#you are not allowed to speak on how killing queer characters is homophobic | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

onbearfeet · 9 months ago

Text

Queerwolf By Night: Queercoding, Media Literacy, and Werewolf By Night (part 2)

Welcome back to Media Studies And Writing Hacks With Kat! Part 1 is here if you missed it. We discussed queercoding: what it is, how it works, why it exists, and how it plays into the 1930s and 40s horror movies Werewolf By Night likes to reference.

Once again, the thesis I'm arguing here is that there is queercoding in WBN, and that it should be part of the discussion of the special (which I'm calling a movie or film because I think "special presentation" is dumb and this is my essay.) I am NOT arguing that WBN is explicitly queer, or that inferring heterosexuality where queercoding exists is morally wrong or even textually inaccurate.

TL;DR: you can totally still ship Jack and Elsa, I just wanna point at some metaphorical rainbows and say, "Look! Rainbows! Aren't they neat?" I personally think the queercoding adds a layer of richness to the story. I hope you get something out of it, too.

And now, allow me to introduce our starting point, the wolfman of the hour, everyone's beloved blorbo and queercoded icon: Jack Russell.

Look at this adorable protagonist, this absolute chewtoy of a human being.

He's queercoded as fuck. Not as much as Ted, but we will GET to Ted.

Let's begin with Jack's introduction, where he is literally revealed as the narrator speaks the phrase "the monster who finds himself among them". We join Jack as he enters an unknowingly hostile space, a building full of people who would literally mount his head on the wall if they knew who and what he really was. Jack's introduction to this world is a series of Bayeux-style tapestries showing, among other things, the gory slaughter of his kind. We see him react with a mixture of shock, queasiness, and tamped-down anxiety, which marks him as an outsider. It seems unlikely that the other hunters would be grossed out by the sight of a depiction of their literal jobs.

Now, outsider status alone isn't necessarily queercoding, but it often is, especially in monster movies. Jack's reaction is not dissimilar to that of a closeted person entering a homophobic church for some kind of socially expected ritual--and, indeed, Jack has come for a funeral.

Look at that nervous glance as he walks into the room. He's not comfortable here. He knows he doesn't fit in.

This is a good time to mention Jack's outfit and the way it intersects with what we see of hunter culture. From the leather to the weapons to the heads on the wall, the aesthetic of hunter culture in WBN is hypermasculine, almost to the point of parody. The obsession with imagery of violence and death (the paintings on the walls, the corpse animatronic, the skull bowl) and the hostility to anything perceived as feminine is marked.

Wait. Hostility to anything feminine? Yes, I said that.

There are three characters who are played by female actors: Elsa, Verussa, and ... look, the hunters HAVE names, but I'm just gonna call them Scottish Guy, Asian Guy, Black Guy, and David Bowie. So David Bowie is an adrogynous character played by a female actor who acts as our third not-exactly-a-male character, and it's interesting to me that they're taken more seriously by the other hunters than Elsa is. Elsa, by contrast, is treated with contempt by the other hunters--and the contempt is very specifically gendered. Scottish Guy calls her "lassie" when he threatens her, and Asian Guy says, "Where's the lovely lady's medallion?" with a noticeable leer. They don't take her seriously, not even after Verussa announces she's welcome to participate--and they only brighten up when Verussa reminds them that they're allowed to kill Elsa if they can. That's the response to the only unambiguously female hunter.

Now, you may point out that Verussa doesn't get nearly as much shit from the hunters, but Verussa is explicitly presenting herself as the servant (and sexual partner) of a man. She's also not competing with them for the Bloodstone, nor trying to inherit, even though presumably she has at least as good a claim as Elsa does. She's not trying to enter the hypermasculine realm of hunting, but Elsa is in it, and so Elsa is despised and Verussa is tolerated.

And then there's Jack.

Okay, time for Baby's First Queercoding Element: gender nonconformity. In general, feminine male characters and masculine female characters (something explicitly forbidden by the Hays Code, by the way) are coded as queer. A lot of gay male stereotypes are men doing "womanly" things, like cooking and wearing dresses and having sex with men. The same goes for lesbian stereotypes like short haircuts, manual labor, and having sex with women. Now, obviously ACTUAL queer expression is infinitely more complex, but stereotypes don't do infinite complexity.

So. Is Jack feminine?

Well, he's wearing a gentleman's suit, but by the standards of hunter hypermasculinity, yeah, he's pretty girly. For one thing, he's wearing that suit in a room full of people in combat gear. For another, the suit itself is full of fussy details that mark him as a man who cares a great deal about his appearance, another stereotypically feminine trait. The suit is green, a barely acceptable color in menswear, and it has glittery details like the trim on his lapels. The spinal-column tie is metal as fuck, but it's also a silk tie. He's doing the death-and-gore theme, but making it high fashion. He's even wearing makeup. Granted, it's Día de los Muertos makeup, but it's still pigment on his face for aesthetic purposes. He's also the only hunter who acknowledges, in dialogue, that he has non-white, non-USAmerican heritage--"It's to honor my ancestors." He marks himself (literally) as visibly foreign, even though denigrating foreign masculinity is a big part of American hypermasculinity. He also tries to smile at and befriend every hunter who glares at him--another stereotypically feminine trait that leads to his conversation with Scottish Guy.

Speaking of, that conversation is gay as hell. It's practically flirting, especially the part where Scottish Guy compliments Jack's makeup and then tearfully admits that hunting and living all by himself "gets lonely". And Jack makes this amazing face:

Now, this is me inferring again, but I read this face as a combination of "Aww, that's sweet of you" and "Loneliness caused by hypermasculine self-isolation? I literally have no idea what that's like, but it sounds bad, bro." Perhaps with a soupçon of "Get me out of this conversation aaaaaaa."

So the scene rolls on, and Jack continues to be Bad At Toxic Hypermasculinity. When his top kill count is mentioned, he shrugs it off rather than taking a little bow like the others do. He actually chuckles at Ulysses' joke. He seems mildly interested in Elsa rather than hostile, and amused by her snark rather than threatened by it. He shows fear and worry when he learns Ted is in peril and in pain. The guy really wears his heart on his impeccably tailored sleeve. Notably, none of these traits are bad, per se--they're just more likely to be assigned to feminine characters, and they're given to Jack.

It's important to note the impact of perspective here. Jack is our POV character. If there were to be a hunters' version of this story, Jack would be a sneaky, cowardly, vaguely effeminate villain and Elsa a traitor (or possibly a dimwitted victim seduced by Jack's charms). All of Jack's queercoding would make him a GREAT queercoded villain; it's just that here, he's the protagonist, and a deeply sympathetic one at that, so we miss some of his "unmanly" traits.

All right, let's fast-forward to the maze. We see Jack being clueless and awkward about the drawing of lots, we see some sneaking around, and then we see his first hostile encounter with Elsa, and we get this great exchange:

Jack: I suggest we just pass each other by.

Elsa: ... What?!

Jack, visibly pained by the awkwardness: I suggest we just ... pass each other by.

Jack is uncomfortable with violence. He actively avoids it, talking his way out of trouble when he can and running when he can't. Even Elsa points out how strange he is compared to other hunters, specifically because he avoids violence. He doesn't kill or even hurt anyone in his human form. He doesn't even know how his explosive works--to the point where he asks a woman if SHE knows how to work it.

I'm not saying violence is an inherently masculine trait, but the association of masculinity with a capacity for (and comfort with) violence runs deep in Western culture in general and American culture in particular. It's a huge thing in Mexican culture as well, and yet Jack is actively choosing not to participate in it. He's denying a core part of what would otherwise be his traditional gender role. He later tells Elsa that any "hunting" he does is done by "a part of me that is not me"--a part of himself that he doesn't see as himself. In his eyes, violence is not merely scary or distasteful; it's not part of him at all.

(Compare this to all the ass-kicking Elsa does.)

And then we get to Ted. Buckle up, guys.

Technically, our first introduction to Ted is a distant roar and some screaming, but the moment where we meet him is this:

A jumpscare, followed by a cuddle.

Once again, Jack wears his heart on his sleeve, but more importantly, let me draw your attention to the juxtaposition of Ted's scary grab and Jack's excited snuggling. This relationship is introduced as something scary before being revealed as something sweet--and "scary" is a good description of the portrayal of queercoded couples (who are, remember, usually villains) in classic cinema. All the cinematic language around Ted right up until the grab is telling us to be afraid of him--and then our cinnamon roll of a protagonist starts petting him and greeting him and asking if he's okay. Ted is monstrous and inhuman ... right up until we see him receive affection from another man.

We don't get clear details of Jack's relationship with Ted, but we know that it's a big deal to them--after all, Jack is risking his own life to save the big guy. Jack also describes Ted as "family" and, with a fond eyeroll, a "pain in the ass". Jack implies that he no longer has contact with his family of origin, a common experience for many queer people who are shunned for leaving the closet, but Ted slots neatly into the category of found family. Ted is also, notably, the only close relationship Jack is seen to have, just as Jack is the only close connection Ted is seen to have. The two are physically affectionate (again, cuddling) and emotionally vulnerable in their conversations.

And Elsa, the outsider to their relationship, finds the whole thing bizarre, right down to Ted's name.

Speaking of Elsa, let's talk about Jack's behavior in the crypt and the cage.

In the crypt, Jack displays compassion for someone who has largely been hostile to him (he REALLY wants to fix Elsa's leg), absolute delight when he receives the tiniest signal that she might be sympathetic to him ("It's not in your DNA, then?") and remarkable emotional intelligence (see his speech about families). He also, notably, doesn't hit on Elsa or indicate any sexual interest in her.

He also makes this terrific face when he's handed a skull:

Oh, yeah, that's a big, scary hunter there.

Now, the cage. Jack's response to being put in the cage (and stripped of his jacket, interestingly--little bit of dehumanization there, perhaps) is recognition, followed by attempts at reassuring Elsa, followed by panic. He's arguably more upset than Elsa is, and Elsa thinks she's about to be torn to shreds.

At two points in this story, Jack Russell finds himself trapped in a small space with a beautiful woman and more or less immediately freaks out. It's not the most heterosexual pattern. In fact, it's got strong thematic overtones of queer men being forced into straight relationships by their families, their work, or their society. In a culture that entwines sex and violence, the fact that he's delighted to be grabbed by a male swamp monster but begs for death rather than symbolically do a sex with a woman is noteworthy.

"Symbolically do a sex"? Yeah, the only times the film frames Elsa as anything like a sexual object are the transformation sequence, which is a visual callback to classic sexualized scream queens of yore with her literally in Jack's shadow, and the face-touching scene, where Jack straddles her, their faces almost touch, and then he flees and she sits up with her hair mussed in a dreamy, almost post-orgasmic way.

Michael Giacchino doesn't eroticize violence MUCH, but he's fairly classy about it when he does.

"But wait!" I hear you saying. "What about the sniffing scene? Isn't that eroticized? And it's between Jack and Elsa! Checkmate, liberals!"

First of all, how dare you call me a liberal when my preferred political descriptor is "chaotic good". And second of all ... well, you're HALF right. It IS eroticized...but not because of anything Laura Donnelly or Gael Garcia Bernal is directly doing.

Go watch Elsa's body language during the scene. It's awkward as fuck. She's curled in a ball, knees and elbows out, letting Jack pull on her arm and sniff her hair but not really participating. There's no indication that she wants to be doing this, or even knows what "this" is.

Gael is making a little more of an erotic show about it; in fact, the intensity of his sniffing would probably be an indicator of sexual desire--if he weren't CRYING WHILE HE DOES IT. That's why his voice breaks on "Once."

These are both excellent actors, making very intentional choices with their voices and bodies. They're playing the scene as something that COULD be sexy IF THEY WEREN'T BEING FORCED TO DO IT.

Seriously. There's enough fanfic now that we've all read Jack giving Elsa a leisurely, consensual sniff. You can't tell me Gael and Laura couldn't have made that happen. This is not sexy sniffing. This is angst sniffing. It's just angst sniffing between two beautiful, sympathetic characters who genuinely don't want to hurt each other. It could have been acted and shot in a much sexier way, but it wasn't.

It's also worth noting one last category of queercoding that WBN plays with a lot: dehumanization. A lot of those classic movies played their queercoded characters as specifically less than human, visually aligning them with disliked animals like rats or wolves and often making them literally less human as the story progressed. Even after the Hays Code, monstrous and inhuman queers became a staple of horror movies, especially in the 1980s and 90s as the AIDS crisis convinced a lot of conservative America that LGBTQ people were literal plague rats. There were proposals to tattoo HIV-positive people to identify them, to round them up into camps, to shut HIV-positive kids out of schools because those kids were implicitly queer and therefore not deserving of human rights like an education.

WBN, with its werewolf POV, pushes back on this trope in some specific ways. Jack's line about being "still a human" is an obvious one, as well as his explanation of "systems" to keep other people safe. (It was common during the AIDS crisis for queer people to be fired from their jobs if they were outed because they were considered an AIDS risk to their coworkers--even if they were, say, an office worker who didn't have any contact with other people's bodily fluids. There were conspiracy theories about AIDS spreading through shared soda cans. Those paper seat protectors in public bathrooms came about because of fears that AIDS could spread via toilet seats. So imagine a gay man trying to explain that he's not a threat to his officemates, and you'll see the parallels to Jack trying to reassure Elsa.)

