#there is obviously a degree of homophobic writing in the series but i think now that i'm older i see the like.

[violexides]

God. komaeda really was a great character huh. (plus, ramblings about my favorite 'character types' and queerness in DR in tags).

[animentality]

Tbh I think it's still legit if you read and like Blue Lock for being so gay (at least subtextually), despite being misogynistic Kaneshiro seems to have sympathy for queer people to a certain degree. Besides the gay sidekick, As The Gods Will also has some other queer side characters (a lesbian, a trans girl, a few more hinted gay boys and a non-binary villain according to my memory) even though not all of them are well-written, the good ones are good. Specifically my most favorite is the gay sidekick Ushimitsu, he's actually a pretty well-rounded character with very strong role as a co-lead in ATGW 2, I never feel like he was disrespected in the story (rather I think he's obviously Kaneshiro's favorite), sure he's got an open ending that can be seen as tragic but it's actually in line of the whole theme of the story and I respect Kaneshiro to commit to writing it rather than just give a copout happy ending and it also proves his gay feelings as real & deep despite heartbreaking.

Now I wish Kaneshiro can have that same energy in writing Bachira as he's in a similar position to Ushimitsu in ATGW but somehow poor bee boy got pushed aside in bllk after U20 arc (probably in favor of more popular Isagi ship with Rin or Kaiser 🙃), I hope he makes good on the promise that Bachira will be a key character later in the series and this time since nobody will die in Bllk I hope Bachisagi will get a deserved happy ending.

well that's the thing, anon.

I feel bad for liking blue lock because it has such a misogynistic creator but it's hard not to cling to something so obviously queer friendly.

like honestly.

there's definitely Japanese media that's queer neutral or queer friendly but blue lock actually feels like it's always on the verge of just being properly queer.

it's not fanservice like free or yuri on ice. it legitimately feels as close to canon as it can get without changing genres. and I think the creator having queer characters in the past gives him some street cred.

i know what homophobia in a manga looks like. it's that awful rapist character from one punch man. this hyper masculine but also hyper feminine muscly man who sexually assaults other men.

it's tokyo ghoul having its only queer characters being pedophiles, rapists, and sex addicts/victims who get sexually assaulted until they're "corrected."

it's having no subtext at all and only ever using gay men as a one off joke and gay women as a fetish.

at least blue lock does seem to respect its characters enough that it takes their hinted at sexualities seriously.

it really doesn't go for the obvious "ewwwwww we're both guys" jokes. it's kept very ambiguous. it's subtle (except when it's not, lol).

the only character who really fits the usual offensive gay anime representation tropes is Shidou, but even him I wouldn't count as bad rep (as the closest to canonically gay character, aside from Bachira).

Shidou might be super flamboyant but he also gets to have the coolest fucking moments in the series. he's not just some pervert, he's a badass. he doesn't just flounder around like some useless weird loser who only exists to be the butt of a joke.

he loves to fight and play soccer and feel alive. he has the coolest aura in the series and everyone is constantly in awe of the ridiculous things he can do.

he's a proper villain, who's out of pocket and insane, but who's also intensely lovable and silly. and honestly portrayed pretty sympathetically. for all his faults, he can be very kind.

there's a lot of depth to him, and honestly, I think Blue Lock is pretty good at not doing anything to suggest oh hahaha homosexuality exists. isn't that funny

plus I think Bachira is canonically gay. we know he's canonically in love with Isagi.

kunigami and aiku are actually confirmed bisexual too.

Shidou and Sae were also highly suspect during u20, to the point where even homophobes cant deny they have something weird going on.

so to me... that's a lot of queer characters who are taken seriously and actually have characters outside of being a joke or a gag. they feel like real people. they have distinct personalities.

the bar is in hell, but it's more than most manga/anime manage.

so I have to give Kaneshiro credit. he's doing as much as he can, without overstepping the boundary I'm sure kodansha has set for him.

it's just a shame he's a sexist. also, I hope Kaneshiro grows a pair.

just have bachisagi get married in the last chapter you pussy.

let Shidou officiate!!!

[blognarrymybabes]

As I have said before. I am done. I can’t. I can’t watch it and I am not going to even watch season 4. It’s too heartbreaking and I have no fucking hopes for season 5. I just watched Will and Mike’s clip in the van , the Mike el forehead touch and Mike monologue and I can’t believe they can hate a character to this degree.

I feel like they had too many ideas and instead of keeping it simple and core to the main characters they tried to do too many different things from different references (remember the white board with all movie names they took their so called inspiration from) that it turned into a big flop.

To have an unrequited love is fine

To have an unrequited gay love is also fine

But in this situation with everything that we have seen so far from season 1

IT IS NOT FINE

The whole thing doesn’t make sense. Mike wheeler doesn’t make sense. His character went from the leader, the protector, the person who could tell Will was alive by just his breathing, the person who knew his mood or if he was okay is now a prop for Eleven, he didn’t even questioned why Will is crying, didn’t even noticed ???? And actually smiled when Will said El needs you. I can’t !!!! Mike’s character couldn’t be more degressed they made him into a pathetic asshole who is like a jerk to his best friend of 10 years apparently for no reason and the only problem he has is telling eleven I love you back

The whole Eleven’s development till Season 4 Vol1 flushed down the drain by getting back together with Mike because of his love for her.

And I can’t even formulate about Will, the once Main Character reduced to a gay pining selfless boy who only touches his neck when he senses vecna. He has been through so much so so much and he thinks he is a mistake 💔

This all is just lazy ass writing trying to keep your audience (mileven shippers) happy. Everything boiling down to that lousy, zero genuine Mike monologue and they called that his best acting !

They used Will’s feelings to push Mike and Eleven together. They treated Will’s character and his feelings like shit. He opened his entire heart to Mike ! Told him he is the heart of the group all so that Mike can tell Eleven I love you. I hate this. They treated his character like shit, his feelings were like device to prove mileven is endgame. It already was !!!! They both are dating for two seasons now. They made him so miserable.

And I with my own two eyes saw the swing set in vol1 I was not tripping. I mean how that painting changed

I give up. I got way too attached. My mistake.

I have never been queerbaited before this was my first time and I can’t handle it tbh.

This is homophobic and queerbaiting to the next level

I honestly believed Byler was real. Will deserves so much, I can see that he is going to sacrifice in the future. He basically did that now in season 4 for Mike to be with El

I learnt my lesson the hardest way possible

And yes it’s queerbaiting !!!

I mean the actors are telling one thing in the interviews and series is completely different

Finn was like “Mike is trying to be normal and is in to new things “ and Mike’s entire I love you monologue to Eleven was fucking forced ! So forced!

Duffers said “ he was given some hard hitting stuff. His best acting” wtf

Duffers said “the painting is important they had several drafts.” In vol1 i could see the swing set with my own two bloody eyes but it is not swing set it is something else”

Duffers said “Will’s sexuality will be addressed” I am like where?

Welcome to American media. Here they show that they're inclusive but no our main cast is obviously CIS het people. Cuz omg are you kidding me?

This morning Netflix crashed so they got the money alright

I don’t have it in me to watch stranger things anymore I think I know where they are going with this.

I am hoping and I will happy if Will turns out to be a villain

I am going to be in Byler land reading fics and just whatever happened today didn’t happened

And for the record I am straight, I just fell in love with Will’s character and then realized Byler while watching. And I have queer friends and people in my family who do think the same thing and ship Byler. [ I had made a post about how I started shipping Byler. I was hesitant to put it out. But if you’re interested in reading I will upload it ]

So no you guys here are not delusional at all. If I could see it, anyone can. It’s common sense and following the story it doesn’t have to be some kind of lens.

Either Noah and Finn are crushing over each other or Duffers are coward and chickened out. If they did, they are stupid enough to not realize the gold mine they were sitting on.

That’s it for my rant.

[platinumink]

About me

Hello there and welcome to ‘The Basement™‘, a safe space for all people of any kind and any interests.

My name is Levi! I am n-years old, use the pronouns They/Them and I live on the planet earth... or not... who knows- :D

I like to watch movies, anime and series’, read manga or other kinds of literature and enter most fandoms pretty easily- So if you ever see me obsess over one thing and then suddenly another, then it’s because of that. Not that I ever leave a fandom! It’s more like a symbiotic relationship as I will always present myself in every fandom I have in random intervalls and never really leave. Me hyperfocusing is just an accidental side product- : )

I will now answer the basic 20 FAQ questions to give you some more insight on how my weird brain works:

When is your birthday?

=> 14th January XXXX

What is your favorite animal?

=> Cat person through and through!! Raccoons are a close second. I've always found them cute, believe me or not- xD

What do you do for a living? Are you in school?

=> Currently working on my Degree in Computer Science.

If you could travel anywhere in the world, where would you go?

=> Probably somewhere where it’s neither too hot nor too cold. xD

What was your favorite school subject?

=> English, Biology or Informatics probably-

Do you have a small or big family?

=> Depends on your definition of big/small families! My family is probably kinda big though.

What genres of music do you like best?

=> I’m not really into any genre. It depends on the song. I do really tend to like music from the 70s, 80s and 90s! : )

How do you like to spend your free time?

=> Reading, writing fanfiction, watching anime/movies or anything I like on youtube. I also like to play video games such as Valorant, Phasmophobia, Detroit become human and I just started playing Marvels Guardians of the Galaxy!

Are you a morning or a night person?

=> Night Owl!

What is your favorite food?

=> Another hard question- I love noodles, Katsudon, Piroshki, some thai food, korean food, italian food... I like what I like and I don’t really want to pick favorites... xD

What is your favorite movie or TV show?

=> The best movie of all time is Guardians of the Galaxy 3 - can't change my mind - with GotG 1 as a close second, followed by GotG 2. Best marvel series is Loki obviously- I also think that Captain America: The Winter Soldier is in the top 5 best Marvel movies ever released. Again I don’t like to pick favorites! I also love Kuroshitsuji, Lucifer, Boku no hero academia, shingeki no kyojin, star wars, soul eater, yuri on ice and MANY more!

What is your favorite childhood memory?

=> I once went to a star wars live music concert when I was younger to A New Hope and that was wild- Best day ever-

Who is your celebrity crush?

=> Currently that’s Sebastian Stan. Has been for some time. RDJ, Scarlett Johannson, Karen Gillan, Gwyneth Paltrow, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Pratt, Hayden Christensen, Evan McGregor, Tom Hiddleston, Colin Firth and Taron Egerton, Zoe Saldana and Sam Worthington, Bradley Cooper are also up there-

Do you speak more than one language?

