My Mixed Feelings on Phase 4 of the MCU

[hammerofglass]

Why are you addressing fuzzy? Clearspira is the one who gave the definition that you disagree with.

[Nealithi]

Why are you addressing fuzzy? Clearspira is the one who gave the definition that you disagree with.

Because it isn't what I disagree with?
Pointing a finger and saying see this! "THIS IS DIVERSITY!" Is the wrong answer. The apathy of what gender someone sees romantically is the best normalization. I thought Star Trek original series, did a great job on diversity. Uhura is an officer on the ship. Daystrom could have been caste with anyone, but they used a black man. And he did a fantastic job. You could dislike his smugness. But empathize with his struggles and that he was basically a good man that sought to harm no one. It was done masterfully.
And no one on the screen pointed out he was a man of colour. He was just Doctor Daystrom.
That is equality.

[hammerofglass]

Why are you addressing fuzzy? Clearspira is the one who gave the definition that you disagree with.

Because it isn't what I disagree with?
Pointing a finger and saying see this! "THIS IS DIVERSITY!" Is the wrong answer. The apathy of what gender someone sees romantically is the best normalization. I thought Star Trek original series, did a great job on diversity. Uhura is an officer on the ship. Daystrom could have been caste with anyone, but they used a black man. And he did a fantastic job. You could dislike his smugness. But empathize with his struggles and that he was basically a good man that sought to harm no one. It was done masterfully.
And no one on the screen pointed out he was a man of colour. He was just Doctor Daystrom.
That is equality.

But clearspira explicitly said that kind of thing was what they were complaining about? Which is what fuzzy responded too?

[Nealithi]

Why are you addressing fuzzy? Clearspira is the one who gave the definition that you disagree with.

Because it isn't what I disagree with?
Pointing a finger and saying see this! "THIS IS DIVERSITY!" Is the wrong answer. The apathy of what gender someone sees romantically is the best normalization. I thought Star Trek original series, did a great job on diversity. Uhura is an officer on the ship. Daystrom could have been caste with anyone, but they used a black man. And he did a fantastic job. You could dislike his smugness. But empathize with his struggles and that he was basically a good man that sought to harm no one. It was done masterfully.
And no one on the screen pointed out he was a man of colour. He was just Doctor Daystrom.
That is equality.

But clearspira explicitly said that kind of thing was what they were complaining about? Which is what fuzzy responded too?

I believe this is what Clearspira wrote.

"You can have a gay or a trans without actually telling us. Y'know, how they don't tell us someone is straight. I realise in our ''every LGBT community imaginable now has a flag to wave'' world that might be an amazing concept, but it really isn't.

True equality will come when all of the special days, all of the flags, all of the fucking parades vanish and is replaced by one thing: apathy. The same apathy we hold for heterosexuals."

Treat it as nothing special. Gender and orientation and skin colour have no special meaning. They simply are what they are. The apathy of normal.

So how am I arguing against that stance?

[hammerofglass]

Why are you addressing fuzzy? Clearspira is the one who gave the definition that you disagree with.

Because it isn't what I disagree with?
Pointing a finger and saying see this! "THIS IS DIVERSITY!" Is the wrong answer. The apathy of what gender someone sees romantically is the best normalization. I thought Star Trek original series, did a great job on diversity. Uhura is an officer on the ship. Daystrom could have been caste with anyone, but they used a black man. And he did a fantastic job. You could dislike his smugness. But empathize with his struggles and that he was basically a good man that sought to harm no one. It was done masterfully.
And no one on the screen pointed out he was a man of colour. He was just Doctor Daystrom.
That is equality.

But clearspira explicitly said that kind of thing was what they were complaining about? Which is what fuzzy responded too?

I believe this is what Clearspira wrote.

"You can have a gay or a trans without actually telling us. Y'know, how they don't tell us someone is straight. I realise in our ''every LGBT community imaginable now has a flag to wave'' world that might be an amazing concept, but it really isn't.

True equality will come when all of the special days, all of the flags, all of the fucking parades vanish and is replaced by one thing: apathy. The same apathy we hold for heterosexuals."

Treat it as nothing special. Gender and orientation and skin colour have no special meaning. They simply are what they are. The apathy of normal.

So how am I arguing against that stance?

Under that definition every example you gave of good incidental diversity is forced diversity. It becomes forced diversity the second it is shown to the audience. Oops saw Sulu's husband, they told the audience he's gay so it's forced now.

