New Power Rangers film to be first Superhero film to include a gay character
 

"Power Rangers was founded on the idea of portraying teenagers in a legitimate light, and have constantly strived to be as diverse as possible."

***SPOILERS IN ARTICLE***

http://heroichollywood.com/power-ran...gay-superhero/

Bullshit, there's no way Cap didn't want to snog Bucky Barnes in Civil War :p
Though it might actually be right in terms of movies yeah

:lolol

Um... cool... but what does this have to do with grown-ups in rainbow colored span... armor fighting aliens? I couldn't care less what the characters are into because that has nothing to do with what the movie is supposed to be about. All this article does is scream pandering because they are desperate, especially given it is currently at a 44% on RT (which is better than I expected).

Cool. I'm definitely willing to bet that this came from the Lionsgate side of things. Not only would I not imagine Saban proposing the idea, I don't know if I would want them to. I can only imagine Saban's first attempt at a not-straight character being an absolute trainwreck.

Hopefully the scene they talk about is... smoother than it sounds like.

Reviews have been good so we'll just have to wait and see

While you're right, there are two reasons why it's good
A: The LGBT have been a punching bag for a long time and proper representation is still needing work
B: Makes said character more relatable.
As a sidenote, the original Blue Ranger's actor constantly got bullied for being gay and even being said that was the reason he isn't really a good superhero for kids or something

Cool, its very nice when they include character like this especially after what happened to Billys actor.

It's hard not to see this as anything but a cynical attempt at broader audience appeal, and not actually an act of inclusiveness. After all, not very inclusive if you're still seperating people and glorifying certain types above others, even if it's positive. You're still treating them different based on their sexuality.

That said, this has only been discovered now that people have seen the film, and wasn't part of the promotional material at all (though it does explain why the yellow ranger of all people gets a lot of the spotlight when it's usually just red) so it's not like the movie production was hyping this up as a selling point. In fact, were it not for these early reviews, this would've only been "discovered" once the movie was out.

Have they? LGBT is more accepted and flaunted than ever. They have proper representation in everything these days.

Does it? I've related to plenty of characters who have a different race, gender or sexual preference than me. I feel like the more the media reaffirms that only people of the same categories can relate to people of the same categories, the more we stay divided.

And, to clarify, I'm fine with Trini being gay. This is in regards to the media flaunting it as some grand achievement.

That was decades ago, what does that have to do with today?

Considering Gravity Falls wasn't allowed a gay character and people still go 'WEEEEEEH STOP PUSHING GAY PEOPLE DOWN MY THROAT!' and shit, yes

Does for the LGBT at times with thinking everyone's cute

It was still fucking horrible for the guy, and the movie has already avoided making the black guy the black ranger and the Asian chick the yellow ranger

One example and a small minority do not an oppressive force make.

This sentence does not make sense without context.

So was a lot of things for a lot of people, but considerign David Yost is not involved with this movie whatsoever, it doesn't matter at all.

So? You realise that was an accident back then and they never did it again. (except for Overdrive but again, not like they did it with malice) You're just bringing up a ton of unrelated stuff at this point for no reason.

Speaking as a 31 year old gay man and fan of this franchise, yes. I have been a punchingbag in more way than one. People, even in this day and age, still look down on me and criticize me or who I decide to go to bed with. And yes it does. I would've loved to have had a strong gay rolemodel aside from my mother when I was kid. I would've loved to have looked at an actor doing something like this when I was a kid. And you can try to tear this apart with your criticism and cynical tyhoughts like you do everything else. But know right now, I don't care what you have to say anymore on this subject.

It still happens. There are still people heavily opposed to the LGBT (Not to mention Youtube's Restricted Mode shit made it worse)
Ever been a bisexual with raging hormones to absolutely everyone? Cause I have
It "doesn't matter"? It fucking does, it could be seen as an apology to Yost of sorts and again, LGBT representation.
It's still racist to just keep it like that and they didn't. It HAD to be deliberate as there's no way you do it on accident twice

I'm down.

Exactly. Representation is definitely better these days, but still needs work.
More representation doesn't equal proper representation. Also, there's definitely not equal representation in everything these days. The fact this is the first super hero movie with a non-straight character is... kinda sad.

Hell, even Star Trek didn't have it's first real gay character till just last year... and even that was kinda vague at best. Though they're finally going to have an openly gay character in Star Trek Disovery.

Oh hell yes.

Representation is important. Disney just had their first openly gay character introduced in Beauty and the Beast. And look at the backlash it got. Russia gave it an adults-only restricted rating, and a theater in Alabama banned the film altogether. Christians came out of the woodwork do voice their concern and/or disdain for this gay character. Fortunately the controversy pushed ticket sales (something I think Disney expected).

I myself am a bisexual male and even growing up in the 1990's and early 2000's, homosexuality was still considered by the west to be immoral. Of course there would be no representation for someone like me at a young age. I had to wait until my teens to discover Degrassi that was one of the few teen shows at the time that dealt with sexuality. Hell the 1970's hit show All in the Family was ahead of it's time and one of the few shows to cover this topic which will be largely left untouched until the late 1990's. And in the 1990's it was mostly stereotypical bs played up for laughs.

What really makes me upset is people saying that this representation is not important. True you can relate to someone that is straight, and is of another ethnicity or gender. I mean I love Legend of Korra, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. But that doesn't mean that is an excuse to have no representation at all. In fact this means more representation is welcomed as those shows would resonate more with those that it represented on a level it wouldn't with me. Imagine what those shows would be like with a straight white male lead. They would be generic shows that are out of touch with their target audience, and would fall into obscurity. Not saying that straight white men can't carry a film/tv series. They most certainly can. But if all shows were like that they would get lost in a sea of similarity.

And like I stated above being gay was largely considered immoral. And in some cases today it still is. Gay men still get stigmatized as being pedophiles even though straight men have a higher statistic of molesting children. It's still legal in several states to fire someone and/or deny them service and/or housing if they even appear to be gay. Parents claim that this is too adult for their children to watch yet they allow them to watch heterosexual romances all the time. The only way to destroy those cultural norms is by having representation in the media that everyone can relate to.

Representation is not a terrible thing. Gay people are still scarce when it comes to representation in Hollywood. If you see it a lot in the shows you watch consider what you are watching, and who makes them. I can tell you most of what you watch probably has very little representation in it as well. But no one is forcing you to watch those shows/films. And if you are offended by the inclusion of gay characters in a franchise you admire then perhaps you should reflect on your feelings towards gay people. Because it can't be positive if you think your favorite franchise should be an escape from something as mundane as sexuality, other than heterosexuality.

All I can do/say to this is.
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/or...485ef3700c.jpg
And this.
https://media.tenor.co/images/6b2a46...e0ddb6f88f/raw

This is pretty awesome, but I hope the writers don't make that her entire character, because a lot writers fall into that writing trap.

edit: Less of a Kurt from Glee more of a Korra

I do just want to say that the fact that this is a notable event, publicity stunt or not, kind of proves that it's a little bigger than a small minority.

If this is directed towards me, that's not at all what I was saying. Like I said, the representation is fine, I'm quite alright with Trini or anyone being gay, it's the gimmick-ifying way people think they're using it.

The dilema here is if it is it really earnest representation if they're only doing it to drive up ticket sales? And like I said, I don't think the movie itself is doing this, because before now nobody even knew because it was never mentioned or promoted, nor is it being treated like a big twist. But thanks to the likes of Ghostbusters, a lot of people are conditioned to assume the most cynical of motives for things like this. After all, this isn't a heartfelt passion project indie movie, it's a generic, souless, corperate machine designed to hock toys.

And the thing is, nobody here has stated they're against her sexuality, rather than they're against it's use as a gimmick.

Nobody here has stated that. I certainly didn't, and if I came across that way I apologise, but I mean my best friend was gay and he was the nicest, most considerate person I ever knew.

All I'll say is your posts came off a little bit odd and incoherent towards the point you were trying to make. But I too don't like it when studios use sexuality as a gimmick to get people into the seats. That said I don't think that's what they're trying to do. I do think that these kinds of announcements are made to get more people hyped for the movie, but the intention of having a gay character wasn't for that reason, but for actual character development.

From one of the article's I've read it's a pretty fast, blink-and-you'll-miss-it thing.

Personally, I'm down for it. I wasn't going to go out of my way to see the movie before and I'm not going to now, but I've got no complaints about Trini or any of the other characters being LGBT.

Well then let me make myself perfectly clear now before confusion spreads, I'm about as far from anti-gay as can be without actually being gay myself. :p My comments were not towards the use of a gay character alone, but the use in a film designed to cynically sell toys where a bull is jacked off in the opening scenes.

