Effing Bread Crumbs

[eumelia]

So, like, I know I'm the party-pooper when it comes to the fun of Fandom.

I know I'm Waldorf to someone else's Statler (or vice versa), but I am irked.

It irks me when things like this are received with a *squee* and nary a side eye.

As per the link, there was a panel at SDCC on X-Men and the subject of LGBT themes came up. Zack Stentz, who was involved in writing X-Men: First Class is quoted:

[...]
Stentz basically confirmed Erik/Charles (he called First Class, “the tragic romance of Charles and Erik”) and went on to describe how if certain events/personal ideologies/chosen paths hadn’t forced them apart, Erik and Charles would most certainly be together. According to him, it’s one of those “they’re meant for each other, but fate refuses to let them stay together” situations.

That's nice.

Really it is.

About as nice as being told Professor Dumbledore was gay, two years (if IIRC) after he died.

The fandom went wild, as did I at the time, until I thought about the implications of outing him post-mortem.

And this, oh, the tragic love story of two men who have never ever in the canon shown any kind of evidence beyond subtext that we need to look for, that they loved each other in a way that went deeper than friendship, or even brotherhood.

That quote, right there, that feels like pandering. It feels like fan service. It feels like, there was a big loaf of bread somewhere when it came to who got the benefit of being represented in an honest way in a genre movie.

I don't want to have to have the "Word of God" confirm subtext they put in there so that they could be implicit, rather than explicit, about character development and desire. I don't want a panel at SDCC to tell me that the margins of the text are slightly wider than they were before.

I don't want to be happy about the fact that a movie filled with plausible deniability is a vindication of queer readings in a film, chock full of code and subtext that exists to make the aforementioned deniability hold strong.

The most we can say is "thank god no one is running for the hills due to queer implication" and no it doesn't really matter what the sexuality of the creators are - what matters is what is conveyed and while what is conveyed in the movie is brilliant, this is not a movie that has queer people in it. It is a movie that has queer themes and implications running through it.

Nuance is fun, ambiguity is one of my favourite things. But not at the cost of real, actual, honest to god, LGBT representation.

When am I getting my Batwoman movie?! Oh, never? Thought so. Is Northstar ever going to be something other than a gay Canadian Speedster? No, oh well.

Apollo? Mignighter? Maybe on HBO or Showtime? Yeah, maybe.

Crossposts: http://eumelia.livejournal.com/547114.html

Comments

[the_future_modernes]

WTF? Eff that! If that was the case then they should have damn well SHOWN the relationship, not tell ya'll in a damn comic con panel!

[eumelia]

Exactly.

I know why Fandom is happy. I kinds wish they'd stop.

[lilacsigil]

Ha, yes, while it's nice to be a "theme" or a "parallel", it would be far nicer to be actually represented on screen, thanks. Maybe 15 years ago this would have been worth squeeing about, but it's 2011, thanks. And Mystique has now been in 4 movies without so much as flirting with a woman.

(And, speaking of "themes" it would have been great if you didn't also appropriate Civil Rights parallels while killing off Darwin, Mr Stentz.)

[eumelia]

God, yes, Mystique so wasted in this franchise, I swear!

Wow, Darwin, that was such a bug, huge, glaring fail.

OT: Are you having problems cross posting to LJ?

[lilacsigil]

Yes, I think everyone is having problems crossposting since yesterday.

[eumelia]

Oh, bummer.

Thanks for confirming.

[the_future_modernes]

Hell YES.

[naraht]

Haven't seen the film but I'm totally with you on the argument. It's just not good enough anymore.

[eumelia]

It really isn't and I get annoyed when it's thrown around as this HUGE step forward.

[majoline]

Ok, I'm glad that I wasn't the only angry at the panel.

[eumelia]

I'm pretty miffed at the whole notion that subtext is somehow enough.

Word of God can kiss my peachy ass.

[majoline]

And in that particular movie it wouldn't have been a stretch to show a PG relationship since it's not the complete focus of the plot and there was plenty of space for the development into a relationship.

Thus, we would have two people who work together and are in a relationship and are queer and we don't have to watch gratuitous and almost always badly done sex scenes.

Voila! Cutting edge award winning comic book movie made.

[rho]

I always read that sort of thing as "Well, obviously we couldn't make them be queer in the actual movie, because that might have eaten into our profits. The tiny-minded bigot demographic is an important one for movies, you know? It's not our fault that the bottom line is more important than artistic integrity or inclusiveness. But if it will make you feel better (and pay to see our next movie), then yep, sure, totally queer."

[eumelia]

Yep, they totally meant for it to be totally queer, but it just didn't work out, due to difference in ideology/chosen path... oh, wait?

[silveradept]

I thought more people went to see a movie like Brokeback Mountain because there was overt gayness i nthe movie, not less. Yes, there was the usual screaming from the usual places, but I thought it did better and that Hollywood would have been falling all over themselves to shoehorn in relationships in search of profits.

These after-the-movie revelations aren't cutting it. If you're going to say characters are QUILTBAG, do it up front, with the scriptwriting. It's not like, say, Jack Harkness isn't able to be a developed, quai-superpowered character or anything.