=> I speak english and german fluently and beginners french. I know single words and sentences in spanish, japanese and Dutch

What is your biggest pet peeve?

=> I don’t know for sure... Probably that my family is full of homophobic idiots trying to make me feel uncomfortable at every given opportunity-

What is your favorite holiday?

=> Summer Holiday because it’s the longest- I hate the heat-

Where did you grow up?

=> Planet Earth. xD

What is the skill that you would like to learn?

=> To think of smart things to say in the moment and not 5 hours later. So yes: A silver tounge.

What do you value most in a friend?

=> Loyalty. I want someone to be there for me and not talk shit about me. I want them to defend me if others do so and I want them to be able to see me at my worst and still stand by me. This is what I always try to do for others too.

What is your biggest irrational fear?

=> I don’t actually know. I have many. Probably eating worms and them living inside me without dieing. And dieing in general. And being drugged and unable to move. This got really heavy in the end xD

Well I hope you know me a bit better than before now.

Have a nice timezone and don’t forget to check out some posts, maybe you’ll find something you like! :D

~ Platinum INK

[lonnieontherun]

supernatural discourse asks (snagged from here: source)

1) Is John misunderstood or a villain? Well he’s not a villain. I’ve mostly been 50/50 about him. Not a big fan, but I don’t hate him either. I think he did wrong in how he raised his kids and how he treated them not to mention the writers were so contradicting in their writing of him. So I get why some fans hate him and say he abused Sam and Dean, but I also get why some say he didn’t. So I’m like ?? He was a man put in an inhuman situation.

2) Overall worst season? Huh Season 10 probably. Man was that MOC dragged on for far too long. If they had done it kinda like soulless Sam - half a season instead of a season and a half then maaaybe it’d be better. But what we got was cr*p and didn’t help Dean’s character for me at all. Season 12 and 13 were pretty bad too I don’t even remember them. In fact they were so bad I didn’t bother finishing the show and the last two seasons. It didn’t feel like Supernatural anymore.

Back when I first joined the show right before season 3 aired up to the end of season 7, I hated s4. It’s an interesting plot and storylines and all that, but it was a rough time being a Sam fan. I loved the powers storyline, but yeah it was nasty overall. Never enjoyed the angels being added. First half of season 8 was pretty bad too.

3) Are Sam and Dean good people? I’d say yeah, but obviously good people having done a lot of awful things. But also so much bad has been done to them you can’t really blame them for being messed up?

4) Meg!Sam or Lucifer!Sam? Oh Lucifer Sam no question.

5) Was the treatment of Cas genuinely homophobic? No? He was an angel, genderless. 

6) Most compelling dynamic (outside of the brothers)? Sam and Lucifer. Now they went overboard with Lucifer in the later seasons and frankly when he’s not interacting with Sam he’s losing a lot of... well, everything. Not really Mark Pellegrino’s fault, but terrible writing. But I even love Hallucifer. While I agree he was a bit too comedic, some was also very dark humor.

7) Amelia or Lisa? Lisa. While I don’t really care for either one Amelia was basically Lisa 2.0 just unlikable and annoying. I hated that whole storyline even though I agree Sam should be able to want his own normal life. Season 8 could have been handled way differently and connect better with Sam’s mental issues in season 7 rather than pulling that nasty trick on him. I hate it. Lisa was at least - to me - likeable and to a degree quite supportive of Dean and his hunting life for a while. By the time she had enough I couldn’t really blame her? Her storyline just was so boring to me though.

8) How should the afterlife have been “resolved”? Did the fixing of Heaven work? I honestly loved the design of Heaven/afterlife in “The Dark Side of the Moon”. It was beautiful with the magic sky and locations and memories. What little we got of Heaven in the series finale is basically Earth 2.0, but then again we only see oh so little. I don’t really know. 

9) Best season finale? Hmm well i’d go with season 6 finale - The Man Who Knew Too Much. Yes it’s a Sam focused episode so of course I’d love that. It was interesting getting to go inside Sam’s mind and set us up for a real good storyline in Season 7 - that they really let us down on :/ Though like most people i’d say Season 5′s Swan Song is a close second along with Season 8′s Sacrefice.

10) What are your thoughts on Dean and Cas’s dynamic/its resolution? I have always found their scenes and interactions so boring from day one. I can’t help it. They were such a snooze fest for me even in season 4 when Cas was still a better, interesting character despite not being a fan of him. Their resolution was simple shipping fanservice and completely did injustice to Cas as a character too (even I say that despite thinking he should have stayed dead in season 7 before his character was completely destroyed).

11) Should the show have ended happily? While I’m 50/50 about the finale I’m fine with it. It was cheesy and I hated that they killed off one brother. After 15 seasons both brothers deserved to live. That being said I did love them for making it a brother focused episode and at least they did reunite in Heaven. So it’s a bittersweet ending, but it should have been a happier one I think with a little less cheese and without that awful cover of Kansas’ song.

12) Favorite season of Sam? It’s between season 2, 5 and 6. Only reason 7 isn’t on here is because they totally failed his mental illness storyline. What we got was good, but not enough and way too easily resolved. The three other mentioned seasons though are my favorite overall. I loved the special children and hated that it was cut short. I loved the Apocalypse storyline despite Sam (again) getting the blame for everything and season 6 oh man soulles Sam my beloved. 

13) Leather jacket or Mary’s ring? Lol I don’t even remember Mary’s ring? And I usually don’t like leather jackets, not even Dean’s so neither?

14) Thoughts on: the Harvelles. I loved them. One of the main issues with this show is their need to kill every side character which is just pointless. They could have just left them out for a few seasons instead of killing them. I loved when there were other hunters involved in the storylines - preferably not to be enemies to Sam though lol.

15) Was reviving Mary the right choice? No. Such a true sign of the writers running out of ideas. I didn’t hate Mary, but ew. The whole season for forgettable and cringy.

16) Was Lebanon a good episode? It was so odd? Again I haven’t watched seasons 14 and 15 fully, just selected episodes, this being one of them. I liked it, but it still didn’t feel like Supernatural anymore which is why I stopped watching after s13. But it was a cute episode and I liked it, but it’s not the best.

17) Favorite villain? Lucifer.

18) When did Supernatural start declining in quality? (If it did?) Season 7 I guess? While I enjoyed plenty of episodes following - the last half of season 8 is great and season 11 for the most was good for a while too. But the quality of seasons overall went out the window with s7 I guess. I just had it when they healed Sam’s mental issues so easily. Instead of making it a part of Sam being alone at the start of s8 they just made him so ooc it p*ssed me off.

19) Do people have a responsibility to critique the show they watch? They have the opinion to do so and responsibility to not make up s*it as they go by calling it something it wasn’t just because you’re too deep into a fictional non-canon ship. Critique the fandom is important too though because SPN’s in particular is a sickness.

[realchemistry]

Jamie Johnson BAFTA Q&A Full transcript

14:02:35 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Good evening, everyone and welcome to this special BAFTA event as part of Pride Month. I'm Alex Kay-Jelski. I'm the editor in chief of the athletic and I'm going to be moderating a discussion of Jamie Johnson, Tackling Issues Head On.

14:03:09 I'm sure you have seen the incredible episodes that have been airing recently and before we have a great discussion with your panelists. I have bits of housekeeping. Live captioning is available if needed on this, click the option at the bottom of your Zoom panel. Also, we will be taking questions later, because we want to answer your big queries, but to do that, use the Q&A button at the bottom. We will not see you on the chat function.

14:03:44 I will give you a five minute warning to get the questions in and we will get in as many as we can in the next hour. So here we are, Jamie Johnson, what an incredible, incredible few episodes as we saw Dillon comes to terms or start to terms with his sexuality and being gay and coming out in a time of him being a starring footballer and how difficult that was for hill.

14:04:17 I think in a world where a lot of people feel comfortable going to football grounds, not like anyone is allowed at football grounds right now, unfortunately. With people coming to terms with who they are, trying to speak to their family about it, trying to speak to their friends about it. Really moving, fantastic drama.

14:04:39 We're going to talk to the key people and try to explain why it is so important and what effect it had and will continue to have. So I will stop prattling on because you are probably bored of hearing from me because there are far more interesting people to hear from.

14:04:58 We have Shaun Duggan the lead writer on Jamie Johnson. He has been BAFTA nominated alongside of Jimmy from the accused and he is famous for righting the lesbian kiss in brook side. I'm old enough to remember that.

14:05:33 Next, we have actors Laquarn Lewis and Patrick Ward, so hello to you two. We have Cheryl Taylor. Cheryl is the head of content of BBC Children and she commissioned Jamie Johnson and all of the BBC content, that is hard to say when you say it quickly for television and online.

14:06:03 For now, we have Hugo Scheckter who is the head of Player Care of West Ham United. Later, we have an extra because we're going to be joined by the executive producer Anita Burgess who produces Jamie Johnson for BBC. Lots of people with lots of things to say. We should get started, shouldn't we?

14:06:32 I'm going to talk to Shaun first, because I think you're the best persons to answer this question. Jamie Johnson has always been a huge success, we're in series five now, great ratings, lots of interest, telling really, really important stories that reflect sort of the lives of children and teenagers. Why do you think the show has been so popular and why does it engage this audience so well?

14:07:07 >> Shaun Duggan: I think for what you have said and from the outset, we wanted to tell a show that felt very real and reflect the lives of our young audience and not patronize or condescend them. My background is working on soap operas and other stuff and this was rarely the first big show I worked on in children's drama.

14:07:40 I have to say, I didn't approach it any differently. I approached it in the same way as I would an adult drama. Obviously, there are things you have to be careful of in terms of language, but in terms of thinking of challenge in story, thinking about what reflects the young audience as lives, what is important to them and just in terms and I'm sure we'll talk more later about how the whole Dillon story came about.

14:08:08 If I could say from a personal experience, when I was younger, I could I've with the show because I'm football mad, working-class background, I remember my dad carrying me over the turnstiles and slipping the man some cash and all I wanted to do was play football in the street and that is why I was obsessed with going to every game I could.

14:08:39 Then I got to about 11 and things changed because suddenly all I play football with didn't want to be my friend anymore and people started saying I was gay, queer, in the 80'S, I did not know what these things were. It I just knew I was something bad and something to be ashamed of and things got worse where I was not welcome to play football anymore.

