s not exactly an achievement.
Not every show will include a gay character or same-sex relationship. Whether it should or not is open to debate.
Of course, because that would be seen as tokenism. I’m not advocating that every show go out and get a gay character or have a same-sex relationship, but I don’t think we can say “widely accepted” on TV
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Besides the shows you named, @RumplesGirl, The Fosters, Orphan Black, Bones, Chicago Fire, The Good Wife, Rookie Blue, Under the Dome, Defiance, Lost Girl, Pretty Little Liars, Warehouse 13, True Blood, Teen Wolf, Sirens come to my mind (broadcast and cable). Not counting internet series like Orange is the New Black. Looks like some.
There is progress. GLAAD gives an annual report about queer characters on TV, you can find it here for 2013. Out of 796 series regular in primetime TV programs of the broadcast networks (ABC, NBC etc.) 26 are queer, 3.3 percent. ABC is above average with 5.4 percent. Among recurring characters on all broadcast networks they counted 20 characters being queer. To be fair, that is not a bad number. It’s difficult to compare, because there are no good numbers to compare with. Recent numbers given for the US estimate about 4 percent of adults identifying themselves as being in the queer community based on surveys, more though aknowledge to have had same sex experience. And it’s not clear, how high the number of people could be, who don’t tell even if a survey is anonym, so it is unclear how close these numbers are to the factual number of people being queer, openly or in the closet. There have been estimates up to 10 percent of adults.
If it comes to happy queer couples on TV, the number of shows is smaller. Of the shows named: Grey’s Anatomy, Modern Family, Glee, The Fosters.
We’re getting there, not with lightspeed, but things are getting better.
PriceofMagic wrote: The Willow/Oz and Willow/Tara ship war is no different to the SF/CS ship war where both sides see the other person as coming between their pairing.
It’s hard to tell, how much reactions were influenced by that Tara was a woman and not a man, making Willow, as she identified herself later, lesbian, and how many were just miffed because of their favorite couple breaking up (or as some would have said, being broken up). No one, or maybe only a few would have argued, Willow and Tara can’t fall in love because they’re both witches, but because Willow had before a crush on Xander and then was with Oz, both men, she couldn’t be interested in women in the view of some people. It was argued to be inconsistent and forced. It’s not so much the amount and passion of discussion, but what comes up as arguments. Doubt anyone argues that CS can’t be because one is of royal blood and the other as far as we know not, although there were times that would have been seen as legit argument.
Who would I like to see as queer characters on OUaT?
Red. With Mulan. Something I had on mind even before they let Mulan nearly confess her love to Aurora and thus made her officially lesbian (or bisexual). BTW thanks for pointing out Screwballs’s essay, @PriceofMagic, interesting. Fierce, loyal, vulnerable heartbroken introvert warrior and fierce, loyal, vulnerable extrovert tracker and wolf – perfect. Only problem: there might be no time to develop this. Still no news on the status of Ory’s show Intelligence, it’s on the bubble and might get cancelled. At the moment she is filming a Hallmark movie set to premier this summer (The Memory Book), and I hope for her she has other project in sight if Intelligence would be cancelled. The show Jamie Chung is on at the moment as regular, Believe, is as well on the bubble, but still she might not be available much either.
Archie – possible, but no idea who would be interesting for him.
Frankenstein – okay, Dr. Whale is a womanizer, so what? Jack Harkness (Torchwood, omnisexual) is quite a bit of a womanizer and still charms guys as well. Don’t think though that he and Archie would be any fit, although quite sure Whale should get some therapy hours with Archie.
One or more of the dwarfs – They have been kinda made look like being mostly asexual and said to be not capable of falling in love. Well, it would be interesting to have an asexual male character falling in love with some fairy tale prince or maybe one of the Merry Men. High on my list: Sneezy. Problem I have with any of the dwarfs: Besides Grumpy they are pretty much minor, supporting characters only.
Tinkerbell – our fairy rebell, so she could be a good choice to question the fairies don’t love policy again but with the twist of making her soulmate a woman. But, Rose McIver is busy. Not to mention might get her own show, iZombie seems to look good for pick-up, we should know more soon (CW upfronts are on May 15th).
Not so thrilled by the idea to bring in new characters, if so, at least pair them with an already introduced character.
Neither interested that much to get just one episode guest character story, with a queer couple introduce as casusal as possible, but it would be a start.
Has been said by ohters, but I agree, it shouldn’t be about two characters being queer, but about two character falling in love, finding their soulmates, two character who happen to be of the same sex/gender. OUaT is a show about love and hope. As much as I can try to write my own stories and create my own characters (maybe I should, someone around to pay my bills for the next maybe two years so I can get on to it?), it would be really great to see a queer love on a show about love as well.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
The topic ‘Out in Storybrooke: Who should have a Queery Tale romance?’ is closed to new replies.