Most notable, however, is how Elsa survives the wolf. She's safe because she maintains eye contact (implicitly acknowledging her and Jack's shared humanity--she literally refuses to stop seeing him) and because he remembers her scent (she becomes a part of his world as he becomes part of hers). Elsa is rewarded, both with her life and with her inheritance, for treating Jack and Ted like human beings when the world around her regards them as abominations.

Elsa is an ally. She's ally-coded. She can also be read as a love interest for Jack, but she consistently acts in support of his relationship with Ted as well.

In Part 3, we're going to talk about the crowning moment of queercoding in WBN. That's right--it's time to learn about coffee in the woods, the gay jukebox, and the Friends of Dorothy.

#werewolf by night #werewolf by night meta #queer coding #jack russell #ted sallis #elsa bloodstone #attempts at formal analysis #what am i even doing #i hope someone actually likes this #jfc this is so much longer than i planned #nobody get mad at me please #i am literally just pointing at the thing we all like and saying “look a good bit”#long post #media studies and writing hacks with kat

24 notes · View notes

moontheoretist · 2 years ago

Text

Can Cytharat come back, please?

Recently we have seen come back of several obscure characters that we met only briefly or didn't actually meet at all in the case of Krovos (Aygo doesn't count because he was there in Kuat Driver Yards, but we have him basically since the start of the Alliance storyline), which makes me wonder if despite the possibility of sentencing Cytharat to death in Stronghold One, there is a chance for his comeback in a full or casual romance? He was the only gay character at the time that a male Player Character could romance, so it'd be unfortunate (and by proxy homophobic) if his fate ended to be death or disappearance in obscurity. To this day, he is probably the only exclusively gay LI we have in the entire game, as the rest are bisexual or heterosexual by default. Him coming back could be an interesting thing lore wise as well, considering that Sith Purebloods we know of were interested in the Sith blood. Him existing as a gay man in a minority that values Sith blood and wants to restore their race to their former glory is an opportunity to show us a deeper facet and more thorough picture of Sith Pureblood culture apart from Sith Empire. How queerness can prevail and could even be celebrated if allowed to exist in a world in which technology can aid your race's reproduction, so nobody (gays, aces, lesbians) would be forced to do things they don't want to do.

(Though I guess there can't be a society without a vocal minority of older folks who would like to not see that gay shit, because it's not helping their already dying out race and Cytharat would have to at least listen to 3 granny Siths complain that he doesn't like women).

Warning, loosely related to the topic tangent up ahead!

Speaking of which, we were shown very little of Sith Purebloods as a cultural group in the game. There are comics and Wookiepedia, but it's just not the same as experiencing Purebloods practice their culture ourselves. I wonder, what in game Purebloods would think about Darth Ikoral's quest to eradicate all aliens (except Purebloods and for some unfathomable reason humans) from the ranks of the Sith. Or if they approved of Lord Abaron's quest to see only Sith with proper Sith lineage in the position of Sith Academy Overseers? This reminds me that I always thought about his quest as purely a Nazi one, so I always avoided doing it. But recently I gave it a try and realized that it's less bad than I thought. The whole quest is about restoring the old families to "their rightful place" which is a bit silly, considering that you could have a descendant of Tulak Hord that is a complete failure at doing anything getting a position of Overseer due to his ancestry alone, but when you think about it in the context of the people of color trying to desperately be included in the structures of power and culture of the Empire build on ancient Sith heritage, it becomes something completely understandable and sad. Like the fight to see yourself represented in the government kind of thing.

Lord Abaron went about it the wrong way, as he should have beyond the bloodline also prioritize the ability and expertise, but I know what he was going for, and can't really see it as something as bad as what Ikoral tried to do. (Genocide? Really? Don't you have enough of it?)

I'm giving him a benefit of the doubt because he is a minority in the Empire, not because I can't see the xenophobia he is operating on.

They're a minority, a dying out one at that, and there are not many of them left. They're still treated with respect and are allowed to be part of the privileged class (in case of the force-sensitive Purebloods at least) in the Empire build on the bones of their culture, but the game letting us kill so many of the Purebloods willy-nilly doesn't really help with preserving those fantasy people of color's future. By allowing for Cytharat, Vowrawn, Shaar etc. to just die, game inadvertently leads to their extinction which we know happened as this race doesn't exist anymore in the movie era timeline. All of them just simply died out, so I can't really see them as equivalent to the Aryan race, a race that never truly existed, that was just an invention of the Nazis for the sole excuse to justify the genocide committed on the Jewish population.

And as you probably can guess, I don't care about movie era. I want my Cytharat baby back, and I want him to be allowed to live as a gay man in a Galaxy Far Far away with no repercussions whatsoever.

Though if he comes back I will probably have to start campaigning for the devs to bring back the polyamorous flags (I mean the previous system when you could set as many romance flags as you wanted) and just simply give us a wheel choice in each cutscene which NPC we want to see in it (and maybe include repetition of the cutscene if they're at it, because damn I need it sometimes) or allow all of them to just come at the player one after another in a hilarious attempt to remind us of certain things, because otherwise I will have to choose between Theron and Cytharat and I really don't want to have to do it.

#swtor #lord cytharat #lord abaron #darth ikoral

2 notes · View notes

0highlyvolatile0 · 2 months ago

Text

this meme got me thinking about how mad I am about Arcane, and i was planning on leaving this in the tags but I'm feeling bold this evening, give or take some additions:

the creators of the show are just like 'waaah wahh no they're not gay they're just BROS just let guys be good friends :( (see link above)

do you know how often we hear that rhetoric when two men do kiss on screen? and who we hear it from? homophobes. we hear that shit from homophobes who are mad they have to see men kissing, fucking, etc.

people are too afraid to let men kiss on screen, and they love to fetishize lesbians. Vi is the most butch a woman can get before y'all get scared, coming from a butch.

it's the same shit behind the smokescreen of a good art style. i love arcane, but let's be real here Fortiche and Riot bombed this show big time

like what do you mean we got the "mentally ill woman kills herself as an act of heroism" storyline? i know jinx isn't dead but she was literally planning on it, we get a whole fucking montage of her setting her hideout ablaze with herself inside it! because it's the only way she can fix the problem she's caused, apparently! that is such dangerous fucking rhetoric I don't even know where to begin.

and yet another "not platonic or romantic but a secret third thing on a deeper level" with a couple of the main men of the story. if we get all of these relationships between two men "on a deeper level," then they're all on the same level! why are we letting them hide behind that when they've been doing it for years? this is still queer baiting!

people should honestly be more mad about this but whenever someone pipes up about it, it's "you're mad your ship isn't canon" or "let men be platonic, not everything has to be about romance" or god forbid "aro/ace people deserve rep too"

first of all, Riot was not doing caitvi for the gays. they really weren't. it was for their straight fanbase who was already making googoo eyes at the lesbians from their shitty video game. also: diversity win! the fascist and her cop girlfriend had sex in the jail cell that cop girlfriend's sister was in before she decided to kill herself for being too much of a burden.

second of all, if not everything has to be about romance, then tell me why every single main character in this show has had some kind of romantic entanglement with someone aside from Viktor? Vi, Cait, Jayce, Mel, Ekko, Jinx/Powder. They literally went out of their way to make sure people knew Jinx was into men by creating a manic pixie dream girl version of her and allowing Ekko to kiss her.

third of all, don't throw aro/ace people under the bus or speak for them about having representation, because they deserve better than straight people's "gay undertone scapegoats."

it's homophobia. it is straight up homophobia and we deserve better than that. we really fucking do.

this barely scratches the surface of the problems I have with this show but honestly this has been at the forefront of it and I'm not the only one who feels this way.

#arcane #arcane season 2 #arcane spoilers

13K notes · View notes

musclesandhammering · 3 years ago

Text

Every Single Issue I Have With S*lki (It’s Not Just The Selfcest)

Here goes. I threatened to post this a few days ago and never did, but I just saw a s*lki stan Twitter account claim that Loki caring about Sylvie more than the whole multiverse was a Good And Romantic thing and it pushed me over the fucking edge, so now you all have to read this. I’ve divided it into categories cause there’s just THAT much.

OOC Bullshit

• First and foremost, no amount of mental gymnastics you do will ever make me believe that this specific Loki- the one that just invaded New York, that just came off a year of Thanos Torture, that just got done being influenced by the sceptre, that was literally in the middle of a crisis already, and then on top of that went through all the trauma of Ep 1- would even be worried about a romantic relationship. That would be the furthest thing from his mind. Go back and watch how he acted in Avengers- you think that guy would abandon his previous mission to become a snivelling simp for a girl he’d just met 3 days prior? Yeah, there’s no universe in which that makes sense.

• “It’s very in character for Loki to fall in love with himself lololol-“ NO, it’s literally not. Out of all the characters in the mcu, I don’t think I can think of anyone that genuinely hates themselves more than Loki. He even referred to all his other male variants as “monsters” and said meeting them was “a nightmare” in this series. He’s got so much self-loathing, plus the fact that he genuinely thinks himself to be an evil backstabbing scourge- so there’s no evidence at all suggesting that he would ever develop a fondness for, or even be inclined to trust, another version of himself, after only knowing them for 3 days.

• Building on that, the whole concept of Loki falling in love with a version of himself just feeds into the annoying ass misconception that he’s a narcissist. No matter which way you stack it, he’s not. If you’re referring to NPD, he doesn’t fit the criteria, and if you’re saying “narcissist” just as a slang term meaning “selfish and arrogant”, that still doesn’t accurately describe him. But when creators like Waldron and Herron do things like having him fall in love with himself, it makes it so much easier for casual viewers to think that he is.

Shitty LGBT Rep

• It’s kinda sus that Loki’s are allegedly genderfluid and yet the only female-presenting variant we see (and apparently the only female-presenting variant there is, cause the male Loki’s all seemed unfamiliar with the concept) is treated as some kind of mind-bogglingly special paradox. Also very sus that, out of all the Loki variants, the one our Loki falls in love with just so happens to be the only female one. What a coincidence.

• The fact that the creators of the show went around bragging about Loki’s bisexuality and Marvel purposefully (lbr) allowed stories about Loki possibly having a male love interest to circulate, specifically enticing queer viewers to watch the show (you know, the definition of queerbaiting), and then instead of having a male love interest (Loki was the first queer main character, so it was the perfect opportunity) they gave us *gestures to this dumpster fire* this… it’s just a middle finger to LGBT fans. The fact that they would rather have this relationship with all its myriad of problems than have a gay relationship is just……. Very telling.

• While him being with a woman obviously doesn’t refute his bisexuality, the fact that they showed/talked about him being interested in 3 different women (flight attendant, Sylvie, Sif) and never even hinted at him being attracted to a man, definitely makes it seem like they were trying to cover up his bisexuality to smooth things over with the more homophobic viewers. You know? It’s like “I know you’re pissed that we sorta confirmed Loki as bi, so we promise we’ll never mention it again! Or even hint at it! As a matter of fact, we’ll give him lots of female lovies and make him seem as straight as possible! That’ll take your mind off of that horrible crumb of queer rep, right? Please please please keep giving us your money!!!”

• Aside from all the other issues, at its core, the biggest reason why I think I’m so irritated with s*lki is that it took one of the most interesting, complex, and diverse characters in cinema atm and squished him into a tired ass unnecessary heteronormative subplot…. Like literally every. single. other. protagonist. ever. Loki is such a unique character, and it’s so so so incredibly disappointing that they stuck him into that same boring cookie cutter romance that happens to every other character in every other movie I’ve ever seen. It’s a disservice, and it’s honestly just not compelling or entertaining at all.

Thematic Issues Galore

• His arc didn’t need a romance. With anyone. It was unnecessary and it didn’t make sense plot-wise. In fact, one of the reasons he was my fav prior to this was because he was the only big-name mcu character whose story wasn’t muddied-up by a romance that didn’t need to be there. So much for that.

• He wasn’t emotionally ready for a romantic relationship with anyone. Hell, just a genuine friendship would’ve been pushing it for him at this point. He was in such a bad state that any relationship he got into would’ve been toxic and unhealthy for both him and the other person, and it doesn’t make sense why the writers would want to put him in one when there were so many cons and essentially no pros (other than “Uwu aren’t they cute together”).

• Sylvie’s character in general was unnecessary and Loki’s character was robbed just by her being there. The whole show became about her post-Ep 2. They spent most of the time giving her backstory, building her up, telling us how awesome she is, trying to convince us to like her, etc when what they really needed to be doing was building Loki up- cause I gotta say, if I had to describe TVA!Loki in a few words, they would be Flat, Boring, and Weak.