14:09:14 People turned their backs on me and all through senior school, for me personally, I had a hellish experience. I left school without any qualifications and not just talking verbal bullying, I'm talking getting beaten up most days, so school became about survival. I couldn't turn to the teachers. You were not allowed to talk about gay issue, I couldn't go  home and tell my own family.

14:10:04 They were homophobic, not homophobic in a bad way, but we didn't know and I know firsthand how isolating and lonely, you know that is to be a young, gay person. I know things have changed to a degree, but in terms of education these things aren't talked enough within school, so to get this opportunity to tell a story like this in children's drama, I have to say a massive thank you to Cheryl and everyone at CBBC. If they don't support it and go along with it, then it wouldn't happen.

14:10:31 I have to say I found it very emotional seeing these stories going out on screen last week, not only that but everything around it, the support on news, the presenters after they talked to the audience and it is OK to be yourself and it made me proud to be a part of it and how far we have come.

14:10:46 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Do you think producing a show like this plays a role a little bit, a small role in helping the next generation of kids who are growing up, teenagers who are coming to terms with who they are, they don't have to go through what you have gone through.

14:11:24 >> Shaun Duggan: Absolutely, it is all cliche really, but if people say, if we telling this story, we can help one person not to feel -- let them know they are not on their own it is really worth doing. You mentioned at the intro, I did the lesbian kiss, which is almost 30 years ago now, but to this day, people who are in their 50s or whatever will approach me and when I meet them and you can tell people are in isolated communities with a traditional family.

14:11:34 The impact of seeing that story line on screen and making it feel less alone and that is so powerful.

14:11:54 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Cheryl, does the BBC have a role to play in that sense in trying to reassure people like this program does and let them know they are not alone? How important is it when you're choosing which programs to put on air does that come into play?

14:12:31 >> Cheryl Taylor: Thanks, Alex. It is really important to us.  Obviously, as a public service board, we are there to inform and to entertain and I think we want the children who are watching our shows to feel good about themselves and feel informed. I think it is key. It sets us apart from other broadcasters and listening to Shaun there, such a powerful story that he has told, not just on Jamie Johnson, but to us here this evening.

14:13:02 I think, I don't know how old Shaun is, but he looks younger than someone who wrote brookside 30 years ago. When I was the age of Patrick and Laquarn, I would not have had any role models and it is fantastic that people are able to write these important stories and we very much want to reflect them.

14:13:31 I have to point out it takes a special kind of writer and special performer to achieve what Jamie Johnson has achieved and the whole production team as well. A lot of people have talked about authenticity at the moment and to hear Shaun talk about the story that has woven into a football series.

14:14:06 Jamie Johnson has been around for a long time and to artfully weave that story, in a sense, I don't think any of the fans or viewers would have felt in a sense they were being preached at or lectured, which I think is amazing. I think Patrick has taken us through Dillon's journey in a way that Shaun has given us the story, a coming of age story, someone finding his identity and that is something all kids will be going through. They will all be looking for signals and for help.

14:14:42 It is hard being a kid and hard growing up, so you know, absolutely, I think the BBC is the platform for this type of story, but fair play to these guys. They told it beautifully. I was seeing the comments on Patrick and Laquarn's Insta and there are people saying this is amazing and this is great to seeing this happen. People have written, what an amazing episode of Jamie Johnson. It is such a valuable series.

14:14:49 I'm grateful to Shaun and all of the team for telling the story so beautifully.

14:15:12 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Shaun, how do you write for a teenage and child audience? How do you get insides of the heads of teenagers and people of that age and make it relevant to them? As been mentioned in this call already, you are not a teenager anymore.

14:15:44 >> Shaun Duggan: No, but I thank Cheryl for the comments they am older than you might realize. I have lots of nieces, nephew, firstly, we have all been teenagers so I have been there. But I have nieces and nephews and so many of my friends' children love Jamie Johnson. In the past, for example, I tried to incorporate stories being relevant.

14:15:58 We had Dillon being diabetic in an earlier series because my friend's daughter was diagnosed with type I diabetes and that is where the idea came from, so you draw from all of those experiences.

14:16:10 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Patrick, do you remember the day they came to you with the idea of this story line and how did that feel? It is quite a responsibility, I guess.

14:16:41 >> Patrick Ward: Sure, I do remember the day, actually, before every series, I would meet with Shaun and Anita and talk about the next year and this idea was brought forward. To be honest, while a lot of people may see it as being a surprise, when you look back over Dillon's journey, it made a lot of sense and as playing Dillon, it felt organic and needed in society as well.

14:16:56 Yeah, definitely, I think that is really important as well, I have younger brothers and sisters who fancy the star and to see their response and other people, it has been brilliant.

14:17:20 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: How many barriers do you think there are to breakdown? For example, hopefully, this makes a lot of people feel more comfortable and better about themselves, but realistically, when you went and told your friends about this twist in Dillon's character, were you nervous about the response that you would get? Has that been positive?

14:17:42 >> Patrick Ward: I suppose you are nervous, for me especially with negative feedback, it is more kind of, like what Shaun was talk about earlier, it shows that it is perform that we're doing this story line. When you see negative feedback, which is not a lot of it to be fair, most of it is positive, but I think it is important.

14:18:03 People around me responded very well and my family was very supportive and is very forward thinking. I was proud to be doing it and I didn't care what other people had to say about it negative thinking, because I'm honored to be a part of it.

14:18:13 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Laquarn, how did you feel that? Do you think Jamie Johnson has a unique way of telling a story like this?

14:18:45 >> Laquarn Lewis: Yeah, I think it is unique in terms of the way he told the story, because any story can educate people on coming out and finding your own sexuality, but Jamie Johnson has done this through an industry which seems to be gay in football, especially and they tackled this on one of their main characters and followed the journey of his homophobic past with himself, his younger brother and dad.

14:19:16 He was only sharing the homophobic because that is what he was used to around his family and maybe his football team, you know, so the fact he had to hold it in for so long and hide who he is because of his passion for football. Jamie Johnson told an amazing story and did an amazing job of getting it across and you can be who you want to be no matter what your dreams are.

14:19:49 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: I think it is great that he was not playing into people's stereotypes as well. Some people like to think what they know what a gay person looks like, talks like, walks like, right, Dillon did not fit the stereotypes. Hugo, I don't know if you had the same thing, but when I came out, a lot of people were like, oh, we didn't see that coming necessarily, which is fine but you wish they had known it was coming because it was less of a surprise.

14:20:06 I think the fact that Dillon was not what some people would expect is a great thing for the audience because it makes them think about their own assumptions and prejudices, if you don't mind.

14:20:31 >> Shaun Duggan: I hope you don't mind me jumping, in but it made the story more interesting. The audience had these expectations of Dillon that someone like him wouldn't be gay, so therefore, that makes it more challenging.

14:20:48 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Yeah, absolutely. Did you, Patrick, Laquarn get involved in the story line or were you good boys and did what you were told?

14:21:07 >> Patrick Ward: Well, we rehearsed beforehand, actually in this house, in the next room. Laquarn came with someone we have known for a long time and rehearsed this kind of thing. I think it is very important as well.

14:21:42 >> Laquarn Lewis: He made us do games where we had to get to know each other really well before we shoot the scenes, so the story that we were telling was truthful. We had to do this one task and we had to look at each other and we couldn't smile and we had to keep pushing each other. He did so many games to get us on to a level where our relationship outside of acting could really like grow for our onset acting and I think that helped a lot.

14:22:10 >> Patrick Ward: I was going to say it is interesting because if you look at Dillon when he meets Elliot, it is like when he first sees him. It is like there is something that goes on insides of his brain. He doesn't understand what it is, but there is something and it is new and it happens very quickly, so I think it is important that me and Laquarn were able to understand each other as people and actors beforehand, definitely.

14:22:28 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Absolutely. We touched on this is a little, Cheryl, but outside of this show, generally, do you feel the BBC has a responsibility to put forward stories that represent underrepresented parts of audiences?

14:23:08 >> Cheryl Taylor: Yes, I was just thinking there when Shaun was talking about Patrick having diabetes just using Jamie Johnson as an example and this is one example of one of many, many dramas that we do. The different storylines that people judge as mainly football drama. We covered Jamie's family and kids looking after sick parents, so young carers, we had the homophobia, we had bullying. Just in that one series, you have a set of writers and producers and commissioners

14:23:50 Who intend to broaden the scope to be as inclusive and relevant as many kids as possible. Someone was talking about we know a lot of girls watch Jamie Johnson as well, so across the piece, it is important that all of our brands have a broad appeal. I think, I know I sound like I'm heaping praise on these wonderful creators but because I think they deserve it in this one drama. Secret life of boys, all of these shows on the surface, you can say this is a comedy, this is a drama.

14:24:19 Under beneath of that, every episode addresses these issues and reflects many of the audience's lives as many as possible and giving them tools and strategies to manage their own lives. I do think suggest a scale and a specialty skill and I don't think anyone watching the show would argue that they have done it incredibly well. It is very important.

14:24:44 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: That is it, isn't it? We can talk about sport and football and LBGTQ relationships in a minute, but Jamie Johnson, this story line is a show about football largely, but the story line is not about football. You can be any young more than or older person who doesn't have the courage to come out or the opportunity to come out and see that.

14:24:59 Hopefully, be confident and inspired by it. This is not about football, right, either of you, this is show to reach out to a much, much wider audience.

14:25:27 >> Cheryl Taylor: As I say it is about identities, rites of passage, coming of age and the journey that Dillon goes on, especially the extraordinary scene with his dad, for any kid, you know who is thinking about a difficult conversation that they might want to have, that would have been key. That would have been crucial and the fact that he goes to speak to Jamie. He reaches out to his friends and gets advice.

14:25:51 That is where the beauty of having Elliot there who has gone through this before, who has to some degree come to terms with his identity and that gives lots of information, lots of hope, useful take out for kids who are watching and feeling uncertainty about their own identity.

14:26:23 >> Shaun Duggan: I think that is, if you don't mind me jumping in again, really important because we established in the story that Dillon's family is homophobic. We ran a story where his little brother was kicked out of the club about making homophobic comments about Ruby's foster parents. We have time to establish that, but it felt important when we brought in Elliot's character that he was coming in from a different place.

14:26:37 He was comfortable in who he was. He says on screen that he had been brought up with gay people, so they had different experiences, but learned from each other's experiences.

14:27:03 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Also for parents, too, right? This is not an easy conversation and not always an expected conversation for parents as well. I think is very hard to know sometimes how to react and how not to react and everyone wants to say they want to be understanding with their children, but some parents may get shocked and surprised and don't react in the most helpful ways.

14:27:13 With that scene in particular with Dillon and his dad is a good thing to pin up on the wall, and go, whatever you do, don't do that.

14:27:39 >> Shaun Duggan: Again, in terms of that is such a powerful scene, very difficult to watch and all of the actors played it so brilliant, but there is quite a pit of the series to go, so although Dillon's dad reacted veried badly, he will have his own journey to go on through the rest of the series.

14:28:18 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Hugo, you sat there patiently and calmly and nodding in the right places, so now you get to talk. Hugo works in west ham. He is in the dressing room with players. He is helping them out. He used to work at Southampton, so he works at various football clubs. He understands football. He is a gay man in football. What did you think watching this and do you think football is a different place than other parts of society?

14:28:56 >> Hugo Scheckter: First of all, it struck me how powerful it was and it was jarring from a kids' TV show. I'm not someone who watched Jamie Johnson on a regular basis before, I don't know if I'm supposed to say that. This was my first expectation of the show, watching cartoons with my nephew. Did not know what to expect, but I thought, wow, this is hard hitting and I was jarred by the whole Dillon and his father's scene.

14:29:24 I think it was absolutely fantastic to highlight that. In terms of football, I think it's a different environment in a lot of ways, but negative and positive. I think a lot of people see football as this horrible, you know, macho, alpha-male environment. The changing room is one of the most diverse groups of people you can meet.

14:30:08 We've got on the team, for example, a guy from the republic of Congress go who is friends with a Scottish guy and a Hawaiian guy and you probably don't see that in society on a general basis. I think seeing the role molls come -- models coming out, but you're seeing it in the lockdown, but allies and I think people have spoken openly and eloquently about the importance of the rainbow campaign or openly gay players or role models.

14:30:42 For me, I was in the closet and I came out about two or three years into Southampton. My job is to look after players and the families and I was trying to get the players to trust me without sharing all of myself. Once I did, the relationship was so much closer and even today at lunch, I had a player ask me about my coming out and how I realized and he talked about how he would react if his kids came out.

14:31:14 That is a conversation that you would not expect to be in a changing room or a club and the amount of discussions we had about LBGTQ issues or trans issues, I'm not shaggymane expert, but I'm a resource and I think it is hugely encouraging and it means they are inquisitive people. I think they get a bad rap and I'm 100% sure who came out would be fully accepted in the change room.

14:31:44 Players want you to be a good person and a good player and if you can 10 us stay in the league or other teams' cases, higher up in the league, that is all that matters. It does not matter who you are or what you do in your free time, what religion you are or sexual orientation, it does not matter as long as you're a good person or a good player. I think football gets a worse rap than it deserves at times.

14:32:22 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: I would counter it to be the awkward person to say going to football is the only place I would not hold my husband's hand in public. It is one thing to know what it is like in the dressing room and that is fascinating, it is another thing to walk into a football stadium and the atmosphere and the words that you hear there, whether it is racist stuff, homophobic stuff, football as a sport has a long, long way to go percent. Sports has a long way to go. There are not out

14:32:59 Is not a great place. You say it was Dillon's line in the episode, there is no out -- no out footballer in this country, how can I sort of come out and be successful and that is the crux of that is a big part of the episode, isn't it? It is a really complex question because the worst thing that can happen people endlessly talking about it and the witchhunt of we need gay footballs. Who is the gay footballer?

14:33:14 I think the narrative needs to be a welcoming environment so people feel comfortable and that may take another generation's time.

14:33:53 >> Hugo Scheckter: There are gay women footballers in the west ham. You know what, yeah, I can talk to my experience in the changing room. To be honest, I go to every game we play and I don't hear the negativity. I think there is a lot of discussion in football about this banter and from an outsider's point of view, especially in the change room, it can be seen as negative. The way I felt was the players did not joke about anything, whether it was my sexuality or whatever else,

14:34:20 My hair, my weight, or whatever it is, that means they accept me. If it is like, don't talk about gay stuff that is like they don't accept me. I had players saying can I make a gay joke to you and I say as long as you make it to my face and prepare for me to come back at you and I think that is a little bit of a difference in football environment where other industries it would not be acceptable.

14:34:46 At the end of the day, we are focused of doing one thing, which is winning matches and we have a match tomorrow. We're all focused on that we're not worried about what everyone is doing around that. We're worried about everything is doing everything they can to beat Chelsea or get a point at this point, but it is important that we work together for that one goal.

14:35:06 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Just a quick, not warning as such, advisory, that we will probably start the questions in a few minutes. I can see there are few in there. If you want to ask these lovely, almost interesting people questions, make sure you get them so we can make you as happy as possible.

14:35:18 What is acting like in comparison, Laquarn, Patrick, do you feel that is a welcoming environment for people to be themselves?

14:35:54 >> Laquarn Lewis: Well, I feel like it. Yeah, there is, but there is a lot of discrimination in the acting industry, it is not just football. I feel like, especially with type casting that is very hard in the industry, because if you act or look a certain way then it is most likely you're going to get put for this same character over and over again. It is good to just play something different to yourself and get that opportunity.

14:36:07 It is getting better in the industry, but like I said, I'm happy to play whatever, especially this role right here, because I'm helping so many people, so I'm -- thank you, yeah.

14:36:13 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Have you had people get in touch with you to say it has helped?

14:36:17 >> Laquarn Lewis: You can do this one, Patrick.

14:36:49 >> Patrick Ward: Yeah, yeah, definitely, it has been mostly positive and that is the benefit thing for me is seeing people with a message saying this has helped me come to terms with this or this helped me speak about this and that is all we're trying to achieve and just I'm proud watching the episode because everyone did such a good job. It has been fantastic and see how people have responded in a good way.

14:36:57 There has been some negativity, but a lot of people have taken it positive.

14:37:18 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: One person who is in a great position to explain a little bit more about the reception that this story line has got is Anita. So Anita Burgess, for those who were not here at the beginning of the conversation, Anita. Hello, Anita. Good evening. Nice to see you.

14:37:21 >> Anita Burgess: Hello. Nice to see you, too.

14:37:35 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Anita is the executive producer of the show. You must be absolutely fantastic the repping you have had, I would love to hear from your perspective.

14:38:11 >> Anita Burgess: It has been amazing actually. I'm known as someone who cries a lot and the reception has made me cry a lot even for me. It has been overwhelming. I think as Patrick was saying largely positive. I mean almost entirely positive, the 1% have their other views and that is there and that has to be acknowledged, but I found, I think as what was said, the most moving ones are the positive ones.

14:38:39 People feel for the first time there is something on screen that they recognize themselves in and it helps them and the complements about how the story has been handled and us not talking down to people, that sense of what we're trying to do is empower and educate and get the word out there to help people who are already in this position.

14:38:53 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: How would you not talk down to people? What are things that you can do so it does not come across as patronizing? What are things in your head as a producer to say don't do this?

14:39:30 >> Anita Burgess: We are mindful of the audience and the age they are, so you explain things and make it clear to not -- what you're trying to do is use language that they would understand, but not treat them kind of too young. I think the simplicity of the story comes from truth. It comes from Shaun's experiences.

14:39:44 Making sure the research is as thorough as possible, so we are representing the truth as much as we can, I think it is about that, so don't talk down is just be honest and clear as best we can.

14:40:10 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: That is brilliant. I think it is time we put you to the sharks and answer some questions, really. There are quite a few of them. I'm going to try to do something if I press a button, they might come up on the screen. I'm going to apologize in advance if I get that wrong and someone will tell me if I'm doing this wrong.

14:40:42 So Dillon's storyline has been gripping, someone says. Beautifully written and amazingly active. Lots of compliments. This is best directed to you, Cheryl, of CBC producing a series with younger audiences where being LBGTQ plus being the center of the show? Can you, not target, but get this message to a younger audience?

14:41:13 >> Cheryl Taylor: Thank you for the question. As I was saying earlier, obviously CBC is the preschool channel and we have 6-12, to some degree we're limited to the type of lens we can put on sexuality, obviously, and as I mentioned earlier, a lot around your identity is something that we can explore. It has to be done in a certain way, because we have quite a wide age group.

14:41:47 I think the way this story is played out from 9-12 and above has been perfect, so depending on how someone wrote a story and type of character that they highlighted, I think anything is possible. Our central messages are about tolerance and inclusion and that people should feel OK about being themselves and I think you can get those messages across in many, many different ways, as to say for preschool age.

14:41:54 It would depend on the type of character and how they were portrayed, but essentially, yes, absolutely.

14:41:59 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Since you're talking, you can answer the next question.

14:42:00 >> Cheryl Taylor: Go.

14:42:22 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Shaun might have an opinion as well. How long did it take to develop the idea and were you nervous about it? The person here, he says he produced when Andrew Hayden Smith came out and people were nervous that people like parents would complain. Were you aware of that or, no, we're doing the right thing?

14:42:51 >> Cheryl Taylor: I wasn't nervous, actually, that is partly to do with the team. Again as I mentioned this there are a lot of tricky storylines in Jamie Johnson and our other dramas. Anita, Shaun, everyone is very, very experienced and I knew they would handle it really well and similarly, the commissioning editor, Amy and her team would have explained the storylines with Anita.

14:43:25 That is one part of it and going back to Patrick, Patrick is such a key, key character in Jamie Johnson and he has taken on so many different things, so right from the beginning. I remember Anita telling me Patrick embraced the idea because he felt it was so important. Genuinely, we knew the team, there might have been a few more question marks, but with this team we did not have any anxiety.

14:44:06 Anita and Amy in presentation and talked to the press and introducing it and Patrick introduced it and pushing to news rounds and also on social media kind of making sure there were links there to child life or the other kids that might be watching who were worried and going through new experiences. Across the piece, everyone was so empathetic that it might be a troublesome story line, and they did brilliant work to make sure it was embedded in the right way.

14:44:23 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Brilliant. Shaun, this one is for you. This person is called anonymous attendee, who I don't think is their real name, how important is it for LBGTQ stories to have a happy ending?

14:44:46 >> Shaun Duggan: Incredibly important, as far as I'm concerned. In the past, we have seen so many examples, you know, where there is a tragic ending and to be honest because that is reflected reality, because it has been in the past incredibly hard to be gay in this country. It was only in the 1960's, it was legal to be gay.

14:45:11 In the 80'S, we had the AIDS epidemic and you couldn't discuss being gay in school, so it is only in the past 20 or so years, we have been on this incredible journey and we are in a position now where we can tell these positive stories that reflect real people's lives.

