entertainment

GLAAD calls for LGBT characters in 20% of movies by 2021

24 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

24 Comments
Login to comment

20%. No, thanks. I don't want the LBGT agenda thrown in my face when I see movies.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

20%. No, thanks. I don't want the LBGT agenda thrown in my face when I see movies.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

As opposed to the hetero agenda?

What is the LGBT agenda, btw?

I believe it's a good thing to be more visible, with realistic portrayals as opposed to token and stereotypical representation.

Remember, it took Hollywood many decades to move beyond the likes of Mammy and Prissy.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

GLAAD only praises films that portray LGBT characters in a serious and deep way, if not then thumbs down has they will heavily criticising the movie. And where did they come up with 20% figure? Having a quota for the sake of it isn't any kind of solution.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

How about just make good movies that people want to see? There shouldn't be any limitations to who or what you can have in a movie... it is fiction and if people dont like it, the movie doesn't get good reviews or revenue.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I don't care what sexual orientation a perdon has but a quote is silly. My biggest problem is that there is a 17% demographic population in the usa that dominates tv ads and movies, which does not make sense.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Box office hits like "Wonder Woman" and "Black Panther" have smashed old Hollywood notions that movies that champion women and people of color do not have global appeal, GLAAD said.

ANY Hollywood superhero movie is going to have "global appeal". Their comparison is preposterous.

GLAAD called on Hollywood to have 20 percent of annual film releases include a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or gender fluid character by 2021, rising to 50 percent of output by 2024.

So, male sodomy is now considered normal behavior?

20%. No, thanks. I don't want the LBGT agenda thrown in my face when I see movies.

Then I'd recommend avoiding British TV shows and movies. The social conditioning is strong with this one.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

There shouldn't be a quota on the number of LGBT characters in movies; Shoehorning diversity into movies isn't going to solve anything. But, they are certainly underrepresented and often misrepresented through stereotyping. I'd rather see more honest and realistic portrayals/inclusion of LGBT people in cinema, than a flood of token characters to tick cast diversity boxes.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

2% of the population but those with mild (bisexual) to strong (transsexual) gender confusion want 21% of films!?! How is that true equality?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Identity politics: the gift that keeps on giving.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

There should be no quotas. Gays are a minority but I don't have a problem with gay movie characters, if that character truly fits in the story script or plot. I don't think having TOKEN anything is good, however. How about just writing good films? If a story requires a gay character, write that in. Just don't put one in to be 'doing it'. That's being dumb.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I'd recommend avoiding British TV shows and movies. The social conditioning is strong with this one.

Which is fine, if people wish to remain closed to the rest of the world and how your friends, families and neighbours interact. If people wish to stay within narrow confines of their own imagination, that's down to them. Nobody has to embark on any sexual intimacy or watch programming that frightens them.

In the meantime, let cinema, theatre, music and the arts reflect the glorious diversity that we wake up to each day on our journey through life.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

How do these SHWs know that this is not already happening? You can't tell a persons' sexual proclivities just by looking at them, after all. Unless they want some kind of clumsy label on all gay characters, or having scripts rewritten to explicitly identify them. Either one is a bit stupid really.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Unless they want some kind of clumsy label on all gay characters, or having scripts rewritten to explicitly identify them.

I don't think When Harry Met Sally had any hetero labels when it was promoted, or Casblanca, or Titanic. They all did fine, as did My Beautiful Laundrette, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Dog Day Afternoon. The latter 3 with gay characters and exceptional storytelling.

There's no labels - characters are either strong or they aren't - no matter what their sexuality is.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Sorry but at 20% that's way over-represented. When I'm with five people it's extremely rare to have two of them be LBG or T.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

GLAAD called on Hollywood to have 20 percent of annual film releases include a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or gender fluid character by 2021, rising to 50 percent of output by 2024.

Way over represented 2 percent of the population wanting first 20 percent then 50 percent - oh the arrogance.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I'm not for quotas at all with this but you guys are wrong when you say it's massive over representation. They're not calling for 20% of characters to be portrayed as LBG or T. They're calling for at least a single character in 20% of movies. That really isn't that big a deal. It could be a character in a movie about a prison riot with hundreds of people cast. I think trying to force it is going to get backlash but don't be so upset by what they're asking for.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I think at least 30% of movies should have at least one Canadian character, otherwise it wouldn't be fair.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This was never a problem in the U.K.

Pantomimes had blokes dressed up as birds and birds dressed up as blokes.

Music halls and working men's clubs had "female impersonators," like Danny La Rue. And the Carry on films with Kenneth Williams and Charles Hawtrey. How about putting out reruns of those. Would that make the LGBT, etc. crowd happy?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And the Carry on films with Kenneth Williams and Charles Hawtrey. How about putting out reruns of those. Would that make the LGBT, etc. crowd happy?

You mean deeply troubled souls playing awful stereotypes. What do you think, Bertie?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Toasted Heretic,

You mean deeply troubled souls playing awful stereotypes. What do you think, Bertie?

I thought it funny at the time, but the Carry on series fails to move me at present. I still enjoy Kenneth Williams in small doses though. Whether they were deeply troubled or not, I know not, the whole series was built on awful stereotypes. Not only the bent ones, from Sid James to Barbara Windsor, they were all stereotypes. That was a comedic technique at the time. Because there actually were types like Alf Garnett, living and breathing in the populus, making comedy out of it was a way to open people's eyes. And I think this was effective. After Alf Garnett, people did a re-think of capitalism and nationalism, Jules and Sandy, Kenneth Williams, et al., opened people's eyes to the gay world and I think that was a good thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Back on topic please.

Hey, Bertie - I even enjoyed Carry On years ago. Carry on Screaming being a favourite. But I think the stereotypes are part of a bygone era. Jules and Sandy and all that polari may raise a wry and nostalgic smile... however, as you know, it's not the 60s anymore. We've moved on from archaic depictions of LGBT people as those you've mentioned (or Wodehouse himself). Fascinating, readable but very much of the time.

I read the Kenneth Williams diaries and he came across as a tormented person, afraid to love himself and full of self-loathing. Especially as he had to perform the same role in the comedies. A little piece of him died each time he was typecast.

Warren Mitchell made an unforgettable Alf Garnett but the subtlty of Johnny Speight's writing was often lost on its audience.

I'd like to give modern audiences credit for being intelligent but whenever a topic like this appears, it feels like it's a step backward with some of the responses.

It's as if (not directed at you) some people would rather not see women/minorities/LGBT people be portrayed in a positive way. Or at all. Therefore, I believe the GLAAD President is correct when she says it's time for such stories to be included in the conversation...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If it fits the movie, I don't care what the sexual preference or identity of a character is. If it's wedged in to fill some imaginary quota, then it has a chance to derail the movie. No thanks.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites