[Kamen Rider Lucha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPLIT LIP

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.

I often see this "I'm not a homophobe but gay romance is cynical gimmickry" argument bandied about by straight people when criticizing gay romances in media. And I don't buy it. Unless you're going to decry all romances as gimmicks, this argument holds no water. And why are you even concerned with so called gimmickry when gay people embrace these characters and cry out for more like them?

Look, even if the romance is poorly handled and the characters are thinly drawn, we need to live in a world where gay romances are allowed to be as bad and hamfisted as many straight romances in film and tv. THAT would be true equality.

Besides, gay characters have historically been BOX OFFICE POISON, so if it's a "gimmick," it's a really dumb and counterproductive one. Having a gay character means that you can't exhibit your film in Russia, China, and countless other nations with backwards, antiquated views about sexuality -- and that means a significant loss of potential revenue for the studio. If a gay character shows up in a piece of big budget mainstream media, you can bet your ass that the creators fought tooth and nail against risk averse studio execs for his/her inclusion. They did it in spite of the financial risk of alienating conservative moviegoers with cash to spend.

I appreciate your open mindedness when it comes to gay characters in media, I just don't think the gimmick argument makes any sense.