• The romance overtakes the plot. They spend time portraying their supposed connection that could’ve been spent adding depth and complexity to literally any of the characters. They make the big Nexus Event them giving each other googly eyes on Lamentis when it could’ve been so many other way more profound things that speak to the fundamental nature of Loki’s. They have the climax of the finale be “oh no she betrayed him to kill He Who Remains” when it could’ve been something way more compelling (Loki having a moral crisis over whether or not to kill HWR, Loki contemplating the state of the multiverse and weighing the pros and cons of freedom vs order, Loki looking into some What If situations and getting emotional about what could’ve been regarding his family, Loki realising the gravity of HWR’s offer and finally coming to terms with how important he is to the universal cycle, etc etc). The entire plot suffered in favour of a romance that half of us didn’t even want.

• It essentially reduced all of Loki’s potential character growth down to “He did it for his crush.” He seemed to at least have some motivations of his own in Ep 1-2 (feeble as they were) but after Sylvie showed up in Ep 3, literally every action he took was just him being a simp for her. Why did he lie in the interrogation? To try to protect Sylvie. Why did he fight the minutemen and Timekeepers? To survive kinda, but mostly cause it was important to Sylvie. Why did he get pruned? Cause he got distracted trying to confess his crush to Sylvie. Why did he try to get out of The Void? Cause he thought Sylvie needed him. Why did he stay in The Void? Cause Sylvie was staying. Why did he try to enchant Alioth? Cause Sylvie told him to. Why did the multiverse get cracked open, leading to an infinite number of Kangs waging war on all of existence? Cause Loki didn’t wanna hurt Sylvie in their fight at the Citadel and then get distracted by her kissing him. It’s uninteresting and honestly pretty embarrassing.

• Throughout their “relationship arc” the writers do their absolute damndest to convince us that we should like Sylvie more than Loki. And you know what? It’s the most hypocritical shit I’ve ever seen. They preach and preach about how Sylvie’s life has been so difficult/we should feel bad for her/she had it so bad/poor poor sylvie/she had it SO much worse than pampered prince Loki…. But then they never even touch on any of Loki’s trauma of hardships (the ones that have been ignored for literally 3 movies now). They frame Sylvie as a good person and a Freedom Fighter after she spent literal decades/centuries mass-murdering brainwashed TVA agents and showing exactly zero remorse for it….. but then they make it their mission to constantly remind us that Loki is a terrible person and constantly put him in situations where he’s forced to acknowledge his wrongdoings/show remorse/admit to how “evil” he is for being a mass murderer for like 2 years. They show him on-screen having a wider range of powers than her, and perpetuate his whole shtick of being a “master manipulator” or whatever….. But then they make Sylvie “the brawn” more competent, intelligent, and physically capable than him. Tell me how it’s a good thing for a ship to be so narratively biased toward one character.

Missed Opportunities

• If they absolutely had to have a romance subplot, then they could’ve paired Loki with one of the characters that have already been established OR one of the characters that were a big part of the whole TVA storyline anyway. It would’ve been so interesting if they’d revealed that Loki had a history with some of the players from previous films (Sif and Fandral both come to mind). It also would’ve been really interesting if they’d given Loki a love interest that actually had some allegiance to the TVA as a whole (Mobius maybe, but not necessarily. It also could’ve been Renslayer or B-15). Hell, imo it would’ve been cool if they’d followed through with that “See you again someday” line that he said to the flight attendant in Ep 1. ALL of these characters have way more chemistry with him than Sylvie, and they were also already relevant to the plot without wasting half the show to give background info on them.

• If they absolutely had to have a hetero-presenting love story involving an enchantress-type figure, then there’s a whole Enchantress (Amora) that was actually Loki’s love interest in the comics. Plus, fans have been screaming for Amora to appear in the mcu for years. Plus, Tom literally pitched an Amora/Loki storyline way back in 2012-13. Also, Lorelei (another enchantress) is also one of Loki’s love interests in the comics, and she already exists in the mcu (she was on Agents of SHIELD). There were several different established characters for them to choose from. Creating a whole knew amalgamation of a character and going with the “she’s a Loki variant” storyline was just completely unnecessary and made no sense.

• They completely robbed us of a Chaos Twins dynamic. Had they handled Sylvie better and not forced her and Loki to smooch, the two of them could’ve had a really really complex and interesting sibling relationship. Loki could’ve stepped into Thor’s shoes and sort of used that new role to gain some self importance, and Sylvie could’ve finally had somebody to look out for her/teach her magic/be there for her. It would’ve been very aesthetically pleasing, the vibes would’ve been out of this world, it would’ve been way more profound than this bs, and frankly it would’ve been much more entertaining to watch.

• Loki’s relationship (read: obsession) with Sylvie completely overshadows all Loki’s other relationships in the show. Loki and Mobius were literally the focal point of the series in Ep 1-2, but after Sylvie showed up in Ep 3, they barely had any interactions with each other, and Mobius pretty much faded to the background entirely. Loki had the beginnings of a pretty interesting antagonistic relationship with Renslayer (with her wanting him pruned, then arguing with Mobius that he couldn’t be trusted), but after Sylvie showed up the dynamic shifted to focus on the history between her and Ravonna. Loki and B-15 started off very badly and openly disliked each other throughout Ep 1-2, and then in the end of Ep 2, Loki showed a little bit of concern for her when she was possessed, hinting that they might be inching toward a reconciliation- especially considering how obvious it was that Loki was gonna uncover the TVA’s sins eventually. There was so much potential for him to be the one to give her her memories back and convince her to change sides, but no, of course that honor went to Sylvie. In fact, after Sylvie showed up, Loki and B-15 never even spoke to each other again.

Various S*lki Fails

• If they were trying to convince us that this affection was mutual, they completely failed. There’s nothing I’ve seen that even hints at Sylvie feeling the same way about Loki that he does about her. At most, I’d say she has a slight endearment to him. She finds him likeable and she’s grudgingly fond of him, but she definitely isn’t in love with the guy. Maybe she thinks he’s cute and hopes that he gets out of this mess alright, but her mission obviously comes before him- whereas, it’s been confirmed multiple times that Loki cares about her above anything else. She doesn’t trust him, she looks at him like he’s an incompetent fool half the time, she shows little to no reaction during most of his confession moments, and she kissed him as a means to distract him so that she could get him out of her way. Look, all I’m saying is, when you get into a relationship where one of you is way more invested than the other, it never ends well.

• This goes without saying for a lot of us, but the selfcest is just straight up odd and cringey. If you’re cool with that sort of thing, fine! People can ship what they want! But don’t pretend it’s not at least a little bit uncomfortable. Yes, I know they’re not technically siblings so it’s not technically incest, and they’re also not technically the exact same person, but they’re similar enough that it makes things weird. And yes I know selfcest can’t happen in real life, so there’s no way to judge it morally, but neither can most of the other stuff that happens in these shows/movies (the Snap, Loki destroying jotunheim, superhero with powers being held accountable, mind control) and yet we still find ways to judge their morality, because they all mirror real-world events. (The snap= genocide; Loki destroying Jotunheim= bombing other countries; superhero accountability= weapons accountability; mind control= grooming and coercion). And lbr the closest real-world mirror to two versions of the same person (who may or may not share DNA, family, backgrounds, physical and emotion characteristics) being romantically involved with one another is incest. And you can be ok with that if you want- that’s your prerogative- but don’t get pissy just cause a lot of us are squicked out by it.

• The whole mirror metaphor (learning self love via each other) thing just fell completely flat. First of all, having Loki learn to love himself by looking at someone who mirrors him did not, in any way shape or form, require them to be romantically involved. But they were. Of course. Secondly, the creators have contradicted themselves so many times on whether Loki and Sylvie are the same or not, that it doesn’t even really register to the viewer that the mirroring thing was what they were going for. Finally, Loki and Sylvie are shown to have so little in common- and to have only the most bare minimum of similarities personality-wise- that it doesn’t even make sense that Loki would “learn to love himself through loving her”. Like? They’re nothing alike. So how would he make the connection that he himself is actually pretty cool, based on her alone? There’s virtually nothing in her that reflects him.

• I know the objective of the entire show was to convince us of how awesome and unique Sylvie is, but honestly her relationship with Loki just did the opposite. A hallmark of a Mary Sue is having her constantly upstage the male lead, and then having him instantly fall madly in love with her anyway. And that’s.. exactly what happened here. Everything they’re doing to try to force her character to be more stan-able is really just forcing her to look more like their self-insert OC. Which is exactly what she is. It would’ve been so much more satisfying if she didn’t have to try so hard to look cool, if they didn’t have to try so hard to make her backstory tear-inducing, if they didn’t have to turn our protagonist into a snivelling simp just to prove how incredible she supposedly is. Very much #GirlBoss energy and we all know how performative and cheap that is.

• The entire thing was too rushed, there was too little build-up, and it was nowhere near believable. As stated above, it’s ridiculously unlikely that Loki would canonically even be interested in Sylvie, and this show did nothing to explain why he was. He just suddenly was. There was nothing they showed us as viewers that would justify a guy as closed-off and preoccupied as Loki falling head-over-heels for a girl he just met. Their was no explanation, no big revelation, no reasoning, it just… kinda happened. And I’m also severely skeptical of any love story that has the characters go in this deep after only 3 45-minute episodes of exposition.

I’m sure there’s other stuff, so if anyone thinks of anything, let me know and I’ll be more than happy to add it. Tagging @janetsnakehole02 @raifenlf @natures-marvel and @brightredsunset800 for expressing interest. This is all your faults.

#antisylki #loki meta #kinda #loki series critical #loki series negativity #anti loki x sylvie #anti loki series #anti sylvie #frosty bby #loki deserved better #I don’t even like TVA!Loki tho so I guess it doesn’t matter with him lmao #tva loki #loki laufeyson

922 notes · View notes

castielcommunism · 3 years ago

Note

this is confession anon again, just wanna say YES to everything you've said, I think my point probably got across poorly because I have a fever and my brain is not on it. it being a win is entirely because I remember how toxic and homophobic this place was back then, and how difficult it was to come to terms with being queer when there was such an abundance of animosity (even if you avoided the actors, it really radiated across fandom in a very unpleasant way). I've never been able to watch the confession in its entirety more than twice and the only reason I feel I kinda warmed to it is because of the fandom content it generated and having that "oh my god, this happened" realisation (timing of the pandemic also cannot be underestimated, I was deep in my own mental illness and was in such a bad place and fandom really brought so much joy to me all because of this shit confession), but I've been a cas girl for a decade and it. Stings. Like you say, it makes no sense and it feels undeserved narratively speaking, and it does a huge disservice to cas and his character, because like you say, it's not even about him? You're telling me he's gonna get killed off and never shown again and not only is he never gonna get told someone loves him or that he's important or that he was more than how he could help, you're gonna make his final moments of the show all. about. Dean. And I KNOW this is controversial and I really don't blame anyone for finding the confession healing or nice or whatever, but even as a textually queer love confession it is so oddly palatable for that I'm-not-homophobic-but-gay-sex-makes-me-uncomfortable crowd. It's in just saying it? Biggest happiness is coming out? I know berens is gay but god. I don't want to downplay the relief and joy and happiness coming out can bring someone, but surely so much of that comes from being able to DO things and LIVE and be WITH PEOPLE. Why should he act happy and grateful when he knows he's gonna die? The person he has spent twelve years loving from afar is finally gonna see him without the enforced distance and he's gonna die and it's unfair and tragic and maybe he allows himself to be happy, but it should be angry and bittersweet too. Alleyway scene vibes should have been it!!! (sorry I don't mean to rant and I'm not sure if I'm coming across like a complete idiot, I just. have so many thoughts and feelings about this)

Isolating a few points from this ask:

re: pandemic stuff - the confession was literally the perfect storm of bullshit like it literally could not have hit at a better time. one of the most depressing and soul crushing US elections in recent memory paired with the terror of the first year of the pandemic, and then you have supernatural do the most homophobic gay rep of a main character you could possibly ask for. like it really was a such a good time that I’m genuinely glad it was that terrible, if only for the funniest 48 hours I’ve ever spent on tumblr.

re this part:

And I KNOW this is controversial and I really don't blame anyone for finding the confession healing or nice or whatever, but even as a textually queer love confession it is so oddly palatable for that I'm-not-homophobic-but-gay-sex-makes-me-uncomfortable crowd. It's in just saying it? Biggest happiness is coming out?

I’m of two minds about this. one of the one hand, yes, this was the most homophobic & vague way of delivering a gay love confession. “It’s in just saying it” is Cas just settling for acknowledging his feelings. Not having them be reciprocated, not actually experiencing the good parts of coming out (living life authentically as yourself), just like, saying them to someone, which is imo the worst fucking part of coming out. Who gives a shit what people say! That’s not the fun part! I fucking hate that part! I know peoples’ experiences with coming out differ but jesus dude. this is theeeeee most bs nonsense non-rep rep ever. it’s NOT in just saying it, it should be in living it!

on the OTHER hand, I find that most people saying they thought the confession was just Cas reiterating that he and Dean were super duper BFFs or whatever to be wilfully obtuse and operating in bad faith. if it goes over the heads of some conservative dads watching it then like fine whatever, but if you’re aware that gay people exist then I find it laughable that anybody would interpret the confession as anything other than what it was, which was a confession of romantic love. Anybody who does one of those cutesy “I just thought it was an expression of friendship!” is being deliberately malicious and obtuse, which I’ve seen mainly from anti-destiel people. And like just be honest and say you hate it bro! It’s super easy! I do it all the time! To deny its clear romantic intent is a pussy position to take and I don’t want to give those people any sort of credit just because the writers were trying to have their cake and eat it too vis a vis The Destiel Debate.