[Nealithi]

Why are you addressing fuzzy? Clearspira is the one who gave the definition that you disagree with.

Because it isn't what I disagree with?
Pointing a finger and saying see this! "THIS IS DIVERSITY!" Is the wrong answer. The apathy of what gender someone sees romantically is the best normalization. I thought Star Trek original series, did a great job on diversity. Uhura is an officer on the ship. Daystrom could have been caste with anyone, but they used a black man. And he did a fantastic job. You could dislike his smugness. But empathize with his struggles and that he was basically a good man that sought to harm no one. It was done masterfully.
And no one on the screen pointed out he was a man of colour. He was just Doctor Daystrom.
That is equality.

But clearspira explicitly said that kind of thing was what they were complaining about? Which is what fuzzy responded too?

I believe this is what Clearspira wrote.

"You can have a gay or a trans without actually telling us. Y'know, how they don't tell us someone is straight. I realise in our ''every LGBT community imaginable now has a flag to wave'' world that might be an amazing concept, but it really isn't.

True equality will come when all of the special days, all of the flags, all of the fucking parades vanish and is replaced by one thing: apathy. The same apathy we hold for heterosexuals."

Treat it as nothing special. Gender and orientation and skin colour have no special meaning. They simply are what they are. The apathy of normal.

So how am I arguing against that stance?

Under that definition every example you gave of good incidental diversity is forced diversity. It becomes forced diversity the second it is shown to the audience. Oops saw Sulu's husband, they told the audience he's gay so it's forced now.

Ahh, no it isn't because it is no more special than if he met a wife and daughter. It was a scene showing these people have lives off the ship. No one shouted he has a husband! Or waved a flag. By the same note, no one cared what skin colour Captain Balthazar had. That is inclusion without making a fuss about it. Fuzzy took that to mean never show at all. And I think that is mistaken.
Okay, I have not seen any Discovery not shown by Chuck. But two of the characters are in a same sex situation. If this is pointed to and shown off unnaturally then it is forced. If it is organic to the story, then it is natural and fine. I do not know the doctor's name, but there is a scene where he and Stamits kiss. If that scene the doctor was female, would the scene been useful to the episode? If yes then who cares who Stamits SO is,the point is he had a discussion with his SO and they kissed.
If it would have been on the cutting room floor because there was no merit to it. Then it was a scene put in for its own flag waving sake. And in my opinion, is bad story telling.

The only time the preference of a character should need to be spot lighted would be if someone had an interest in the character. And another character informed the first that the person they were eyeing was interested in a different gender. Do not get yourself hurt. But, it is Hollywood so we both know the first person will try anyway and it will likely be a B plot of an episode. It is part of drama. But that would still be organic not forced. (Unless they did it for several episodes)

[hammerofglass]

Why are you addressing fuzzy? Clearspira is the one who gave the definition that you disagree with.

Because it isn't what I disagree with?
Pointing a finger and saying see this! "THIS IS DIVERSITY!" Is the wrong answer. The apathy of what gender someone sees romantically is the best normalization. I thought Star Trek original series, did a great job on diversity. Uhura is an officer on the ship. Daystrom could have been caste with anyone, but they used a black man. And he did a fantastic job. You could dislike his smugness. But empathize with his struggles and that he was basically a good man that sought to harm no one. It was done masterfully.
And no one on the screen pointed out he was a man of colour. He was just Doctor Daystrom.
That is equality.

But clearspira explicitly said that kind of thing was what they were complaining about? Which is what fuzzy responded too?

I believe this is what Clearspira wrote.

"You can have a gay or a trans without actually telling us. Y'know, how they don't tell us someone is straight. I realise in our ''every LGBT community imaginable now has a flag to wave'' world that might be an amazing concept, but it really isn't.

True equality will come when all of the special days, all of the flags, all of the fucking parades vanish and is replaced by one thing: apathy. The same apathy we hold for heterosexuals."

Treat it as nothing special. Gender and orientation and skin colour have no special meaning. They simply are what they are. The apathy of normal.

So how am I arguing against that stance?

Under that definition every example you gave of good incidental diversity is forced diversity. It becomes forced diversity the second it is shown to the audience. Oops saw Sulu's husband, they told the audience he's gay so it's forced now.