14:45:31 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: I think when you grow up a gay teenager there is a lot of feeling that you won't have all of the things that people laid out for other people. I grew up thinking I'm not going to get married and not have kids and I'm going to be unhappy. Having hope.

14:46:11 >> Shaun Duggan: For me being able to tell it, I talked about being bullied at school. I was 21 before I came out. That ad less scents that most people have, I didn't have. It was stolen from me. It gives me so much hope that young people have the confidence to talk sexuality and build on those.

14:46:45 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: I'm being asked by Christopher, how have your peers responded to you playing this role? Obviously, Laquarn, you mentioned discrimination in industry. Have actors been supportive in what you have done? Lincoln people around me like my friends and family and people who watch have really supported me and and there is nothing far from like myself. Elliot is just like myself.

14:47:19 >> Laquarn Lewis: I -- so my friends have always been supportive, but I chose to wait until I left secondary school to tell them what my sexuality was, because I knew in secondary schools, if you are different in any way shape or form whether that is sexuality, disability, you will be brutalized and it is a horrible thing. I already knew I was going to wait until then. I was worried about my friends and what they would think as well.

14:47:46 When I told them, I have never seen such amazing support of people and doing this right now in the show, they have picked me up so much. They said the bravery it takes to be able to be open about your sexuality and then do this and silt just amazing and I thank everyone around me really.

14:47:51 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Patrick, anything to add or is that an impossible act to follow?

14:48:22 >> Patrick Ward: That is summed up perfectly. A different thing for me, this story line, but everybody around me has been very supportive. There are people I know, to be fair, from school or who you see out who haven't -- made comments, but as a reality, for me, you have conversations about this and able to express and I think it has been already.

14:48:43 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Someone sells asking, when you're doing a story line like this, are you given any help or claiming in terms or warnings about how to deal with the response afterwards on social media? It is hard to know what things are going to be like, right?

14:49:12 >> Laquarn Lewis: Yeah, we have had Zoom sessions with Anita and Shaun and BBC, everyone involved in making Jamie Johnson and particularly, this storyline, they have given us guidelines and a draft response to people who are giving us hate and BBC says we don't respond to this. We have been helped really well.

14:49:50 >> Patrick Ward: I think that is spot on that it has been interesting that I have been doing this for quite a while and I remember being 12 and in a room and talking about social media before I had ever been on TV and people saying, this is -- you're going to have this kind of response and this kind of thing and I remember being mind blown. It now a part of reality on how to respond with these things. I have a strict code of conduct with my social media and mostly what we have had ha fantast

14:50:26 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: There is one question that has been asked more than anything else, so we're going to save it to the end. We're going to go to a tough one and Shaun and Anita, you are probably best place to ask this. Someone said a line that jumped out to me, I think this is in the scene with Dillon and his dad, you are gay or you're not. Should we be telling people that identities aren't binary?

14:50:52 >> Shaun Duggan: I think with that line, you're writing truthfully from Dillon's dad's perspective. He hasn't got this great understand on of the subject and it is the kind of thing that he might say and not everyone is 100% gay. A lot of people are, a lot of people aren't, a lot of people in the middle.

14:51:32 Dillon is actually trying to tell his dad the truth and his dad is making it as difficult as possible for him, so I think I would rather focus on the positive message and the scenes that we have between Dillon and Elliot, where there was so much positive materials spoken about rather than focusing on Dillon's dad, who at this stage is homophobic and ignorant and a bigot, really.

14:52:05 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: This question is from a teacher and she says if she teaches things about homophobia or transgender issues, she gets parents saying she is trying to make them that way and we hear this quite a lot, right? If you tell people about transgender people, you're going to make them transgender. She is asking, have you had any of that or generally people been a lot lovier?

14:52:38 >> Shaun Duggan: If I could just say from my perspective on that, again, talking about what I was saying earlier, from being born to 12-13, I did not see any gay representation on TV I did not know what gay people were. I still became gay. If you go on that lodge you can, I should be an heterosexual, because I should have been inspired by boys and girls, but I wasn't. I still became gay.

14:52:54 You have to be careful when you have the debates, don't you of just having an open mind. At the end of the day, you know instinctively what you are from an a young age.

14:53:23 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Begs the question, if I watch enough "Game of Thrones" will by a weird person and run around with a spear in my hand?  Not sure how that works. This question is for Cheryl from Miriam. She says in children's media, it can be hard to get certain things to air. With this story line, you had to tweak it or limit it in order for it to get to that stage or were you allowed to be fairly free with it?

14:53:57 >> Cheryl Taylor: Thanks for your question, Miriam. I think that goes back to the one we answered earlier, which was, I think the teams, s Anita and Amy and Shaun were looking at getting the story across in an age appropriate way. We is 6-12, so we need to make sure it is age appropriate.

14:54:38 Generally, there are some things I get exercised about, along with Katherine McAllister and I think pat and Laquarn was mentioning and we talked to her if we worried about a story line. Because this one, series five, coming from Shaun's personal experience and a specialty team, I didn't have any concerns about that.

14:55:12 >> Anita Burgess: Can I jump in as well, because I think it is important that people can understand how the producer coming to the BBC with this story, it wasn't something that we thought oh, we're not going to be able to do that. We knew the team would be very willing to talk to us and they did and we had a very in-depth discussion all the way along the line, they were incrediblably supportive of making sure this is age appropriate and the clarity was there, but the truth was there.

14:55:31 I think all credit it to the BBC if there is a perception that there is something you can't do there, that is not the case. There is always a conversation to be had there and they have been enormously supported right from the start.

14:55:50 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Hugo, young footballers coming through as teenagers, do they get a good education in being open minded? I can't remember how much they are in school and how much they are not at school. How do young sports people get taught how to be open minder?

14:56:17 >> Hugo Scheckter: I don't think we teach them to be open minded, I think we teach them a variety of life skills that leads them to being open minds, which was the idea. They are meeting people that they would not have met through their normal lives and I think that is a positive experience, but we also make sure everything we are doing that is appropriate and talk about the social media guidelines that the actors go through.

14:56:43 We go through the same thing, not only in the things they put out, but what they receive and we have had a number of issues with various comments getting to our players and having to deal with that. I think you can't maybe teach -- you can teach open mindness, but that is not our goal. Our goal is to make well-rounded people who are also excellent footballers.

14:57:06 We haven't seen issues in the any of the clubs I worked with where players are not accepting each other or having problems with each other it. Tends to be they competed on a position, where two goalkeepers competing for one position, but not the personality of the major clashes that happens at younger ages.

14:57:25 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: I reckon apart from the one person who is asking if they can play football with Patrick, we have time for two more questions. Laquarn, Patrick, what have you learned from filming these scenes?

14:57:49 >> Patrick Ward: I think a lot. These are the scenes I was looking forward to the most. When you get the scripts, especially the ones, obviously we rehearsed a lot, but I learned a lot as an actor and I am not able to prescription it very well because it is an organic process and try to embed yourself into it.

14:58:01 I like to think of it being modern and I think you learn a lot from this kind of thing, especially as a new actor.

14:58:04 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Laquarn, over to you.

14:58:40 >> Laquarn Lewis: I think it is -- it shows a way of how somebody can cope with coming out and how they deal with telling people and stuff and what I have learned from filming this and getting out there to people is, it doesn't have to be someone on the screen. You can be the person in real life to support your friend. All it takes you to ask them if they are OK and they might all of a sudden tell you that or anything.

14:58:55 If you just support people around you then you know it is something to help them that little bit more to be themselves.

14:59:11 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: So the last question of the night, the question that everyone is asking in this Q&A and we have to ask wow getting in trouble, is Elliot coming back? Who is answering that question?

14:59:28 >> Anita Burgess: I guess that is me, isn't it? We're hopeful. Things are in the process at the moment. Things aren't completely finished yet, but we're hopeful to find a way of continuing it somehow.

14:59:33 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: Laquarn, you're in luck. It is a night to celebrate.

14:59:35 >> Anita Burgess: He might not want to.

14:59:37 >> Laquarn Lewis: I would. I would.

15:00:14 >> Alex Kay-Jelski: There you go. It is a job acceptance live on air. Thank you so much all of you for your time, your questions, your excellent answers. I have enjoyed it and I hope you have as well. There are a lot of people struggling out there, as well, if you know them, I recommend the charities, it takes so much work to help people in relation to storylines like this, absolutely massive.

[checkdispleased]

re. ep. 21 on Lardo, what are your thoughts on the idea that Lardo's haircut/ art student vibe, is sort of trading on the visual cues/ imagery of queerness, to provide an illusion or semblance of queer rep, while not actually doing the work to write an actually queer character? You guys have touched on N using a sort of visual/generic shorthand in her characterization in other areas, but the mentioning the Ollie/Wicks thing got me thinking again about how few canonical queer characters are 1/2

2/2 are in the majority of the comic, for a comic supposedly all about queer rep. [it kinda reminds of that author of the wizard books and her word of god gay character after the fact, though i don't think N is doing it to nearly the same degree], but i can't help but see similarities in how cultural cues are used to a nod to representation that's not actually treated as canon by the text itself.

I just deleted a whole stupid Harry Potter essay and will instead say this: I was about to say we found out Dumbledore was gay 15 years before OMGCP even started, and then I remembered I’m an idiot who can’t do math. Still, not that I think JKR needs or deserves the very meager fairness I’m about to lend her right now, but, one difference between that series and this comic is, Harry Potter is not about queer experience, and it never claimed to be, and it wasn’t de rigueur for YA book series to feature any LGBT characters necessarily over the period when it was begin published. Check Please is supposedly about that exact topic! And it was created and presented in a space -- specifically the slash fandom subculture on Tumblr, in 2013, working on the vernacular of webcomics -- where the expectation of queer content was de rigueur. In addition to the fact that I got into the comic because I had heard Jack and Bitty got together, this is maybe why I diverge from @tomatowrites​‘ uncertainty that they would get together: this was being created from and presented in the space where that was exactly what would happen.

To be also fair to Ngozi, I guess the comic never really positioned itself as speaking to LGBT experiences other than Bitty’s. Still, he says he’s come to Samwell because of the breadth of its queer community? I think, through the lens of the comic alone, what he must have meant was that he wanted to be in a place where he could be openly gay to find a boyfriend, not that he wanted to like, have LGBT friends broadly speaking. One interesting thing about the Y4 Tweets, which I have only ever seen in the chirpbook, is that it is established that Bitty, uh, addresses one of the most pointed criticisms of Check Please:

“ducksducksducksducks,” I’m entirely sure based on other Tweets in here, is Lardo.