And to synthesise these points, I think that’s exactly what they were going for, which is what you said - plausible deniability with the conservative dad crowd (who inexplicably still watch this show for some reason?) while also appealing to the gays who watch the show. It’s a pretty good sleight of hand, especially because it’s NEVER BROUGHT UP AGAIN LMAO. Why make Castiel Supernatural gay if you’re not actually gonna address the fact that he’s gay and in love with the main character of the show, whose final and ONLY emotional reaction to this confession was to sob violently on the floor for hours after Cas was perma-killed.

Anyway yeah largely agree. It’s a “win” in that we have textual confirmation of something that was a long time coming and very dear to a lot of people, and a loss in the sense that it was done in the most ridiculous, homophobic, and terminally depressing way possible. But at least the posts were good!

#spn.txt #cas.txt #asks #meta #long post

25 notes · View notes

variousqueerthings · 4 years ago

Text

Tom Hardy Movies rated least to most queer

I made a list of some Tom Hardy movies and I rated them based on my own, non-specific criteria about what makes a movie queer. Results below the cut.

(Some films not included, because I haven’t watched them yet, because Mr Hardy’s only in them for a few minutes, because the subject matter doesn’t lend itself to this list, or because I just don’t want’em here. TV series also not included. The list is organised into both groups and ratings, because I’m doing The Most.)

Movies are divided into four groups and rated from 0 – 10 on the Queer-Scale, scroll down to the bottom if you want the ratings without the commentary.

Disclaimer: This list is subjective. Don’t come at me because I didn’t rate Inception higher, Nolan himself is as queer as cargo shorts.

1. This movie would make more sense if it were queer

If this movie were queer it… might not become a perfect film all of a sudden, but it’d make a hell of a lot more sense than what’s actually going on. With an occasional dose of “are the cis-straights okay?”

This Means War (2012): So Chris Pine and Tom Hardy are ostensibly both in love with Reese Witherspoon, but say “I love you” to each other pretty much constantly throughout the movie and their friendship is often presented as a domestic partnership. Cool, cool, cooool.

Queer Rating: 2 out of 10. This movie hate-crimed me by having Tom Hardy literally spell out his relationship with Chris Pine, only for the script to then have him say… “can you imagine all that… but with a woman…” Later on the movie explicitly denies polyamory is possible. Fuck this film.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012): Batman movies should always be queer. Mr. Hardy’s the only one who acceptably camps it up, despite Nolan’s best attempts to make him “acceptably gruff.” No matter what you do, Bane is a massive daddy in a mask and thanks to Mr Hardy’s honestly iconic fucking speech pattern in this film, it goes from pretty atrociously straight to just queer enough to imagine a future where Robert Pattinson plays batman and maybe adopts a bunch of kids.

(the only truly decent mask in this franchise tbh)

Queer Rating: 3 out of 10. Mr Hardy’s back is the one that’s actually broken carrying any semblance of fun in this overly long movie all on his own.

Lawless (2012): Wow, this really was the year of the not-queer-enough, wasn’t it? Look, it’s “based on a real story,” but it’s also a movie and movies don’t need to stick to the truth, and this one certainly doesn’t. Was the guy queer in real life? I don’t know. But that doesn’t matter, what matters is that it’s just kind of an eh movie and maybe being queer would add something to it. One of those “but why make someone queer? because it’s always more interesting to do so,” movies.

Queer Rating: 3 out of 10. It’s just not queer. But Tom Hardy wears cardigans and described his character as a “mother figure,” which adds an interesting dynamic to him.

2. Actually Queer but in a homophobic way

Tom Hardy plays a canonically queer character, yaaay. The whole movie contains a strange sense of the director being too not-queer to actually engage with that and everything around him is almost aggressively straight, noooo.

RocknRolla (2008): Honestly this movie has the funniest coming out scene ever + that familiar undertone of “all these manly men secretly want to fuck each other” is only heightened by one of them actually being gay and in love with his best friend. It’s such a fucking… it’s such a movie. Personally I find Mark Strong, Idris Elba, Thandie Newton, and, of course, Tom Hardy to be really hot in it, so that’s a plus. There’s a scene in which Strong’s character teaches another gangster how to do a proper backhand. It’s really gay of him. Also slow-dancing at a gay club. Butler’s character needs to get himself together, you really don’t think 2008 Tom Hardy is hot? Mate.

(left to right: functional queer, disaster queer, distinguished queer)

Queer Rating: 6 out of 10, for having an actual gay character who is played by Tom Hardy doing a sexy phonecall voice to another guy, but then there’s that feeling you can’t shake that the whole movie is vaguely uncomfortable about it, like a family member awkwardly patting you on the shoulder after they found out you were queer second-hand, but they’ve still got 50 years of bias to unlearn. Also Thandie Newton is killed, fuck that noise.

Legend (2015): If I had a nickle for the amount of times Tom Hardy’s played a gay gangster, I’d have two nickles. Which isn’t a lot, but weird that it happened twice (looks at Peaky Blinders and thinks it ought to be three times). I’ve watched Legend three times and every time it just… loses me. And because this is a biased list, I’ll only specifically mention that it fails to make Ron’s queerness anything but a way for him to shock others. Gangsters could be gay? Gasp! On the upside Tom Hardy has so much sexual tension with everyone in this movie, including himself (why would you do that? Asks Ron, bemused. Because I can’t kill you, no matter how much I fucking want to, hisses a blood-soaked Reggie right into his ear. It’s hot).

Queer rating: 5 out of 10 because the film is just not very queer for a movie with several queer men in it.

3. Straight as a forced family dinner

It’s straight.

Locke (2013): He’s a married man who had an affair and trying to deal with the fallout of it. This isn’t a spoiler for most of the movie, it’s a pretty neat movie where we look at Tom Hardy having a bit of a mental breakdown and taking lots of phonecalls (my personal hell). Is it queer? Not in the slightest.

Queer Rating: 2 out of 10 for Hardy’s face being in almost every shot.

The Revenant (2015): Yeah, yeah, DeCaprio’s and Hardy’s characters are obsessed with each other, yeah it’s a man’s world where the only women are dead wife, kidnapped sexually assaulted native princess, or background whore, yeah, they fight each other and there’s a ton of grunting, but also… I just fucking don’t like this movie. The thin line where a storyline like this one becomes queer might be crossed for others, but not for me. Fuck these guys and their stupid bear fights.

Queer rating: 3 out of 10 for it being about dirty men in the middle of nowhere (but you could just watch Brokeback Mountain or The Lighthouse or God’s Own Country or any Mad Max, or, or, or…)

4. Queer? Queer. Queer? … Queer…

The plots, aesthetics and/or characters played by Tom Hardy lend themselves to a queer reading, even if there is no overt intention towards queerness. Often this is because of a deliberate lack of heterosexual and/or cisgender writing, which in this day and age is still pretty uncommon not to include within a plot.

Inception (2010): Okay, I don’t even need to write about the added “darling,” or the “go to sleep Mr Eames.” I don’t need to go on about the absolutely bonkers amount of fanfiction written for Eames and Arthur, based on a few minutes of film and a boatload of chemistry. It’s queer.

Queer Rating: 7 out of 10, because the actual plot of the film isn’t very queer, but between the Arthur/Eames dynamic and Elliot Page, Nolan was really given a gift he didn’t deserve.

Warrior (2011): Okay, so first off, this might be my favourite Tom Hardy film, at least some part of my brain is fixated on it at almost all times and I’m considering watching it for the third time in two weeks. I don’t only consider it queer based on Mr. Hardy’s character, although he has no romantic or sexual interest and could be read as aroace, but because of the themes, especially those surrounding said character, who is coded as a caregiver to women and through close emotional connections to men. It’s got possibly unintentional deconstructions of masculinity and two men (brothers) who need to forgive each other and can only do so through the catharsis of violence. It speaks to me as a transmasc with several cis brothers, struggling with my own masculinity. It’s not at all written for me, but I find myself all over it. I could talk about this movie forever.

Queer Rating: 8 out of 10. I’m not allowed to say any more or I’ll never stop writing about it. I love you Tommy…

The Drop (2014): Bob’s lack of sexual and/or romantic interest in Naomi is so strange to her that she doesn’t know what he would want from her otherwise. Bob really just wants to raise a dog with her (and also forgiveness for past sins). Bob is such a rare ace and possibly aro coded character, it really throws me every time I watch this film how obvious it is. Bonus points for also being autistic-coded and not in the stereotypical ways.

(Tom Hardy’s most challenging role: pretending he doesn’t know dogs)

Queer Rating: 9 out of 10 because it’s so fucking rare to see ace and aro coded characters that aren’t, you know…. serial killers. Also Tom Hardy adopts a puppy and has a very cute, kinda lispy voice. How often does Tom Hardy play softer men like this?

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015): Very deliberately no sexual or romantic writing included in Max’s and Furiosa’s relationship. Sure, there’s not a lot of time for that in the post-apocalyptic wasteland, but it was also done with a purpose! “It was always going to be two warriors on par, starting off with very little respect for each other and ending up with a massive respect for each other.” - Charlize Theron. “So of course they meet, of course there’s a relationship, an unspoken understanding. A recognition.” - Tom Hardy.

Queer Rating: 9 out of 10. It’s not just the characters, but the world and it’s apocalyptic BDSM leather scene, the questions it asks about sustainability and about people as tools, and the found family. It’s about overcoming violence through multiple kinds of love. And it’s about watching a guy playing flame-thrower guitar. What could be queerer?

Venom (2018): Talented, brilliant, incredible, amazing, show stopping, spectacular, never the same… No, but Eddie is queer. The only question is whether the sequel will acknowledge that aspect or not, but even if not. Even if it manages to straightly bypass the reality of a symbiotic relationship with a genderless? genderfluid? being from another world that is linked to you down to your very cells and understands you more intimately than any other person possibly could… even if all that: Eddie is queer. Venom and Eddie are in a relationship. Any relationship Eddie ever enters into will automatically become a thrupple. He makes out with Venom in the movie! Eddie is queer.

(aw yeah that tongue is going down his throat)

Queer Rating: 9.5 out of 10, because it’s still coded by the creators in the language of bromance (hey, bro, is it gay if we’re physically and emotionally closer than any other people on earth?), but the movie is so, so camp and Mr Hardy’s acting choices are beautiful – the screaming? The lispy soft voice and lack of taking up space? The lobster tank? The only people who don’t know how queer this is are the people making it apparently. Fingers crossed for that sequel!

Hon. mentions:

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002): Star Trek – even at it’s worst (especially at its worst?) – is camp af + Hardy is a straight-up baby in this film.

Bronson (2008): It’s about a real person who’s still alive, so I won’t comment on the actual man. However the film seems to code the character Bronson along an ace line and also has genderqueering Vaudeville. Someone let Tom Hardy do more of whatever was going on in those stage-bits.

(this right here: this the good shit)

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011): Another ensemble piece not massively about Hardy’s character, but it’s a movie that centers around queerness in a strange, depressing way. Tom Hardy’s character isn’t queer. Colin Firth and Mark Strong are though. The book makes me cry.

Peaky Blinders (2013-): Because it’s a TV series I left it out. There’s a lot of straight nonsense going on there, but Alfie Solomens is gay. There’s nothing in the series that disputes that and plenty that lends itself to the reading.

Dunkirk (2017): Tom Hardy plays an RAF pilot in a deep emotional connection with the other main RAF pilot. That’s immediately gay. However he’s not in the movie much because of the way it’s constructed, so I left it off.

Queer Ratings (least to most)

No queer to be found here traveller:

This Means War: 2 out of 10 - illegal movie, Tom Hardy swore he wouldn’t do another rom-com after

Locke: 2 out of 10 - straight Welshman and his straight problems. He pretty though

Lawless: 3 out of 10 - cardigan-Hardy being a mother-hen, but very straight for all that

The Dark Knight Rises: 3 out of 10 - a superhero movie that doesn’t deserve Mr Hardy’s camp talents (unlike Venom)

The Revenant: 3 out of 10 - doesn’t give me what I want out of a movie full of dirty, bearded men

Queer but we deserve more:

Legend: 5 out of 10 - timid homosexuality, considering the source material.

RocknRolla: 6 out of 10 - hey bro, is it gay if we kill the only female lead in our massive ensemble cast

The queerest of Hardy’s:

Inception: 7 out of 10 - Elliot Page and JGL kissing was an all-around terrible choice that made no sense, we know the truth, Nolan

Warrior: 8 out of 10 - I’m still crying, Edgerton’s crying, Hardy’s crying, we’re all crying, and I think that’s really emotionally healthy and queer of us

Mad Max: Fury Road: 9 out of 10 - non-romantic love in the time of BDSM post-apocalyptic wastelands is something that can actually be so personal

The Drop: 9 out of 10 - “Fucking punk. Go out to dinner dressed like you're still in you living room! You wear those big hippity-hoppity clown shoes! You speak to women terribly! You treat them despicably! You hurt harmless dogs that can't defend themselves! I'm tired of you man. I'm tired of you. You embarrass me!”