I agree, again given that this is just now being "revealed" now that the movie's actually being seen and nearly released to theatres anyhow. But that's my opinion, and I'm just saying I can see how others may be distrustful of this film's motives.

Which is why I just got this idea: a film publicity stunts having a gay character and in the film itself, there's a scene where the gay character chastises the audience for coming to see the film just for a gay character rather than the whole package via the gay character chastising another character for being so super duper accepting of his sexuality while not showing any interest in accepting the actual person beyond it.

And honestly, I don't really mind gay Trini. Certainly gives more to her character than the original '93 Trini had, which I'm pretty sure was just "the other girl Ranger." Would've preferred gay Billy just because I think Mr. Yost might appreciate it on a personal level (hell, I saw the title of this thread and immediately thought it was going to be Billy).

But this is doing nothing but exploiting them. I don't hear articles talking about how straight Jason and Kimberly are.

If the movie is well written, they don't need to pull this stunt to make a character relatable. Saying someone is a gay character does not instantly make them a good character.

Just look at Supergirl. Turning Alex into a lesbian was hands down the worst thing they could do for the show not only because it completely altered her character from the first season and that it started to take up half of the run time of an episode, but also the actress is completely uncomfortable whenever she has to talk about how much she loves Maggie.

What reviews are you seeing?

Where are you even getting those reviews?

Kain, you have this tendency to think that if an issue doesn't effect you, or if you don't care about it, then it doesn't matter to anyone. That is a problem.

A word of advice: educate yourself on LGBT rights and representation. Look up the extraordinarily high rates of suicide, depression, anxiety, and other mental illnesses compared to non-LGBT groups, and then look up how media representation effects those numbers. From my own personal experience, I was a depressed, suicidal, teenaged wreck until I discovered Wildstorm Comics' Apollo and Midnighter. Seeing these characters represented as competent, gay badasses in my favorite medium literally saved my life. They gave me the courage to keep on going. I cannot overstate how wrong you are right now, and how dangerous your mindset is.

This is literally just the tip of the iceberg, but here are a few starting points:
This article is about gay representation in comics.
This is a good primer on queer representation in general.
As is this.
And this is an article from 2016 about how queer representation in media has actually decreased.

If you're unwilling to educate yourself, drop out of this conversation now before you offend a ton of people (which actually, you've already done).

I'll close with a quote from one of the above articles:

"We LGBT people are not broken. We are not unworthy. We too can be superheroes, we too can be blessed and uplifted. We too are deserving of respect."

Respect is something an awful lot of people are very eager to deny us.

Was expecting Billy given the history.

I said it earlier and I'll say it again. All I can do/say to this is.
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/or...485ef3700c.jpg
And this.
https://media.tenor.co/images/6b2a46...e0ddb6f88f/raw

To be fair, this movie seems to be taking the "band of social outcasts come together to form a superhero team" route and an LGBT teen character fits perfectly with that.

Thank you. ^_^

Oh good I was not the only one who thought it would be Billy. :)

Damn for some reason I thought we were around the same age but nope you are older. Also DAMN YOU MY INNER IMMATURE CHILD. It rearrange some things you said into something that made me laugh a little.

Except you are wrong. Anyone can be whatever they want. Anyone can love whoever they want. In fact, I am a big advocate of gay rights and I've got several friends who are gay. Hell, if someone wants to fucka monkey, let them.

However, it gets insulting when people are taking advantage of it. Not every show/movie has to feature a gay character. If they do, great. If not, whatever. All that matters is how well written and entertaining it is.

Plus, this is supposed to be Power Rangers, not who is in love with whom. Save that for an Oscar bait movie. The main focus on Power Rangers should be teenagers fighting alien monsters.

He is right

Do I even want to know what?

It involved the take to bed part.

O_O' No. Nononononononono. *walks away waving hands* :lolol

It turned this part
into this
I'm so sorry I can not control what my mind comes up with at times.

Pretty sure that's an animal's rights offense. Monkey can't give consent and all that. I mean, I'm in generally the same boat otherwise, although it's more apathy than anything.

Do whatever you like with whomever is willing to do it with you, that's your business.

If you want to be defined primarily by who you want to do the horizontal tango with, go ahead, that's your problem.

I just reserve the right to say I don't want to be involved, okay? I'm not going to the wedding, I'm not going to be involved in setting you up and I'm just ask that you do you, with the expectation that you can do the same to me if you want. That seem fair?