Hey, this is loooong.

This is SO confusing because it’s like, Lardo’s not a lesbian ... probably? She’s very into Shitty? They live together? Like sharing-a-bedroom live together? There is nothing in the physical comic, or anywhere else that I’m aware of, period, where it’s implied that she’s into women at all, beside the fact that she’s got short hair for a while? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think these were ever tweeted; I think they were written to go in the chirpbook. So it’s tough to know, in a Watsonian sense, what precisely Bitty is responding to, or if he’s responding at all. There’s no context for this. Like much of the comic, it’s just there, implying some things broadly while also addressing a major criticism of the text (that Bitty has no gay friends) without actually examining it within the text itself. Confusing!

I’m not sure what was originally intended in regard to Lardo. (Would love to hear Tomato weigh in on this, if she has time.) It could be as straightforward as, some people at art school look like this. It would be absurd to code a character as queer and then do nothing to establish them as queer in your queer webcomic, of course. Anyone who understands the potential gain of having people think Lardo is not cishet must also understand the potential cost of not just making it canon?

Part of the essay I started writing about Harry Potter up there was to say that, of course, fuck JKR, but also, I think people are making a very 2020-based criticism of the “Dumbledore is gay” reveal, which happened in 2007, concerning a book series that was written starting in the mid-1990s. Not that nobody was ever gay in mainstream media before Check Please, but I do think it’s possible that as popular as those books were, and as powerful as the author was, she may actually have felt she couldn’t put that in there? At the time, I felt like it was a cheap nod to an obviously huge slash fandom -- but now I actually kinda feel like, okay, maybe it was a cheap nod to her obviously huge slash fandom and also she genuinely didn’t think she could have it in there? The very conservative principle of universally legal gay marriage still felt, at the time, like a distant prospect. My goal in thinking this through isn’t to say it’s okay because it happened in ~the past~ when things were less socially just, but rather, to try to explore the thinking that must have gone on around these decisions.

Which leads me, finally, to the actual point of this post: conceiving of Lardo, and OMGCP, in 2013, Ngozi was coming from a slash fandom perspective that largely held these two beliefs:

It is unrealistic for a story to have more LGBT characters than the main pairing; 10 percent of people are gay so if a friend group has more than one or two gay people in it, that’s submitting to some kind of slash-brain internet logic that can’t hold; and

Just as it is homophobic to presume that gay people are or have to be any particular way, it is similarly problematic to presume someone is queer just because they look or act any particular way

The first one is really rooted in fanfics where an entire cast of characters who aren’t gay in canon are suddenly gay in fanfic; this is presumably not a problem for OMGCP because OMGCP is not actually a fanfic. But it is heavily influenced by fanfic; it functionally works as a fanfic ahout two characters named Jack and Bitty who just happen to have also originated within the fanfic. But the comic’s initial readership is going to be people whose interests cross with fandom, because Ngozi is a prominent fan artist so her audience is gonna be that! So you can kind of feel why maybe Bitty is the only gay in the cast until it turns out Jack magically (??) is also.

Which brings us to Lardo: she looks like someone you would think is into women? But I think she was potentially designed as an example of a character who seems gay but isn’t, because it is not okay to presume things about people based on how they look. This is pretty complicated because, well, yes, in general there’s a saying about not judging books by their covers because that level of superficiality perpetuates harmful biases. At the same time, people do judge just about everything by their appearances regardless of whether it’s superficial or not, and so most people know this and use their own appearances to construct their own identities, that is, try to tell people how they want to be read. It’s very 90s-2000s to assert that it’s wrong to make assumptions about whether someone is gay based on appearances, and you can understand why: normalizing gender non-conformity was and is an important project, but until recently the only way to do that was to do it from a position of insisting cishet people could be gender non-conforming. Of course, looking back, this feels like an insane supposition because of course there is a gay aesthetic, or gay aesthetics? Of course queer people have always looked and acted certain ways to try to subtly identify for the purpose of finding fellow travelers?

If I recall correctly, this came up in fanfics a lot, where you’d have one character who is the straightest man making jokes about how much he loved to suck dick, or whatever. And maybe, maybe, some of this lingers in Lardo. I’m thinking mostly of how Kenny was used in South Park fics, but also, come to think of it, Butters, who doesn’t so much crack jokes but he does seem pretty gay, if you take soft-spoken weak-willed effete boys to be gay, which, of course you do. We all do, sometimes. (There’s also an episode about him cross-dressing.)

But what’s even more striking is that there’s already a character who embodies this particular trope in Check, Please: Shitty. He’s theatrical (flamboyant?), he’s writing his senior thesis on the homoeroticism of hockey, and in a very brief (very badly written) ficlet from the back of Huddle Vol. 1, he checks out Jack’s body in the lockeroom and tells Jack he’s a “Greek god.” When Jack says, “That’s so gay,” Shitty responds with, “Welcome to fucking Samwell. Sometimes dudes will tell you you’re hot without even saying ‘no homo’ afterwards.” So we’ve got Jack, who is gay, telling Shitty it’s gay to admire another man’s body as he reddens and is visibly uncomfortable, while Shitty, who is straight, acts like it is somehow normal for all men to be attracted to other men without it being much of an issue for him personally or society broadly. This is not to say that you can’t find these attitudes reflected in the real world; Jack, who’s closeted, obviously has reasons to posture like this, or be uncomfortable with another man complimenting his appearance. But paired with Shitty’s comments the comic is engineering a reversal that claims it’s not inherently gay when a man is attracted to the body of another man -- except, it is? It’s a fiction that serves a kind of post-post-modern post-queer theory pop cultural attitude that I think, in 2020, we’ve moved on from. Underneath Shitty’s posturing is the sad truth that it’s a straight man, particularly a man like Shitty, whose comments on other men’s bodies would be tolerated; it’s unlikely that this is something Bitty (or Jack) would feel it was socially acceptable for him to say. Shitty’s working here as a type.

An I think it’s not a coincidence that he’s paired with Lardo within this story? She is similarly gender-transgressing; beyond having short hair she is characterized as a “bro” (an inherently male-coded performance) and crushes at beer pong and belches on her opponents. Not in the comic, obviously, but we’re told she does -- maybe kind of like Shitty only finds Jack hot off-page? (When he’s not lounging naked in Jack’s bed--again, something that Jack is uncomfortable with, but if a gay man did this, it would certainly be a problem.) I think these are all jokes that are very of their time for fannish texts in the period leading up to when this comic was started.

Again, nothing is impeding Ngozi from putting a female-identifying character who’s attracted to women into her markedly LGBT webcomic in 2014. I think it’s more than likely that if Lardo were meant to be queer, it’d be in there, somewhere. Or, rather, I think if it were an intended reading from start, it would have been in there. Or it would have been in a Tweet. In an extra. In an FAQ. On the Patreon blog. Mentioned in a Livestream. Somewhere? But where we get one incredibly disconnected hint that she might be, it’s in a Kickstarter-backed volume of post-canon content in a way that ties into the actual story or Lardo’s nonexistent interior life not at all. It’s not a story about her--but that’s the point? It’s not a story about her. If it were meant to be a story about a friend group, how would this particular detail not be enriching? When Lardo notices Bitty fretting over Jack’s game in the library, doesn’t the moment have more weight if she can empathize with even slightly more incision?

And like, you can say a lot of things about JKR, and the politics of gender and sexuality within her books was always bad, so this isn’t giving her, like, credit. But you can totally see how using cultural cues might have been all she felt she was able to do in the 1990s and early 2000s, yes, even as one of the most powerful authors working at the time. This doesn’t mean she shouldn’t have done more, or that her bad views are actually understandable, see. (I mean, they’re perfectly understandable, also abhorrent.) 

Ngozi is making a fucking gay webcomic for a gay readership on Tumblr in 2013-2020. She had no reason to use cultural cues to hint broadly unless she wanted credit for something she felt she couldn’t represent (which makes no sense, see previous sentence; entire essay) or Lardo was never intended to be anything other than a cis straight woman -- which is a fine thing to be, by the way, nothing against cis straight women? It’s just that like, this comic got a lot of flack from an internal crowd of complainers, myself included, about the things it didn’t do -- and one big thing it neglected to do was introduce meaningful relationships with other LGBT characters for Bitty. So I think that Chirpbook shit is just a late-in-the-day retcon for virtually nobody.

But this is a conspiracy theory so like, take it with a grain of salt.

[sol1056]

if you promise peaches, deliver peaches.

After S7, the asks have been piling up. A few examples:

I was so confused in ep4 when Acxa disappeared, I thought she’d stuck with the team after ep3 and maybe I just missed the scene where she left, but others have brought that up, too.

Funny how the majority of the problems in s7 are because they tried to force BP Keith to the detriment of the story, and ironically, Keith's story, too.

I thought Lance’s family reunion would be much more emotional and be a part of his arc, since he was the most homesick, but then they gave that to Hunk?

Shiro got tossed aside in the most ableist, racist, and homophobic way, and Allura could have had a cool storyline mixing her paladinship and her castle storyline with a new altean mecha, instead of Shiro becoming a bad Allura 2.0 and Keith becoming a bad Shiro 2.0.

Srsly tho, am I the only one who finds it extremely bothering that in writing Allura and Lance they don't bother to show Allura coming to view Lance in a romantic light after her breakup?

Why even bother in S6 to make such a big deal of Shiro/Kuron saying his dream is to be a paladin over and over? Until he was revealed a clone some of us thought he was Shiro, so it's even harder to accept Shiro not being BP anymore.

The EPs seem to be so stuck in their initial idea and salty they couldn’t do it exactly as they want that they just ignore the story itself?

The EPs have spoken of being determined to get the VLD gig out of fear it’d be given to someone who'd wreck the story. That's understandable, but we're talking about a 78-episode, six-season, space opera mecha series. This genre practically demands a sprawling world and a massive cast, and it's far beyond the scope of anything either JDS or LM have ever helmed on their own. 

My guess is that JDS and LM didn’t realize the enormity of what they were taking on, or they (and their bosses) seriously underestimated the degree to which they were wholly unprepared.

Behind the cut: what I meant when I said these EPs are not storytellers.

I’m not surprised the EPs over-estimated their skill, really. People will look at a creative process like art –- where you often start young, practice daily, maybe study it formally, apprentice or intern (especially in animation), and gradually work your way up -- and they see the effort. They know it wasn’t an overnight thing. 