Venom: 9.5 out of 10 - Sometimes a relationship is an anxious reporter, the sentient goo inhabiting his body, his kinda-ex-girlfriend and her new doctor boyfriend, and I think that’s beautiful

#tom hardy #mad max: fury road #venom 2018 #inception #rocknrolla #warrior 2011 #legend 2015 #the drop 2014 #the revenant #the dark knight rises #lawless 2012 #locke #this means war

221 notes · View notes

booasaur · 4 years ago

Note

God people being angry bc the Hera died and the girls survive is one of the things I kinda expect it but surprise me.

And another anon:

people really are being like "actually literally everyone other than the lesbians were the best characters in fear street and it should've focused on them instead, but I'm not homophobic or anything" i don't know why i'm surprised

I dunno that many God people would be angry if Hera died... :P

But yeah, I get it. You know what, I'm gonna address a bunch of the complaints and comments I've seen. First: where is the media literacy?! What do people think they're watching? It's a slasher, most people, including likable, fun best friends, will die.

And despite how often this happens, I am surprised each time. I guess in this case I at least expected that with leads, as rare as that is, THEN they'd get a certain inherent sympathy that leads get. But the issue is, Certain types of characters have to earn it. The viewer actually starts off a little bit against them, waiting for them to justify their selection over someone more default in Western media.

This happens for a variety of people, in all kinds of combinations: men (and even many women) find it difficult to get women's viewpoints, straight people toward LGB people, cis people toward trans, white people toward POC, POC toward other POC, especially Black people. Even within groups, darker skinned people find it harder and it took me a very long time to feel the same empathy for desi characters as for white (in case you don't read my bio, I am desi).

Even people who've had one queer experience may feel judgmental toward other queer people, like recently we've seen a rise in frustration and annoyance with closeted people, right. The biggest victim of Sam's struggle with homophobia is not Deena, or even Peter, it's Sam! So many people act like closeted people are manipulating others for the joy of it, like it's a secret because of selfishness and not a deeply traumatizing fear! They're never granted that empathy, though. I've seen people call Sam boring and undeserving, meanwhile she's the girl who showed huge personal growth, fully came out to her scary mom, has a fun lowkey sense of humor, and made the decision THREE TIMES this night to die!

Now to Deena. Again, the way people view her from the outside instead of thinking, oh no, she has to try to force pills down her gf's throat and then drown her while hearing her best friends be killed, now she has to pick between her brother and gf, hoping that she'll be able to save both but possibly losing them. You know what it is, it's such a lack of good faith toward these characters. I said sympathy and empathy above, but really, it's simply not believing them of being capable of the same emotions and feelings as everyone else. There's this suspicion and bad faith jump to the worst motivations.

Like, other characters do this all the time? Prioritizing saving a loved one? There is almost no concept more generally pushed forward by Western fictional media than "a group that sacrifices the few to save the many means they don't deserve saving the many"?? That love and teamwork will always win out, that you don't give up or give in, that against all odds, every effort should be made to save everyone?

Speaking of which, going back to media literacy, I love Kate and Simon, enough to say that before the official airing, but the moment they were ready to sacrifice Sam? These movies don't forgive that kind of selfishness. Like, okay, usually that comes from very obvious bad guys, the kind of smirking, bullying jock that Peter was, who would normally survive to be able to pull something exactly like this and then be killed right when he thought he'd escaped but the movie playing around with tropes doesn't mean it's completely ignoring them.

It's funny, people talk about how bold media like GOT, The Boys, Succession, etc, are but really, where's the boldness when you know your audience is gonna eat up your straight white people doing shitty things? It's stuff like this, wanting your audience to like characters they normally wouldn't and allowing them to be messy, that is far braver.

HAVING said all that....thanks for letting me vent the thoughts that've been percolating, lol, but I don't think we should dwell on this. As hard as that sounds, because the more mainstream this is, the more ubiquitous the discourse and it's obviously more than just fiction, it's about the real life ways real life people relate to us, and clearly I have had a lot of thoughts about itttt, but let's not let them ruin it, eh? Get your frustrations out and then just have fun.

It's not our responsibility to try to defend or promote the movie or even, really, try to get its ratings up. It's incredibly unfair that we have to do that and surely media producers and neutral consumers expect things like review bombing and lack of audience sympathy and factor it in. We get two more movies, it's their loss if they can't enjoy them.

#>_>#I didn't mean for it to get this long #but I've been thinking on it since the 5th #and seen the comments even before that #replies #femslash related stuff #sent on 20210705 #sent on 20210706 #Anonymous #fear street spoilers #fear street #fear street part 1: 1994 #deena x sam

40 notes · View notes

crossdressingdeath · 4 years ago

Note

You know, as someone who is gay and has... more experience in abusive relationships than I ever wanted... hearing people talk about how unhealthy WangXian is upsetting. I know I can’t speak for everyone, but in my opinion WangXian is something more queer people need to see. And people calling it abusive when it isn’t is actually counterproductive when you think about it.

Like, I’ve had to play the guessing game of “Do my friends and family have a legit reason to be concerned, or are they secretly homophobic?”. Not a very fun game. You already have people online saying that gay relationships are sinful/toxic just by existing. Just seeing people misinterpret canonically gay couples as toxic/unhealthy just because the relationships isn’t perfect is going to make people not take actual claims on legitimate toxic/unhealthy fictional couples seriously.

I’ve seen so many people try to say that WangXian is either toxic or a stereotypical yaoi couple, and I just think “are we reading the same novel? what translation are you reading?”.

“Forced Gender Roles/Het Coding” – you mean how LWJ typically does more feminine chores, while WWX is more skilled/knowledgeable with traditionally masculine chore? Like in his dream, where LWJ is literally a housewife while his a busy husband?

“Stereotypical Seme/Uke dynamic” – not even mentioning the fact this isn’t yaoi (it’s danmei) and therefore, theydon’t really fit that genre, I really doubt it? Like, WWX is the one who decides nearly everything in the relationship. Regardless of what LWJ wants, he won’t push WWX into anything. In fact, WWX has to encourage LWJ to talk about what he wants/likes. Really, thinking about, WWX is kind of the one in charge.

LWJ might have WWX beat in terms of pure physical strength, but if you think LWJ could win in a fight without WWX letting him, then you clearly haven’t been paying attention. May I remind you, without golden core, WWX took on multiple armies? And the one that killed him only won because he let them. They technically didn’t even kill him! MXY’s body means WWX has a golden core now - he’s not as strong physically but he can work on that - he’s still stronger in every other aspect. It’s basically impossible for LWJ to overpower him.

“Rape/Noncon” - Where? There are two moments where LWJ crosses boundaries... but only one of those moments is an actual boundary crossed. Every other intimate moment that happens, LWJ makes certain that WWX is actually enjoying himself and consenting.

The infamous kiss. A lot of people misinterpret this as something the author threw in because it was “hot”. In actuality, this kiss is important for multiple reasons. While WWX isn’t upset by this kiss, LWJ clearly is. This moment is what causes LWJ to stop trying to force WWX to go back to CR with him – it’s this moment that makes him realize if he continues down this path, he will end up like his parents. This moment is the start of major character growth for LWJ, allowing him to become a better man, one that WWX can actually love wholeheartedly without any regrets. It’s this moment where he decides that he can’t just take little things from WWX anymore - he has to try a different approach to help him, and accept that WWX might never feel the same way (obviously he’s wrong). Like, the impact this has is huge, and it’s another reason why LWJ refuses to mention his feelings to WWX - he doesn’t want to force him ever again. So he won’t. Not even by having WWX agree to be with him out of graditude.

The other boundary crossed is when LWJ spanks WWX during sex. The narration makes it very clear at that moment that it’s not okay, that WWX is uncomfortable and doesn’t like it. And it stops, LWJ moves from it after some nudging from WWX. After the event, they have a serious talk where WWX makes it very clear that while he enjoys a lot of things, LWJ can’t do that ever again of he wants to continue being with WWX. LWJ could have argued, could have said that since they were under the influence of the incense burner, he shouldn’t be blamed for his actions. Instead, he swears never to do anything like that ever again.

This is so important! The message this sends is so important! This whole scene is saying that, no matter what kinks you might have or how kinky you are, your boundaries deserve to be respected. You don’t have to do something you’re uncomfortable with just because you’re kinky and your partner likes it. How can anyone read that and think it’s supporting rape?

Also... if I’m being honest... I actually thought CQL had a more stereotypical Seme/Uke dynamic than the novel. WWX is so much weaker and less observant/cunning... couple that with the fact the he’s not only not even a little guilty of his crimes but he’s actually made into a poor victim with lot of fainting into LWJ’s arms... yeah, he comes across much more like a uke than in the novel. LWJ is also so much more of a stereotypical overprotective seme too. Then there’s the whole thing lack of consent someone else mentioned, with how WWX forces LWJ to drink/how LWJ tricks WWX into marrying him (so he literally did the thing his father did that the fandom finds so unforgivable?). I like CQL, but a huge chunk of those fans are kind of obnoxious and toxic... and hypocritical I guess.

So, I just wanted to rant after seeing so many posts on this topic. I’m just really annoyed. I don’t even know if this makes any sense.

That is an excellent point re CQL. I’ve thought about how they weakened WWX and dumbed him down (presumably to make him more of a victim), but not how that affects his dynamic with LWJ. Also I do want to acknowledge that there is dubcon in the novel; the first time they have sex LWJ is drunk to start and we don’t know when exactly he sobered up. But like... that’s not exactly uncommon in romance novels. And the show has WWX forcing LWJ to get drunk against his will and LWJ marries WWX without his knowledge or consent, which... really isn’t better, especially as the novel does have discussion about how what they did was kind of a mess with consequences and them having to discuss it, which the show... doesn’t. In fact the novel takes consent as a far more important thing than the show does to the point of it being a central theme that the show lacks.

Yeah, I have to say that people insisting that Wangxian (specifically novel Wangxian) is super unhealthy feels like the double whammy of “Ewwwwww gay people who aren’t unrealistically perfect” and “Ewwwwwwwww a woman writing gay romance”. I mean, I seriously doubt that if one of them was a girl and/or the story was written by a dude and nothing else changed people would react anywhere near as vehemently towards it. Like... it seems interesting that the version people are insisting is healthier is the censored idol drama where they aren’t actually in a relationship and the people in charge mostly seem to be men, that’s all I’m saying.

#mdzs vs cql #anon #asks

49 notes · View notes

toxicsamruby · 4 years ago

Note

1/7 MM okay gotcha gotcha. I was thinking about this on a smaller scale, where i don't think discussing racism in supernatural should be "fun and interesting" (phrase you used in your original post that rubbed me the wrong way b/c [hot take] I don't think racist tropes reminiscent of the Birth of a Nation and the policing of poor black communities are fun and interesting. they're horrible. but, like you said, we shouldn't shy away from horrible things), but no yeah i get what you're saying about

2/7 people showing the same enthusiasm, willing participation, and depth when talking about this stuff as w/gender&sexuality. I agree with that AND it's important to keep in mind, especially with a fanbase that's largely white, whom these analyses are for and who is writing them (b/c a white person's racial reading isn't the same as a bipoc's). But, again, that's on the smaller scale, which appears to have more to do with personal accountability and discussion norms.

3/7 AND i also get what you're saying about using the entirety of supernatural to examine "american attitudes about the Other" and how that needs to be broken down in ethnic/racial/culture identities just as it is with queer indentities and yes i agree. as for the marketing/monetary engagement thing, i may have been speaking out of turn there because i don't know a ton about marketing or audience appeal and i also wasn't invested in all the spn meta/BTS stuff until recently.