Ahh, no it isn't because it is no more special than if he met a wife and daughter. It was a scene showing these people have lives off the ship. No one shouted he has a husband! Or waved a flag. By the same note, no one cared what skin colour Captain Balthazar had. That is inclusion without making a fuss about it. Fuzzy took that to mean never show at all. And I think that is mistaken.
Okay, I have not seen any Discovery not shown by Chuck. But two of the characters are in a same sex situation. If this is pointed to and shown off unnaturally then it is forced. If it is organic to the story, then it is natural and fine. I do not know the doctor's name, but there is a scene where he and Stamits kiss. If that scene the doctor was female, would the scene been useful to the episode? If yes then who cares who Stamits SO is,the point is he had a discussion with his SO and they kissed.
If it would have been on the cutting room floor because there was no merit to it. Then it was a scene put in for its own flag waving sake. And in my opinion, is bad story telling.

The only time the preference of a character should need to be spot lighted would be if someone had an interest in the character. And another character informed the first that the person they were eyeing was interested in a different gender. Do not get yourself hurt. But, it is Hollywood so we both know the first person will try anyway and it will likely be a B plot of an episode. It is part of drama. But that would still be organic not forced. (Unless they did it for several episodes)

When clearspira kicks into the conversation with their list of representation they likes that several people in the thread asked for I may reconsider, but I see no reason to think Fuzzy is wrong.

[Nealithi]

Probably should wait for Fuzzy's response as well. Agreed.

[McAvoy]

Phase 4 is the era of forced diversity not good plots.
Look at Eternals.

Unless there is more than having two married men in the film then I don't see how it's forced.

Switching to DC for a moment, in Season 4 of Young Justice there is a plot that is about racism that is a major plot point with the Martians. It has exactly Zero Subtly, no nuance and is as black and white as one can get.

I was reminded of Harrowmont vs. Bhelen in Dragon Age: Origins with the latter being a bigot towards the cast-less Dwarves while the other is someone who murdered his own family and cheated his way to the top to get the throne. And yet, Harrowmont is a good man who is reasonable and has a sense of honor while Bhelen wants to rebuild Dwarven Society because it's a broken system that needs to change if it's to survive.

This is an interesting idea with a lot of nuance as it's not about showing that both side have a point but rather both sides have two men who can be seen as good people who do evil things for a greater good or believe in stupid things.

Amphibia does something similar as the main characters, Anne, Sasha and Marcy, are all girls of color (and probably a little bit gay for one another) and deals with things like class system and even hint at, (though never directly addressed) racism. And That's So Raven had an episode where someone refused to hire the title character because she was black and that episode is praised for being so forward on the subject.

The problem with the Martian Subplot is that it approaches the subject as racism with no real understanding and forces it's message in a way that is less subtle then a show about talking frogs.

Eteranls and most of the MCU don't really have this issue. Yeah, the Marketing is forcing this but the actual films don't really draw attention to this. Shang Chi, to just take one example, is not treated any differently then Steve, Tony or Thor. He is someone who has power and a desire to help people. Carol being a woman who had to fight for what she wants is a part of her character but her memories being taken from her is the real focus of her arc in the first movie. Loki being bi is mentioned but doesn't really go anywhere and Sam being black isn't treated as that big of a deal when the real focus is him wondering if he should take up Steve's role as Captain America.

These film's DO put emphases on the characters being not being white men but it's more of a side note and not really that forced.

I'll be honest, I've just grown tired of this argument as diversity has no impact on the quality of a story though my main issue comes more from the fact that the people who complain about it don't actually bother WATCHING the thing their complaining about.

The way I look at it, it being 'forced' is that there is any mention or showing of the gay community, racism or whatnot. Like at what point where would someone it not being forced? Like a mere mention but don't show it? Or one out of 20 movies that show it? How about one out of 100 movies?

My definition of forced: when it doesn't need to be there.

You can have a gay or a trans without actually telling us. Y'know, how they don't tell us someone is straight. I realise in our ''every LGBT community imaginable now has a flag to wave'' world that might be an amazing concept, but it really isn't.

True equality will come when all of the special days, all of the flags, all of the fucking parades vanish and is replaced by one thing: apathy. The same apathy we hold for heterosexuals.

Either way I am impressed. Disney is doubling down on this film even though it is being banned across the globe. The Eternals is Marvel's most diverse film with its least diverse audience.

Responding to the bold part.

I got a simple solution to this then. If you don't want to see on screen protroyals of gay couples, then we will have no on screen portrayals of straight couples. So we do not see the husbands or the wives. They are only mentioned. No kissing between the opposite sexes either. No chemistry between the opposite sexes either in the love sense.

Because what you said, 'I don't might gay people as long as it's not in my face'.