Too often, the very same people won’t accord that respect to the art of storytelling. It’s treated like divine inspiration, something that just happens. We’ve been hearing and reading and watching stories all our lives; how hard can it be to do it ourselves?

It’s goddamn hard, is what it is. I would love to tell you otherwise, but that’s the truth. You can rock your dialogue but you gotta track character goals, too. Complicated backstories only get you so far if you don’t understand how to modulate tension. You can have a great premise but you still gotta resolve the damn thing. A story has a hundred moving parts; scale up to a space opera’s necessary levels of epic and we’re talking exponentially more.

In my experience, the hardest part of storytelling — not the technical aspects of writing, but the art of storytelling — is holding the shape of the story in your head. The entire thing, all at once. You have to, if you’re to see how a choice at this point will echo down the line, or a motif laid here should reflect there, how the theme shifts but stays true from start to end, how these secondary arcs weave together to undergird the main arc.

I’d say a lot of what we learn in our first few novels is how to see — and hold —the story’s shape in our head. I’m not talking dialogue or voice acting or choreography. I’m talking about the overall shape, the vision and theme it establishes, evolves, and eventually resolves.

If we cannot, we will find our stories promise peaches and deliver pine cones.

Looking back, there are too many clues --- almost all given by the EPs themselves --- that they didn't have the experience to do this story justice. What they did have was a certainty that their vision was the best, an inability to deviate from that one story they'd devised, and a continual low-grade frustration at being held back.

Let's go back to the beginning. S1 starts a little rocky (to be expected as a team finds its groove), but S2 builds on S1 quite deftly. It’s not perfect, but in a storytelling sense, it’s the strongest season, and it's much too self-assured to be a beginner’s. It moves swiftly but steadily to a pivotal midpoint, and from there snowballs gracefully into its finale; it balances nuanced characterization with plot movement, and its opening promises bear fruit by the end.

In those earliest interviews and panels, the EPs are often casually vague about basic details, like character ages or relationships. At least twice their answers change, giving the impression they hadn't known and had needed to confirm with someone else. Generally, though, they're low-key and hopeful, possibly leaning on the borrowed confidence of that other storyteller’s influence.

By S3/S4, their tone shifts to a peculiar kind of non-ownership. They joke about having no idea what's going on, tossing out guesses as though they'd be the last to know. They offer head canons, rather than insight. They wear their frustration openly, alluding to the story they'd wanted, chafing at what had been decided for them.

As the story moved into the split-seasons, it's clear that whomever lent that guiding hand in S1/S2 was no longer present. Someone else’s fingerprints are on S3, and my guess is it’s mostly Hedrick, at least on the script-level. The word choices change, the cadences change, the beats change. From S3 on, VLD has all the hallmarks of a muddy vision. 

You can see that in the story’s shape. It holds together, but barely. It darts forward, then sideways, then treads water for a bit. It’s erratically paced, dropping plot points and introducing new ones, only to drop those as well. It can’t settle on a driving antagonist, and when it finally does, it can't keep the antagonist’s goal consistent. It sacrifices nuance for one-note characterization, and shoves most substantiative character growth off-screen.

This continues to S6, which generally continues the focus on plot coupons over character goals, exposition at the cost of emotional beats, and neglecting established characters to introduce left-field swerves in the guise of plot twists. On the plus side, it does manage to rally enough to end its multi-season prevarication, and put to bed questions hanging around since late S3.

It's worth noting that both EPs have only a single writing credit each, for the pilot three-parter. That makes it doubly striking that JDS chose to write the Black Paladins episode. After the season aired, JDS complained in passing about rewrites on his episode. If that seems odd, remember that an EP has final approval on every script. If it bothered him to have his ideas rejected in favor of keeping Shiro, it must've burned to have his writing choices countermanded.

From the timing and the episode credits, this must've been around when Tim Hedrick left the team --- and the EPs took full ownership. 

It shows in their post-S6 interviews. Gone are the ambiguous expressions or vague promises of doing their best. Their wording is declarative: what Kuron had been, what Shiro would be, the resolution of Shiro’s illness, the nature of Shiro’s past relationship. None is equivocated, nor couched as head canons. They’ve taken control of the narrative, and their interpretation is now the deciding one.

This change was important enough to them that they had to make sure we’re aware. There’s simply no other reason to tell us S7 had been written in its entirety, let alone tell us the original outcome. Nor is there any other reason to tell us they petitioned for — and got — permission to rewrite.

When I look at S7 with my writer’s hat on, everything tells me this is where the brakes came off. With Hedrick’s departure, there was no one left but the EPs themselves to steer the story. By whatever means, for whatever reason, VLD went from a crafted vision, to a conflicted one, to none at all.

Set aside the larger controversies for a moment, and just think about the shape of S7. It’s almost three seasons in one: the first part skips from event to event, then abruptly timeskips to reset the entire playing field. That second part in turn is divided from the last half by a two-parter that halts momentum for an overlong flashback with an entirely new cast, followed by a finale that mostly backseats its protagonists in favor of letting that new cast dominate.

There’s a common pattern in the way beginner writers react to critique, and I see that all over the EPs’s responses, from the beginning. It’s only grown worse since S6. They can’t quite juggle the story they think they’re telling versus the story they’re actually telling.

I’ve had these conversations too many times to count. I ask, how did this character get from here to there? The newbie storyteller is quick to explain, usually in great detail. I ask, but then why did this happen? The more I dig, the greater the chance the newbie will get angry that I don’t seem to be reading the story they’re so obviously telling. If I keep pushing, they’ll get defensive.

They’ll confidently assure me this is exactly the story they’d intended to tell, and if I don’t like it, that’s my problem. (They may not be able to hold the shape in their head, but they’ve probably already taken to heart the adage that one must stay true to one’s ‘artistic’ vision. The part about listening to critique even when it’s uncomfortable… that takes a bit longer to learn.)

My reaction almost always boils down to: you’re telling me this amazing story, but that’s not the story you’ve actually written.

Sometimes the best description of the shape of a newbie’s story is that of a house after a tornado’s swept through: the front door is on the chimney, the roof is half-off, and the windows are shattered in the front yard. Most of the pieces are there, but it’s all so jumbled the newbie storyteller can’t see what’s missing. They can’t hold the shape of the story in their head, so even when they know here’s where something goes, they’re too overwhelmed to remember the door they need is still on the chimney.

An epic story is no cakewalk, and boy do I give credit for that effort, but it’s one thing to learn by noodling in a fandom on AO3. It’s quite another to do it at the scale of a television series, let alone one with the expected scope of a space opera spanning galaxies. This is not the place to learn as you go.

Here’s why the shape of the story — and holding that in your head — is so important. 

Think of a story’s resolution like a fresh peach. You want the reader to bite into the peach as the culmination of everything the story has been, from start to end. But you don’t get a peach by planting pine trees. You must start with the proper seeds, and make sure what grows is a peach tree, such that your final act bears the right fruit.

I touched on this before with the promise of the premise. Themes, backstories, world-building, and motifs are facets of the seeds planted in the first act. Everything you need to resolve the story must be present when the story begins; that’s where your premise lies, and your promises are made. 

Through the entire second act, the tree must grow. The storyteller’s task is to trim as needed, bind this to that, shore up the roots, add water and nurture: this is where the theme expands, the foreshadowing laid, the questions reveal answers that lead to further questions, narrowing the outcome, each outlining the tree’s shape in sharper detail.

By the time the story turns the corner into the third act, the readers should be reasonably certain they’re going to get a peach tree. This is not a bad thing! You want them looking forward to plucking the peach and enjoying it. You want everything planted at story-beginning to come to fruition, at story-end.

That is why you must hold the shape — the vision — in your head, always checking against where you began and where you plan to end. You cannot throw out the entire tree at the end of the second act and start over; if you ignore the fruit your story is producing and insist on serving up pine cones, you’re going to have confused and possibly angry readers.

You promised them peaches, damn it.

The story is now midway through the third act. Everything planted in the previous seasons must now be coming to fruition… but it won’t. The EPs are openly (even proudly) reversing course on everything that’s come before. That means directly violating every motif, every thematic element, every bit of foreshadowing in word, image, or sound.

And at the same time, the story’s scope is simply too vast, and they haven’t the experience to juggle all the thousands of moving parts. The result is the most slapdash season, yet. Characters simply drop out of sight, only to reappear again with no warning. Themes and motifs built up over so many episodes are tossed aside as if they mean nothing.

The hand-to-hand fights are visually striking — the EPs’ strengths are in storyboarding, after all — but emotionally hollow, bereft of dialogue that could finally give us closure. Characters that would’ve once spoken openly with each other barely exchange a word; character-distinct dialogue is uttered by someone else, as though the VAs mixed up the scripts in the recording booth.

To achieve the emotional heft required for a meaningful resolution, there must be echoes of the story’s beginning. But when the beginning is negated—underscored by a timeskip that resets the entire playing field—there’s nothing to refer back to. The events now are happening in a void, divorced from the themes and motifs that created the emotional context in the first place.

This is by design; the EPs’ vision has never matched with the story as it was told to this point. They can’t go back, so they’ve rebooted. Once with the timeskip, and again with a two-parter episode that introduces new characters that can be entirely their own. Compared to the protagonists, these secondary characters have been lavished with attention to the point of overload: full names, backstories, designs. All of of that, and the time required to introduce them is to the detriment of the actual protagonists.

Whatever story VLD ostensibly set out to tell, that story is gone, now.

This is no longer a matter of losing track of the story, such that the promised peaches have transmuted into pine trees. We passed that point somewhere in S6. The EPs have burnt down the orchard to plant new seeds, while doing their best to ignore the charred stump of the story we'd been promised.

I would've preferred peaches, myself. That was the story I was promised, and that was the fruit I expected from everything I saw onscreen. But now? 

I hope you like carrots.