4/7 what I said was purely my observations of the very specific 'spn renaissance' tumblr circle, which appeared different from the, say, twitter circles that pay for merch and whatnot (again, this may not be accurate, it's just from what i've seen). HOWEVER, that being said, if we're speaking specifically about the long-term, /larger/ cultural impact supernatural has, I 100% agree that it needs to be recognized and condemned as a racist and all-around patriarchal show. I did forget that spn made

5/7 so many headlines about both queerbaiting and having a queer character or whatever, and the same headlines need to be made about how it treats bipoc and other minorities. Although supernatural is a mess and considered cringey and a dead horse, it still holds a significant amount of power and (at least some) reputability in media. and this is all despite its misogyny and homophobia and cisheteronormativity (this is the case for so many shows, not just spn). I guess i was just concerned about

6/7 'ok, what if mainstream starts having these conversations about racism very specifically in a way that normalizes it and makes it seem hatecrime-but we'll-allow-it,' so now we have this monster of a show that KNOWS it's racist but doesn't really care. But it's equally as terrible to not point it out. But it doesn't matter anyways, because the show is over now, and it's not like they're gonna give reparations to the actors they killed and the people they hurt. your point about us having these

7/7 conversations (in a way that does not make it seem like like fun ideas to ponder over) being the only thing we CAN do to lessen the power the White Narrative of Supernatural (both meta and in-text) really resonates, and i hadn't thought of that but i totally agree. in other words lmao, fuck this show

yeah “fun” might’ve been the wrong word choice for all the reasons u gave i really didn’t mean to trivialize racism as a discussion and i see what u mean especially w how people have responded to the homophobia of supernatural me included like saying oh its homophobic but its funny so it’s fine and ur absolutely right that we Cant allow the discussion of race to go the same way (and honestly ur intuition was right bc in the tags of that post theres white people saying we SHOULD take it as lightly as the homophobia). so yeah the phrasing was my bad

but my general point stands. like i personally find it really fulfilling and interesting to talk abt how supernatural (and other fiction) replicates these american ideas about the Other bc supernatural is a FASCINATING microcosm of american culture (and of course in part bc i Am an american other)! and that post was mostly in response to how white fans seem to shy away from these extremely complex and interesting conversations bc they consider discussion of racism a chore like something they Have to do so they can say “it was bad that they killed off kevin tran. see i engaged critically! now back to the meta that relates to Me and My experiences”

and of course the analysis that becomes generally accepted and talked abt by fans shapes the actual presence of the show in pop culture. so we should do our best to write good and thoughtful and compassionate analysis of EVERY aspect of the text, especially one so deeply embedded as the race element.

basically yeah ur right and i think we pretty much agree. fuck this show! thank you for sending me these messages by the way im glad we could talk this out :)

#i think this might actually be the most productive conversation ive ever had abt a piece of fiction lmfao #asks #crit

26 notes · View notes

winchestermendesgirl · 4 years ago

Text

Supernatural’s Legacy: The Trauma of Silence

Understanding the unique grief of Supernatural fans, and the power of stories to liberate and to punish. [Warning: spoilers for season fifteen of Supernatural]

(By Deirdre-t on Buzzfeed)

In the wake of Supernatural’s controversially underwhelming finale last Thursday, many fans are left adrift, angry, and deeply hurt. They are left grappling with an ending that blindsided them, not only leaving the traumatic death of a canonically queer lead emotionally unresolved but going so far as to scrub the character and all evidence of the decade-built queer romantic plot from the finale, mere episodes after a celebrated and victorious on-screen love confession between Castiel and Dean Winchester.

They were given a shell of a finale that saw all suggestion of queerness removed, all sense of heart and chosen family eliminated. Even the relationship between Sam and Eileen, too deeply tied to the themes of the queer love story, was dropped, dealing the added blow of abandoning a disabled character in favor of a random, unidentified partner for Sam.

Fans are, to put it simply, devastated.

And through all of their reactions, as people are processing their disappointment, grief, and rug-pulling confusion, one accusation stings so very clearly and pointedly for queer fans:

You’re just mad because you didn’t get your ship.

No.

The legacy of Supernatural and its finale’s impact goes so much deeper than fans of Dean and Castiel’s pairing not getting their way. This isn’t about a ship.

This is about stories, and the intricate ways in which they become part of us and our world– the ways our lives and struggles are reflected, subverted, and reinforced.

This is about a story and characters that people deeply connected with, a story that people let into their hearts and souls, devoted their time and love to because they saw themselves in it and had faith that they might be worth something to it in return. They had faith that once, just once, they would get what they deserve in this world, that they would see themselves treated with dignity, respect, and love. They had faith that the story being told would be finished, that the emotional catharsis and resolution they had waited fifteen years for– the resolution that so many have been denied in their own lives– would be granted. It was not.

And not only did Supernatural deny this resolution, it actively regressed every moment of growth that led to it. It spat in the face of its own themes: found family, choice, unconquerable love, self-determination and acceptance, freedom from the seemingly insurmountable obstacles that seek to control and suppress us. Themes that people connected with because they are real to them. Themes whose treatment impacts them. Whose reflections on their lives are tangible.

Whether it was the writers or the suits, creatives or executives ultimately responsible, Supernatural gutted this journey and took characters who were stand-ins for vulnerable people and denied them their truth and closure. They set up clear, beautiful, meaningful endings– I would go so far to say the narrative promised them– and they burned it all down. Unapologetically, cruelly, and yes, homophobically.

This affects people’s lives. This is real.

The treatment of Castiel, Dean, and their love story, and the ultimate messages of their endings, are unconscionable.

Castiel is a stand-in for viewers suffering from depression, PTSD, self-worth issues, isolation, alienation. His story is about breaking free from abusive and controlling circumstances and building a family who loves you and chooses you for who you are, and learning to believe in that love. His arc is about feeling unloved and unworthy, feeling like no one around you could possibly want you for who you are and sacrificing your own wants and needs to earn the small bit of space you dare to take up. Believing this all your life and slowly learning that it isn’t true. Learning that you are wanted, that you have worth, inherently, just by being you.

Castiel’s story built to a point where he specifically needed to hear this from Dean. From the one person who he chose, whose love was quite literally the foundational starting point of his journey to autonomy and self-acceptance. The narrative demanded this in order for Castiel to finally believe in and live his whole truth, in order to reach the end of his arc. It set up a simple need: someone who has never understood the love they have been given, the love they deserve, must be told that they have it and deserve it.

Instead, not only was this journey to accepted, reciprocated love and ultimate self-actualization left unfinished, its ending point on screen was a premature and self-sacrificial death. This is Supernatural, so I am not talking about death in the sense that it is innately bad, because more often than not in the show it is transformative, transcendent. I am talking about the death of his character in the sense that he truly and permanently is not allowed to experience another moment of growth. That he is punished by the story for expressing his truth, that his journey toward internal and external love and worth ultimately leads to him giving himself and that love up, and this is never meaningfully subverted.

Castiel dies by finally letting himself speak his truth– by allowing a moment of actualization that is never rewarded with experiencing the thing he has finally let himself admit he wants. That is never rewarded with actually experiencing the acceptance, love, and reciprocal choice that we have spent over a decade waiting for with him. Castiel, our stand-in character for overcoming depression, alienation, and self-hatred, confesses that he is in love with a man and is so filled with the happiness of this love, so fully actualized in his identity– his love, his queerness, his acceptance of self– that it kills him.

His depression personified consumes him in the vulnerability of his happiness, and he is never heard from in a meaningful way again. His journey is utterly unacknowledged emotionally by the family who he was journeying to, by the man whose love he died for. His intrinsically queer story ends with that queerness literally killing him. Because taking this power for yourself, taking control of your life and claiming love as your own, must be punished.

This could all have had meaning. It was supposed to. This was set up to be subverted, the dark before the dawn, with Cas’s actualization honored by a confirmation of reciprocal love (be it romantic, familial, platonic, whatever, his arc is utterly unfinished without this) and a peaceful eternity spent as a fully realized soul. The consumption of the shadow subverted by integration with it, by wholeness and love consuming it in return. Instead, he is left off screen, given an offhand mention of an unexplored move to heaven, and is never shown to experience any sort of love or reciprocity from the family he built or the man he loves again. The message, in the end, is clear, no matter what the original intention was. Speak your truth, and it will silence you. Live your truth, and it will punish you.

Dean, too, is silenced and buried by his ending. Like Cas, Dean’s character is a stand-in for people suffering from trauma and abuse, for people who have had their personhood diminished and sacrificed by their families and circumstances, for those who have been harmed and pushed aside by the very people in their lives who are supposed to love and protect them. Dean’s story is about learning to overcome the limitations placed on you by others’ expectations, learning to value your own wants, needs, and dreams when you’ve been told your whole life they don’t matter. It’s about letting go of the toxicity that a cruel world will imprint upon your soul– distilling yourself and your truth from the darkness that corrupts you when you’ve experienced the world and all of its ugliness, when you have had insurmountable pain inflicted on you and have dealt that pain back in return.

His story is about learning that you can love and be loved, and that this love does not have to come at the expense of your autonomy or identity. It’s about accepting that you are not your worst moments, you are not your flaws; that there is someone within you who is worthy of forgiveness and life, who is inherently good.

Dean’s arc was built to a point where speaking his truth and choosing to live it were integral to its resolution. And this truth could only be one thing, the narrative demanded one specific ending that would do this for him. This truth was that he loved Castiel, that he wanted to be with him. This truth fundamentally symbolized Dean finally taking control of his life and choosing the one person who had always chosen him in return, whose love reflected and rewarded every aspect of Dean’s growth and journey to selfhood.

Speaking this truth to Castiel, to the person who loved him for exactly who he was, who always saw his light even through the darkest moments of his soul, the person whose love is established as the only thing that ever truly grew outside of God’s control– the only thing that was REAL– was fundamental to Dean finally accepting his own goodness and the value of his love, of his identity, and breaking free of the structure that had controlled and corrupted him his entire life to experience something of his own. Dean loving Castiel in return is how he could finally love himself, because this love at its core symbolizes freedom, truth, forgiveness, choice, and the overwhelming power of the soul.

But Dean never gets to experience this. Dean is never freed.

In the end, Dean learns that Castiel loves him and has always seen his true self, and then he never gets to live that truth. He goes right back to the life he has spent his whole journey learning to free himself from: Daddy’s little soldier, marching orders straight from his book, with only his brother by his side. Left only with the person he had been forced, time and time again, to sacrifice his identity, goals, and soul for. None of the family, support, or love, nothing he has built or chosen for himself remains.

And this man who has been told all his life that he isn’t good for anything more than a violent death on a random hunt, alone and afraid and dirty and only worth the body he can throw on the sword, dies exactly in that way. His body burns, alone, only his brother there to watch the smoke curl from his pyre.

Dean’s death, like Castiel’s, did not have to be an inherently bad thing. The story had very clearly built to a choice in this matter: a choice on how to spend the rest of his life and who to do it with. If this choice had involved passing on from this world to the next, in the context of choosing a life in whatever plane he moved to, it wouldn’t have mattered whether that life was mortal or eternal, on earth or in heaven, dead or alive. But that is not what happened. Dean didn’t choose to move on. He fought for decades to learn that what he wanted mattered, that his soul and identity were worth something, that his choices were real. And in the end, he is taken from his life randomly and violently, with absolutely nothing left to show for it. No choice, no act of the soul, no meaning.

And even after he gets to heaven, to his eternal reward, it is devoid of his heart and empty of any choice he had or would have made for himself. He does not seek out any of the people taken from him, he does not go to the man who confessed his undying love for him and sacrificed himself to save him, he does not start building the life that he never got to experience on earth. He doesn’t experience a single moment of actualization or make any choice besides getting in his car and driving aimlessly. He drives and drives to the end, to Sam, existing solely for his brother even in death. No choice, no soul, no meaning.

Dean died because his truth could not be spoken. He was punished by the story, by our world, because his only true ending would have been to love and be loved by another man. His only true ending would have been to fully experience his own identity and choice, and to live a new life surrounded by the things he built with his soul and the people who loved him for it. The message, again, is clear. Dare to seek your truth, and it will be taken.

The love between Dean and Cas was never just something people wanted to see because it was gay, or cute, or whatever people try to reduce it to in order to delegitimize queer stories and their power. The love between Dean and Cas was so deeply tied to each character’s journey, so fundamental to the resolution of each individual’s struggle and growth, so essential to the core themes and emotional substance of the narrative at large, that removing it from the ending caused the entire story to collapse. Failing to resolve it rendered their pain, sacrifice, love, choice– rendered the soul of the story– moot.

So no, people are not just upset that their ship didn’t get to kiss. People are upset that its removal functionally destroyed the story they love, and that the characters they so deeply identify with never got the endings they had built toward for so very long. That they, as viewers, never got to experience the moments of catharsis, acceptance, joy, and peace demanded by what they’ve gone through over the last fifteen years.

People are upset that pieces of their own souls, the pain and love that they identified with so personally and meaningfully, were burned with it. Yes, this is about queerness being fundamentally integrated into the story and its themes, and then being removed cruelly and hopelessly; it is about the painful message for every queer person watching that in the end, the world does not love you or even acknowledge you back. That you do not matter to it, no matter how convincingly it tries to pretend otherwise.

But this is also about our broader identities and struggles– feeling alone and scared, feeling alienated and othered, struggling with depression and trauma, losing autonomy, fearing and hating your flaws, feeling trapped or unloved or toxic or unworthy– it’s about these deeply vulnerable aspects of the self that people let this story connect to. That people found comfort and value in seeing reflected, validated, and overcome. It’s about the deeply traumatizing experience of something you love, something you have found yourself in, turning around and telling you none of it mattered.

The trauma of knowing that this will fuel the very hate, injustice, and devastating indifference that we live in spite of each day. Knowing that our love can make us as vulnerable as it makes us strong, and that this vulnerability has been and will be used against us whether it is in a story or our world.

People are in pain. People are grieving.

They are grieving a story that meant the world to them, they are grieving characters who never got to live their truths or experience their peace, they are grieving the parts of themselves that they saw in them. They are grieving the people they used to be, in those moments when they let themselves believe that they could finally have this– the innocence and authenticity in believing that their stories mattered. In believing that years of waiting, of dedication and faith, of real-life pain and struggle, were about to be honored with a simple act of love that they have been denied over and over again in their stories and their lives.

This is not about a ship. This is about us. This is about the power of our stories, and the pain of their suppression. It always has been.

[disclaimer: this was not written by me. It was written by Deirdre-t on Buzzfeed. I just needed to share this because it’s perfect and I don’t know what to do with myself]

#this is it #this is exactly what i’ve been feeling for days #it was put into words perfectly #supernatural #spn #spnfamily #dean winchester #sam winchester #castiel #destiel #winchesters #cw #15x18 #15x20 #spn finale #spn final season #TheySilencedThem #jensen ackles #misha collins

35 notes · View notes

dgcatanisiri · 4 years ago

Text

I’ve said a few times, I’d sooner have had Felix as a companion over Dorian, on the basis of how Felix has a better claim to being capable of becoming “the Redeemer” of Tevinter society - he is already an outsider to Tevinter culture, considering that he’s the son of a Magister who has minimal magical gifts - Worlds of Thedas says that his grandfather tried to assassinate him for this. Meaning this is someone who has always been on the outside of the dominant culture of Tevinter society.

Now, if you’ve been on my blog for any length of time, you have probably seen me talk about the difference of queer focus versus queer relevance. Long version is here, short version is that queer focus orients the story on the struggles of being queer, while queer relevance orients the story on something that is relatable across the board, but ends up having resonance for the queer people.

My go-to example is something like Cullen’s addiction - addiction is something that hits anyone, queer or not. But because of the culture of queer spaces, where our safe spaces are bars and clubs, places where developing these habits is significantly easier, the story of breaking the addiction has queer relevance.

Or some time ago, I looked at how Cole is pulled between being more spirit-like or being more human-like, and felt that it kinda read like a trans metaphor, of Solas pushing him to be like he had always been, the way that Solas was more comfortable with him, even if Cole had changed from that, or Varric encouraging Cole to explore the person he was becoming, even if that meant he could never go back to who he was before.

Or, going away from Dragon Age, the Star Trek Deep Space Nine episode Rejoined featured a romance between two women. Now, these women both also carried the memories and personalities of two people who were married. Because Star Trek. In their society, the Reassociation is taboo (so it gets the capital letter treatment), because their people encourage each new life to separate itself and be distinct from the prior lives - Reassociation is so taboo to their people, they are threatened with expulsion from their society if they go ahead and take up the relationship again. It’s not taboo because of it being two women, but the metaphor is obvious because of how it IS, and yet the story doesn’t linger on that fact, all the concern is wrapped up in the natural reactions of the characters involved, how it impacts the characters in universe, letting the audience connect the dots and apply their own awareness.

So, going back to Dragon Age and Felix in particular... There’s that same relevance in him, because he can’t be what his culture says he should be. He has the same position as Dorian in Tevinter society, but for different reasons - he’s the son of a Magister, but he has barely any magic. So that kills almost any chance for him to provide that contribution to the distillation of “the perfect mage.”

And yet... Since here we have the loving father proceed to accept him regardless, it demands a different story, while still allowing that perspective - Felix can talk about how Tevinter society said that Alexius should have disowned him and had another heir, but Alexius didn’t, choosing to love and accept his son as he is rather than try to force him to be what he is not or abandon him for being what he is. Now it’s not a queer focus, centered on the pain of a queer person, it’s a story where the queer character (since I’m saying swap Dorian for Felix, I’d want Felix as a gay romance) was accepted.

Considering how awkwardly shoved in the homophobia of Dorian’s story is when we’re three games into the franchise and only being introduced here - because Fenris, the escaped Tevinter slave, SURELY should have mentioned that the nobility of Tevinter don’t approve when male Hawke (new nobility in Kirkwall) romances him, or brought it up against Anders, who romanticizes the fuck out of Tevinter. The few other instances of homophobia in the games could be passed off more as formed from out-of-universe reasons, that the writers still live in a homophobic society, and so are still using that lens - that’s certainly how I was looking at them until Dorian’s story came along.

Like I saw it the same as all the sexism in the games - they pay a lot of lip service to Thedas being without it, that women are accepted in the armies and leadership, that their Jesus-figure is a woman (and more Joan of Arc-y, but she’s not the center of the IRL religion...), the priesthood is all about women, barring men from higher positions... And yet there’s still a LOT of patriarchal structure, the focus on kings and bloodlines through the son, and, y’know, wouldn’t a society that both worships a woman AND prizes dogs NOT use ‘bitch’ as a gendered slur? You can’t get away from the biases of the society you the writer are writing these things in. You can try, but things slip through the cracks. And that’s legit how I saw any nugget of homophobia in the game as well, as a societal bias of the writers.

Dorian’s story made that impossible. It said that there was genuine homophobia in this society. And it said that this place that I’d seen homosexuality as being a difference that made no difference was no longer that safe space. And I don’t know about anyone else, but I find offering places of safety and acceptance for queer people more important than reemphasizing how damaging homophobia/queerphobia is.

Because I need queer narratives that AREN’T focused on queer pain. Because I can get that anywhere else, I need my power fantasies far, FAR more. Give me queer people who are unquestionably accepted. I’ll take the metaphors, the stories that have the obvious subtext, BUT are grounded within their universe.

So instead of this being an anvil of “my family can’t accept my queerness!” it’s just part of Felix’s character. Because we have Alexius as the character willing to let the world burn to save his son. Hell, I think it would have been GREAT to get Felix’s response to Alexius’s judgment at Skyhold instead of Dorian - it’s not just the mentor figure who has fallen from grace, it’s the father who would have killed everyone for the chance to save you. How do you respond to that?

Felix was better poised to be “the Redeemer” than Dorian was. And he had a queer relevant story without it being queer focus, Make Felix our companion (meaning that we’d probably need a new mage companion for the sake of balance and all, which means probably also changing up at least one other character’s class and story, but since they’re not going to remake the game, this is all academic anyway, so the character element is all that I’m looking at here), have Dorian as like a brother or still the mentee figure, maybe graft the sickness over to him instead of Felix (or build a questline around helping Felix recover).

And then Felix can speak of Tevinter with the luster worn off, because he’s spent his life seeing the faults of the society, the rot at its core, rather than just having had his eyes opened because Tevinter’s ills have finally reached him - they were always impacting him. He had family members try to kill him because he couldn’t be what they wanted. He’s only able to enjoy what he does because his father refuses to shut him out, something that surely has closed doors for Alexius, maybe even drew him to the Venatori before the sickness.

Felix is a better candidate to be “the Redeemer.” He’s experienced Tevinter’s ills more blatantly and more frequently than Dorian has. Felix should have been the companion over Dorian.

#dg plays dragon age #another angry queer rant #dorian critical

12 notes · View notes

flowitch · 4 years ago

Text

supernatural and lgbtqia+ characters

DISCLAIMER: i love these characters, which is why i watch the show. i do also have many issues with the show and the writers. this isn’t a hate post for the story or the characters, just the way the characters have been treated. do not read this if you are not caught up and do not want spoilers. this is also kinda a mess but i got very passionate about this and wrote it during classes

Dean Winchester

i’m gonna start with my boy dean!! dean is mine along with many other people’s favorite characters because of how complex he is. and one of the things that adds depth to his character is his “journey” with his sexuality.

there are many examples of dean very clearly not being straight, and he is officially headcanoned (and i guess canon now) as bisexual. you don’t even need to include dean and cas scenes for examples of his bisexuality. here is a video showing examples without any cas scenes:

https://youtu.be/rQSPmmuLJB0

now that we’ve established he is bisexual, let’s talk about the contradiction between the writing of his sexuality and character. the one i’m itching to talk about first is the confession scene in 10x16.

https://youtu.be/IqBHkwi13ic

in this scene, dean says, and i quote, if you don’t want to watch the video and don’t remember, “There's things, there's...people...feelings that I- I want to experience differently. Maybe even for the first time.” there honestly is no other way to interpret this. i’ve tried to put myself in the mind of the writers and the homophobes but i genuinely cannot interpret this another way. this is very clearly about his sexuality, being that there were no love interests at the time that this would apply to (not that this would even apply to a straight couple anyway). and not only does this confession scene occur, but sam even comments on how he was in there for a long time and he could always talk to him if he needs to!!!! they could have easily not had sam say anything about how long he spent in there, being that we as the viewers have no clue as to how long he was in there. they wrote that specifically to show that what he said in there had meaning and importance.

the writers and the crew of the show play into dean’s sexuality consistently with scenes, song of the days from the crew, etc., but then deny that destiel or dean’s bisexuality is real. i think a lot of this has to do with the fact that dean has always been considered as a “macho man” who shows very little emotion and has trouble with vulnerability. and that’s true! he absolutely is. but this show had 15 years to allow him to slowly work through his feelings and his issues with his own sexuality and self. the confession is a great example of the writers being almost there and then never speaking about it again.

even if you aren’t bisexual, you can see how much biphobia there is in the world. and as a bisexual woman i can say that bisexuality in men is so looked down upon it’s disturbing. men coming to terms with their bisexuality, especially if they are considered straight and “manly”, always makes me so happy since it’s not as accepted as female bisexuality. and this is another reason why supernatural exploring dean’s bisexuality would have been so incredible. seeing a man on television who has a lot of internal issues come to terms with something so complex and life changing would have been monumental to so many people. the writers had an infinite amount of ways to go about this because of things that THEY wrote, and instead chose to ignore his sexuality and have him not respond to castiel’s confession in 15x18. it’s very clear he was in shock in that episode so i’m not mad, but it is also clear that they wrote it that way to not fully make deancas canon.

dean winchester is bisexual, and the writers wrote him that way. nobody pulled this out of their ass, destiel didn’t become popular randomly and for no reason, they wrote him this way. this is their own writing that they have chosen to ignore and contradict for 15 seasons and it’s disappointing.

Castiel

this entire post is being written on november 6, 2020. one day after 15x18 aired. castiel is now canonically queer, and was already sent to someplace worse than hell. because he was happy. which directly connected to his love for dean. i honestly don’t even have to write cas’ section because that is enough, but i’ll write about his mistreatment anyway.

we knew the only thing that would make cas truly happy would be something with dean. well we assumed the writers would make up some other bullshit, but we hoped that it had something to do with dean. and sure enough, it was his love confession. and what i loved about this was cas starts it off by saying two beautiful things. one, that he knows he can never have what he really wants (dean), but he’s just as happy telling dean he loves him. he doesn’t need to have him to be happy with where they end their story, as long as dean knows. and the other thing he starts off by saying is that he knows how dean sees himself. he lists off all of these extremely kind things about dean and how dean is what made cas care about the world. he is the reason castiel went from an emotionless soldier to a fallen angel that feels deep love for people.

this confession scene although tainted by the fact that he died right after, which we’ll talk about, and the fact that it took this damn long, really means a lot to me. it was so incredible seeing cas be unapologetically open, honest, in love, and himself. he was for the first time since we’ve known him, completely and totally content. he told the man he loves how incredible he thinks he is and how he loves him, and knew he was saving him from billie by doing it. we’ve never seen him that happy. and it’s heartbreaking.

misha summed it up perfectly i think: “Tonight, watching Cas talk to Dean, I got lost in the story and forgot for a moment that I’m the one who plays that angel and I thought, “He’s how I want to be. He’s openhearted and he’s selfless and he’s true.”

this was the first time we saw cas living his whole truth, and he immediately died. in terms of just bad taste, sending someone who just came out to angel hell is very disturbing, but it’s just further proof of the writers not caring about their lgbtqia+ characters. it’s like they gave us what we wanted, but there just had to be a catch, right? these writers very clearly do not care about their queer characters or fans, and what they did to cas here shows that plain as day.

obviously i really do want dean to save cas from the empty to parallel cas saving him from hell, but do i think it’ll happen in these last two episodes? no. first off i just don’t think misha filmed for the last two episodes, but also, the writers have made it clear that they do not care about cas in general, nevermind their now love story. it just does not sit right with me that he got sent to the empty for eternity because he was finally his whole self and happy.