[gaarfielf]

Not to be that guy but here’s an analysis on LGBT characters/rep in the lupin iii universe nobody asked for. I’m gonna cover Twilight Gemini, Harimou’s Treasure, Angel Tactics, TWCFM, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 5

Twilight Gemini is arguably one of the least popular films of the series pretty much based on the fact it’s just not a good movie. But this ain’t a movie review that’s just the facts. Anyway the villain’s henchman, Sadachiyo, is gay and the movie does not skirt around it at all. Lupin makes several “jokes” about the character being gay and the character is written to be very perverted and evil (obviously because he’s a henchman) but nonetheless very stereotypical to downright offensive (his character wearing lipstick is a little uh). Ultimately, Goemon returns at the very ass-end of the film to stab him directly in the chest and that’s where that story ends. Now, there isn’t much to say about this character because he really was only around for Lupin to make jokes that weren’t funny before dying. Gotta love them yep huh /eye roll/

Harimou’s Treasure gave us the double whammy of not only a bad joke against intersex people and trans women, but also a nazi joke! hooray. The film uses a slur that some may argue “wasn’t a slur back then” but nonetheless leaves the film to have aged terribly. The character...../sighs/ Herr Maphrodite /SIGHS LOUDER/, is once again a huge offensive stereotype and coincidentally, another villain. By the end of the film Fujiko manages to take him down by.... kissing him.... and he’s so repulsed.... that they just... win somehow. It’s really just an unpleasant scene. But luckily the film isn’t hugely popular (in comparison to Secret of Mamo, Cagliostro, Fuma, etc).

Angel Tactics threw in a new idea with a bisexual woman........... who is also a villain. Detecting a pattern yet? Her name is Lady Joe /HUGE SIGH/ and she is shown to be pretty masculine which there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with until you consider that TMS might have argued otherwise, but the film eventually reveals her “true form” (???) where she’s actually really perverted and her outfit changes to be very revealing and “sexy” (TMS wouldn’t know sexy if it bit em in the ass tbh). It’s almost as if TMS associates being gay with being evil and perverted? Wild.

TWCFM is a split audience in this aspect, with a gay character that some believe is pretty accurate representation and others believe is just another TMS classic gay stereotype. Personally speaking, the fact that Oscar was designed to look like a woman (the same head shape, wide hips and skinny body as Fujiko) and also being notably... /excited/ around Zenigata, I disliked the representation. However, other people (gay people specifically b/c why would I ask straight people how they felt about him lol) believe that he’s actually really speaking to them as a gay character. I mention this because I didn’t personally finish TWCFM so I don’t wanna throw him under the bus as a character, but I will say, he is still a villain in the series as made apparent by his strict hate for Fujiko (presumably out of jealousy).

Part 2 gave us a fast one with the Rose of Versailles episode. It was a crossover episode between the two series and TMS decided to do a very interesting take on it where Lupin literally falls in love with a character disguised as a man. In the episode it’s very apparent he has no idea that the character he’s in love with is actually a woman and actually convinces Jigen and Goemon later that it’s not a big deal. Jigen and Goemon by the by, are not cool with their relationship but eventually grow more neutral about it as the episode progresses. Speaking bluntly, this episode is a very wild outlier in Part 2 as an episode which literally outright confirms Lupin as bisexual (or pan, or any degree of not-straight that tickles your fancy). However, it’s often not acknowledged for ??? reasons. Alongside this in Part 2, there is another episode Lupin disguises himself as a woman to seduce a man for his money, only to find that after revealing himself that the man... doesn’t care. They get married in the episode. I don’t know how this goes over peoples head. Granted, Lupin was in it for the money but I think Lupin of all people could’ve come up with a different plan if he really didn’t want to legally marry a man.

Part 3 also gave us something new with various episodes that imply Jigen might swing that way too. Bear with me here but Part 3 delivers /a lot/ of secluded scenes with Jigen outwardly upset that Lupin ditched him for a woman. Scenes where he looks away from women that Lupin are talking to/about, scenes where he leaves the room when there’s women, scenes where he refuses to look at Lupin when he’s with a woman and just generally more outwardly not interested in women compared to previous Parts where he more-or-less ignores them. Previous Parts, Jigen might not be crazy about women but there isn’t really as many strong visuals as their are in part 3 that suggest he’s explicitly attracted to men (though there are scenes in Part 1 and 2 where he quite literally goes into hysterics over Lupin, thinking he’s dead, though take it as you will). Speaking of more visuals surrounding Jigen specifically related to being gay, I’ll bring up the obvious one being the classic Play Bohz scene, where Jigen is very visibly reading a muscle magazine (a kind of magazine that was specifically popular among gay men in the 80s as a more ‘discreet’ way of essentially reading filth) and I mean. That’s pretty concrete. But there’s also other nods to it like him and Lupin smoking under a billboard with two men kissing on it, Jigen telling Goemon he looks cute in women’s clothing, etc. Part 4 even gives us Fujiko implying that Jigen is jealous at Lupin and Rebecca’s wedding which Jigen.... doesn’t respond to.

Part 5 is where TMS reverts back to its old ways. Actually it’s new ways because part 2 and 3 were the 70s and 80s and all these outwardly homophobic movies happened in the late 90s through the 2000s. But nonetheless we get....another... gay.... villain. hooray. again. His name is Albert in case you haven’t watched it yet. Not only that but he is mentioned offhandedly to be gay in one (1) episode before it’s never mentioned again (not exactly what I’d call representation) and the series also doesn’t shy away from gay jokes that purposely make fun of fans for shipping the characters and just in general make fun of gay people. TMS, it’s 2018, can we stop making gay jokes? They aren’t funny. Zenigata pulling his gun on Lupin for making the joke wasn’t funny, Jigen attempting to kick Lupin’s phone out of his hands wasn’t funny, and even the article claiming they were dating wasn’t very funny because it was deadass a joke made at the expense of fans. A wacky gay joke accompanied with hating your fans is a funny way of writing, huh?

In conclusion, why is it that the 70s and 80s somehow handled hinting at these supposed “controversial topics” better than it was in movies made in the 2000s and then rinsed and repeated again in the year 20 fucking 18. I think if Part 2 can have an episode where Lupin deadass flirts and falls in love with a man, Part 5 should have been capable of not writing homophobic characters. and thats the hot but true take of the day.

NOTE: if y’all try to message me to argue keep in mind 1) theres literally nothing straight about Lupin falling in love with a man and Jigen reading a muscle magazine literally known to target gay men and 2) theres nothing you can do to convince me otherwise so you best be ready to swallow that pill and 3) Don’t @ me with ‘bUT lUPIN lIKES wOMAN’ because yeah. no shit. read up on what being bi means before opening your mouth.

[dgcatanisiri]

Oh for...

How did I not connect that sooner?

‘Kay, so I’ve often been over the fact that I don’t particularly care for Dorian as a character and am frustrated with him as a portrayal of a queer narrative because it not only felt intrusive on what I use as an escape from the homophobia of the world I live in (not having felt homophobia having a place in Thedas beyond little bits that stem more from the out-of-universe-writers not being able to separate themselves from the homophobic society we all exist in), but also just reduces him to a prop for the growth, development, and sympathy of his homophobic father. Even have had this whole thing about how Felix would have made for a better case of representation, a better choice as a companion, and a better choice as the face of “redeeming Tevinter,” because him being a non-mage in a society that values magic makes a metaphor for homosexuality that makes it obvious but is also not as in-your-face an anvil.

There’s also the inevitable AIDS metaphor, given his Blight sickness. 

Which, I suppose, comes with its own cultural baggage, with how, given the time that AIDS was considered “the gay cancer,” makes it something that would probably be considered by some a little questionable. Y’know, there are certainly a lot of AIDS narratives built around “Hello, I am gay, I have AIDS, I am dying, and I will impart upon you A Moral and Lesson™ for you to learn from, before tragically dying.” Still, I think it would also have been a chance to SUBVERT that narrative that says that AIDS has to be a death sentence - Inquisition released in the same year that How To Get Away With Murder premiered, and that first season diagnosed Oliver with HIV, which continued to be a thing throughout the series, but he got to live a full life with the HIV controlled because we have PrEP now, without that overtaking the whole of his character, giving him things to do that weren’t focused on his illness, as well as showing that he and his boyfriend still had an active sex life together after starting PrEP. 

Finding a way to treat Felix’s Blight sickness would have had a similar narrative, of arguing that this doesn’t have to be a death sentence, all while keeping it couched in the established world-building elements, rather than intrusively introducing massive societal homophobia in the third game of a series that had never brought it up to any significant degree before, even though if it was meant to be this thing, it should have, considering that Fenris is an escaped slave from Tevinter, who can get in to a relationship with Hawke (who is a rising noble - bring up how in Tevinter, gay men are expected to have their relationships with women and just use and discard their slaves, particularly the elven ones, to “get out their URGES.”), who is in a rivalry with a mage who idealizes Tevinter while having had blatant affections for a male character - not just Hawke (whose gender is variable), but also Karl (which, y’know, insert separate rant about cutting out the reference to Karl as Anders’s first time if Hawke is female, but...). Like, these are VERY obvious ways to introduce this ahead of time. That they don’t says that this wasn’t a THING until writing Dorian, which does not mesh well with the rest of the franchise, where as far back as the Cousland origin in the first game would have the noble family not bat an eyelash at hearing that the future Warden has someone of the same sex waiting for them in their bedroom, with Fergus even joking about it in front of their parents and his wife and young child. Like, argue “Tevinter is a different nation and society” if you want, but again, Fenris, who is from Tevinter, never brings this up, despite having ample opportunity to.

Y’know, it’s like how on Deep Space Nine, the Trill Reassociation taboo is obviously metaphored as standing in for homophobia, but it keeps it in the context of the universe, never making a point in the episode this is brought up in featuring two women in a relationship that it is about two women, just that these two people are doing something taboo for their society, while, because we the audience are seeing that dynamic, the metaphor is obvious without hitting you over the head with it. 

Kind of a subtlety that I’d prefer over the anvil that is “homophobia is bad” that Dorian has as is.

Maybe this goes back to the BioWare writer generation gap I’ve brought up before, where writers like David Gaider and Patrick Weekes (Gaider being the one who did the majority writing with Dorian, Weekes because I saw them being one of those who spoke loudest about being moved by Dorian’s story) are queer people who would have come of age in the height of the AIDS crisis, would sooner avoid that topic and those stories. I don’t know, I wasn’t in those offices at the time, can’t speak to what was going through their minds.

Still, I feel like this would have been something that I would feel happier with, rather than Dorian, who, as a character, frustrates me to the point that I do not recruit him into my Inquisition anymore. Like, yeah, maybe the tale of the dying, suffering, too-good-for-this-sinful-world gay has its own baggage, but... It’s also a story that very clearly centers itself on the character himself. Considering that I feel like the writing of Dorian features him being played more as either a prop for the development of the straight supporting characters (his father in particular) or the sassy gay BFF for the female Inquisitor, at least that would be a point more in Felix’s favor, that he would feel like he’s there, first and foremost, for the gay men in the audience, because of things centering on him and how he is handling things.