Charlie Bradbury (our world + au)

we have seen charlie bradbury die twice, both times for no reason at all. the first time we saw her die, it was by the hands of a NAZI, and her body was THROWN INTO A BATHTUB. like i said before with cas, that was explanation enough i mean come ON. the second time we witnessed charlie die was in 15x18, (along with the whole world i know bare with me), which we did NOT need to see.

let’s start with the fact that for all of these characters, supernatural creates and writes them wonderfully for the most part. we fall in love with these characters because of the way they were written, acted, and the dynamic with other characters. unfortunately in supernatural, if you are queer or a woman or god forbid both, that dynamic with other characters will be the death of you.

i’m gonna talk about each other her deaths individually. so her first death. the only reason for her death was to further sam and dean’s (mostly dean’s) man pain. although i eat up the reactions of other characters when another dies, this just felt completely unnecessary to me. the writers wrote a fan-favorite character, and decided that the best course of action was to brutally murder her to further dean’s mark of cain storyline. and i loved that storyline! i loved the scene of dean getting revenge for charlie! but it did not need to happen. the only thing the fans wanted was for her to be alive and well, get more screentime and possibly have a girlfriend.

when directly asked why they thought killing charlie was a good idea, jeremy carver said:

“That’s an excellent question, and it, it’s tough just because...any time you have a favorite character on a show...People die on the show. And, and, and...and, unfortunately...So...there’s so many ways to answer that. And I feel, I, I...it’s tough for me to answer. She’s an absolutely beloved character, beloved on the show...And when we’re in the writer’s room...we have to go where the story takes us. And we try and do it without, um...(insert fans booing and the cast laughing at him)...this is the world day of my life. And I’d like to thank everyone up here for the support.” (they were not helping).

not only did he not have a clue on how to answer a question that should have an understandable answer, but then the best thing that he could come up with is “we have to go where the story takes us.” but why would that possibly be where the story takes you? if supernatural had more diversity than straight white males and possibly one woman that dies or is evil, then fine kill off whoever you want even if i don’t like it. but it becomes a gender and sexuality issue when she is not only the only recurring female character at the time, but also the only recurring lgbtqia+ character at the time (minus cas).

now the second time she’s died. mind you this isn’t our world’s charlie. they brought her back for the fans and for the cast/crew that love her and felicia. we’ve established that she’s here living her life someplace. we haven’t heard anything about her for a hot minute, and then they decide to bring her back for 15x18. i was thrilled! i could not wait to see her, and was even more excited when she showed up on my television. and then, even better, we found out she has a girlfriend who she lives with and is clearly happy/comfortable with. and then what happens, may you ask? her girlfriend, stevie, a queer woman of color, vanishes. boom another unnecessary lgbtqia+ and woman death that could have been avoided if they just wrote in sam and dean calling her for help.

later on in the episode, everyone on earth excluding dean, sam, and jack are gone- completely vanished where they stood. charlie of course is among those people. bare with me here, i know everyone vanished and it’s not the same as the first one. but here’s my issue with it: she did not have to come back. i would have rather had donna say “jodie, the girls, charlie, they’re ready to go when you need them”, and then they all vanish off screen. but instead they went through the trouble of bringing her back, showing her happy, having her experience a painful loss, and then disappear anyway. what was the point in having her in the episode?

like i mentioned earlier with dean being representation for bisexual men, charlie was just that for lesbians!! the amount of posts i’ve seen on multiple platforms talking about how much they resonated with charlie or how heartbroken they were no longer having representation on their favorite show is awful. there was a kickass nerdy, kind, strong, loving lesbian on your show not once but twice (au charlie), and you blew it.

Claire + Kaia (Dreamhunter)

this part isn’t going to be long because there are some exceptions: wayward sisters failed spinoff (i’m still heartbroken i want it so bad), kathryn newton’s new status and inability to be in the show, etc.. so i guess this will just be a short thing about wayward sisters and what that could mean for claire and kaia.

they had already established in supernatural that kaia was claire’s first love. we had gotten some really cute scenes with them, and then wayward sisters was finally a possibility. if the show had gone through, which i’m not sure why it didn’t, claire and kaia’s relationship could have been a goldmine. young girls could see themselves represented by characters already adored by supernatural fans. it would’ve shown a beautiful wlw relationship between two young girls who are also kickass and can keep up with their elders/male counterparts.

i can’t pin this on the writers sadly (lmao), but i am still upset that we didn’t get wayward sisters. it would’ve meant a lot to women and to the lgbtqia+ community.

My thoughts

like i said in the disclaimer, i love these characters and the story of supernatural. i always will. but i can’t lie about how frustrating it is seeing women, lgbts and people of color get constantly disregarded and mistreated. the writers had 15 years to get with the times, and the growth of society. stuff that i saw in season one and wasn’t surprised by should not still be happening in season 15. having writers that are all straight white males/women is not enough anymore. it never was. there has to be something for everyone in a show as big as this. it’s not about meeting diversity requirements, it’s about actually having diversity because it’s real. there are no diversity requirements for people in society. these are just people of different races, ethnicities, sexualities, genders, etc. who want to see someone like them represented on the things that they watch. it’s a lonely feeling not being validated by a show that you love.

i might make another post specifically for the women mistreatment and queerbaiting on this show but that’s all for my essay on why supernatural sucks at not mistreating their queer characters :)

#supernatural #spn #spn 15x18 #dean winchester #castiel #deancas #destiel #charlie bradbury #claire novak #kaia nieves #wayward sisters

16 notes · View notes

thetiredstuff · 4 years ago

Note

what these writers dont understand is that the “kill your gays trope” isn’t just something that is only mildly bittersweet and blown way out of proportion for us. NO. our community clings to any piece of media that remotely represents us, only to have to watch ourselves die. Again and again and again and again. Gruesome deaths, senseless ones. that shit is fucking traumatizing. it’s as though straight ppl could only accept us if we were already on our way out.

Hi! Okay, I wanna be really clear and say that I don’t wanna talk over you and whatever you feel is completely valid. But you came into my ask box so I’m guessing you wanna know my reply?

So I’m gonna reply to it but this is how I look at it and I don’t mean to talk over you. I get what you mean. I really do. You know, when Cas died in episode 18, I’m gonna be honest, I didn’t cry as much as I thought I would. I knew, going into that episode, that he was gonna die. What I didn’t know was that he was gonna say “I love you” to Dean.

But I knew he was gonna die. And I cried. My reaction after watching episode 18 was a mixture of disbelief, shock, and tears. Disbelief because I couldn’t believe that they actually made Cas confess his love. Not disbelief because he was gay because he has been in love with Dean for so long. But disbelief that they were allowed to actually make him gay for the straight audience (and homophobic audience) to see it as well. Shock because holy shit and tears because it was so beautiful. That’s what I think of when thinking of this scene: beautiful.

And then he died. And I never really wept for his death. Ya know why? because I always thought that we’d see him again. Like Rowena. Cas might have died but it’s going to be a rebirth like Rowena and we’ll see him again and he’ll reunite with Dean and then Dean is gonna have to say his truth to Cas and we’re gonna have Destiel.

Because before the covid-hiatus, I am almost 100% sure no scratch that I am 100% sure that Cas was supposed to be back in the finale. That we were supposed to see him in Heaven, with him greeting Dean and them talking.

Because that’s what makes sense narrative-wise. Cas got to speak so Dean had to speak next. If you look at season 15, plotline A wasn’t God being the big bad. Plotline A was Dean and Cas’ story. Their relationship.

I don’t view this as “bury your gays” because I don’t think the original story was supposed to bury Cas. I think the original story was going to have Cas rebirth like Rowena, to have Dean speak his truth, and to have him and Cas be together. The reason why I’m not angry is because if you look at the writers of especially the last three years, and you look at their episodes, it is clear they understand Dean and Cas and their story and the show.

More importantly, if you look at the showrunner Dabb, he wrote amazing episode. Cas was his favorite character, he understands this show intricately. He shaped the writers room (besides buckleming). These weren’t just straight writers. The writers room contained queer writers as well. And one of them (Bobo) was made an executive producer in the end. He worked closely with Dabb. This wasn’t a story crafted by straight people, it was crafted by a writers room with queer writers that understood Dean and Cas's relationship.

If you don’t believe me, a perfect example is season 12 onward. Dean and Cas’ relationship really kicked up a notch when Dabb became showrunner. They became a married couple. Season 13 was just insane (”Tombstone” anyone???) But by the second half of the season, it seemed like they were tampering down on Destiel again. Same with season 14. It honestly felt like the higher-ups said to tone down the queer. Because what is really important to remember (and what really fucking sucks) is that this first and foremost is a product. It is capitalism, and queerness is risky to businesses (I don’t agree but I’m not a suit). However, throughout the “stillness of destiel” of the later half of season 13 and season 14, destiel was still there. Just less overt compared to fucking brokebacknatural.

But then something shifted in season 15, they really kicked it up a notch when it came to destiel. They went all out, break-up, reconciliation, even a love confession. I don’t think this writers room would ever have gone for bury your gays with Cas if they weren’t allowed to bring him back. Because that trope is extremely well known. I guarantee you, they don’t see it as us overreacting. They see that trope for what it is as well. That scene was filmed before production shut down due to covid.

But I think something happened during hiatus (I'm not the only one) besides covid making it difficult to bring back people. I think the higher-ups got scared or something and they pulled the plug (again) on destiel.

This is not the story the writers would have wanted to tell. You know how I know that? Because the meta, the subtext, the text, the foreshadowing all pointed towards Cas coming back and reuniting. We aren’t delusional. The finale went how I thought it would go for the most part because the text showed it going there. It’s only the end where they fucked up. Not because of covid, but because I truly think they pulled the plug.

So I’m not going to say this is bury your gays because that wasn’t supposed to be Cas’ story. That wasn’t what the writers were going for. And I’m sure that they are beating themselves up over it as well. I know that’s not a consolation. And I truly dislike what they did to Cas, but this wasn’t supposed to be bury your gays. So I’m not seeing it like that.

I don’t know if any of that made sense my brian is still fried from the 15-hour crying session I’ve been having and the lack of sleep lol

#spn spoilers #15x20 #spn #supernatural #destiel #I love my husbands #cas #castiel #me #anon #ask

11 notes · View notes

klarriel · 4 years ago

Text

re:misha

nobody is ever going to read this but i need somewhere to vent

i want you to bear this in mind - imagine being misha: you have spent 12 years on a show that you've put your heart and soul into. you've made it with so many people youre friends with, and you've seen them all work hard to make it. you've fought for your character, and in the end it all pays off because you get to have your character speak his truth, and 'die' in the way you've hoped for. then everything goes wrong.

im going to start with the cw/tptb. OBVIOUSLY network television is homophobic. the network has other shows with lgbtq+ representation but when it comes to a long running show, especially with the demographic of spn, they really had no intention of putting two of their leads in a mlm relationship. cas coming out was their limit, and i think people fought for that, but ultimately - cas was always a 'different' character, and fans of the show who were there for cas were more so progressive and open. fans there for the brothers were their legacy audience, and they couldn't risk losing that in the face of walker. even before the pandemic, they were never going to risk that.

im now going to go out on a limb here and say that the fandom also has a part to play in this. obviously not all the fandom, but there has been unnecessary pain caused. some of the meta writers have thrown out theories in the past that have made logical sense, but when they get disproven they change their tune and say we were just interpreting it wrong - I have been in this fandom before. Meta theorists were 100% SURE when Cas became human it was all leading to canon deancas, and it didnt happen. I'm not saying their theories aren't sound or don't have any weight behind them - in a normal world, they would probably be exactly right. but this is supernatural, and when it comes to this show, i feel like giving people endless hope when explicit mutual deancas was never going to happen, didnt sit right with me.

please do not trust information from people who claim to know people or work in areas (eg: dubbing, focus group interviews) that many of them likely don't. i'm not calling everyone liars, but even if you did work in the industry, unless you work in that office where that dub script was decided on, who knows why that dub was put in. like i said, i've been in this fandom before - people spread information to fire the flames

misha did not say it was a bury your gays trope in that panel a week or two ago. he said it potentially plays into the trope. imo he has not contradicted himself - if we're taking him at face value, he likely doesn't think it's bury your gays, as is supported by his video.

all the attacking andrew dabb posts? i get it, it's funny, but i'm sorry - as much as i thought the ending was pretty terribly written, do you really think andrew dabb is the overseer of everything, pulling all the strings? yes he was the show runner, but he would have had no power over the network. his quotes about jensen and misha also seem to be badly executed jokes that when cut down to just those lines are easy to take at face value and out of context

i do think however, that the pain caused by spn goes beyond 15x18, and thats what misha in his video fails to understand. this is an issue of characters like cas and eileen and charlie being killed and then never mentioned again. we all know covid had a detrimental impact to the story and ability to shoot, but i've maintained as have many people that so many issues could have been solved with one line. the erasure of female, lgbtq+ and non-white characters, and characters with disabilities is an issue that is inexcusable and requires recognition and a formal apology by all involved. the lack of character development and refusal to acknowledge the journey the show has taken in the last 15 years is less of an issue, but still contributes to the pain. this is also about, as it always has been, queer baiting using obvious romantic tropes for deancas and then never delivering on it. i think bobo berens and other writers/show runners worked to change this, but ultimately if we look at the deancas legacy, a lot of it was tropes and moments that were never allowed to come to fruition, all in all to keep their audience that was ultimately there for dean/cas/deancas, and keeping viewing figures up (we really did keep this show on air).

i wont sit here and defend mishas words, because to be honest i think they came from a place of frustration and sadness and he worded it wrong, but i think his heart is always with us. he knows how much cas meant to us and fought for him to come out. he is an adult man with a wife and family and other priorities- his top priority is not going to be righting the wrongs of a television show, even one he was so heavily involved in. he's not always going to know what the right thing is to say to a group of people so invested, but what i will say is , as he said - we can write our own ending. of course dean is bi, we don't need spanish translators to tell us that. don't let this invalidate you

#feels good to get all of this out lol #misha collins #spn #deancas #bi dean is real

10 notes · View notes