Velma is new Scooby-Doo Halloween movie identifies as LGBQT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do we have to go out of our way *specifically* reveal the sexuality of the lesbian character *only*? No other characters in SD reveal their sexuality, no? If we are going to reveal the sexuality of the characters, then why should Velma be the only one to reveal? The other characters should confirm their orientation as well, which likely includes straight heteros. I mean hey, if you are going to make sexuality important in SD, you need to reveal for every character in SD if you want to be truly inclusive.

This is a flimsy diversity attempt. All of these lame diversity pushes are going to stupendously backfire once people have had enough and get fed up with the forcefeeding. 99% of diversity in media these days is contrived, shallow crap to check a box off. They have to commandeer characters and stories and change the race of the character, the sex of the characters, their sexuality,.....it never ends. Diversity is now formulaic crap garbage. It is an sttempt that is the equivalent to the trend of sriracha in everything that lazy chefs did for a while and fizzled out. Coming up with novel stories and characters who just happen to be diverse is hard, therefore we get lazy, unauthentic attempts like this that take over a children's character and make sure they jam it down the throats of children. Why is there sooooooooo much attention on over representing all of these identity groups when they make up such a small fraction of the country?

+100 Hollywood is going to slowly destroy itself if it keeps going down this path. People get annoyed when you change well known characters for the sake of diversity. It comes across as lazy and box checking. They need to create original diverse and LGBQT characters. No on seemed to have a problem with the gay couple on Modern Family or the gay characters on Will and Grace for example. It was an original show with original characters. Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians were both very successful movies with a diverse cast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:you people are nuts. Imagine getting upset that a FAKE cartoon character is lesbian.

Their depravity knows no bounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:you people are nuts. Imagine getting upset that a FAKE cartoon character is lesbian.

It matters. You know exactly how witches look based "fake" images.

[Anonymous]

Agree with PPs - I would have preferred a new character reveal. Thank you ñ would also prefer real stories or even new non-fiction about underrepresented minorities.

I also think stereotypes matter and this was a double fail using Velma as the one who is gay. This does not help anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with PPs - I would have preferred a new character reveal. Thank you ñ would also prefer real stories or even new non-fiction about underrepresented minorities.

I also think stereotypes matter and this was a double fail using Velma as the one who is gay. This does not help anyone.

Exactly, thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we have to go out of our way *specifically* reveal the sexuality of the lesbian character *only*? No other characters in SD reveal their sexuality, no? If we are going to reveal the sexuality of the characters, then why should Velma be the only one to reveal? The other characters should confirm their orientation as well, which likely includes straight heteros. I mean hey, if you are going to make sexuality important in SD, you need to reveal for every character in SD if you want to be truly inclusive.

This is a flimsy diversity attempt. All of these lame diversity pushes are going to stupendously backfire once people have had enough and get fed up with the forcefeeding. 99% of diversity in media these days is contrived, shallow crap to check a box off. They have to commandeer characters and stories and change the race of the character, the sex of the characters, their sexuality,.....it never ends. Diversity is now formulaic crap garbage. It is an sttempt that is the equivalent to the trend of sriracha in everything that lazy chefs did for a while and fizzled out. Coming up with novel stories and characters who just happen to be diverse is hard, therefore we get lazy, unauthentic attempts like this that take over a children's character and make sure they jam it down the throats of children. Why is there sooooooooo much attention on over representing all of these identity groups when they make up such a small fraction of the country?

+100 Hollywood is going to slowly destroy itself if it keeps going down this path. People get annoyed when you change well known characters for the sake of diversity. It comes across as lazy and box checking. They need to create original diverse and LGBQT characters. No on seemed to have a problem with the gay couple on Modern Family or the gay characters on Will and Grace for example. It was an original show with original characters. Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians were both very successful movies with a diverse cast.

Velma wasn't "changed".

She has always been gay. It was just less obvious back in the olden times.

[Anonymous]

Cool!
Hopefully this makes more young smart, bookish girls consider being lesbians. Explore!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, add this to the list of things we won’t be watching.

Kids’ movies are for kids. They’re not for parents. Most kids and teenagers are much more comfortable in a diverse world than their parents are, because this is their reality. That’s to be celebrated, not looked down on.

Young kids do not need to be thinking about sexuality.

So you think all love interests should be removed from all children’s movies, yes? No more princess movies with a handsome Prince. No Frozen. No Cinderella. No Little Mermaid. No Monster’s Inc. No Encanto. No Toy Story 4.

I don't think young kids are thinking of sexuality when tjey see a prince or princess. Do you think every type of person on earth needs to be represented?

DP but if your don't think young kids are thinking of sexuality when the crab is singing Kiss The Girl or any prince/princess gets married, but you *do* think they're thinking of sexuality when Velma blushes around a pretty girl, you don't have a leg to stand on. This is not a logical argument it's just garden-variety homophobia.

So exactly how much exposure do you think kids should have to all possibilities? A transgendered princess?

Sure, why not? What exactly is the problem with that?

I don't want to expose my kids to something that I don't condone. Most trans kids are attention seekers and certainly don't fall in the minuscule percentage of people who may legitimately have a disconnect between their biology and genitals. Too many kids are using drugs, drinking, cutting, identity changes etc to cope and the more we expose them the more likely they will jump in the bandwagon. The scary part is it isnt easy to go back and quit. I don't want to normalize changing genders because then the child thinks it is a choice, when it shouldn't be.

True.

It’s disturbing how doctors don’t do a neuropsych test before catering to the young kid and simply Affirming everything the kid says and wants about themselves. Nevermind aspergers or adhd or social anxiety or a bad home environment, let’s affirm whatever the Internet Influencer says to say and get going in name changes, binding, puberty blockers. And then maybe at the 12 month some testosterone.

#UMCWhiteTransTrend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we have to go out of our way *specifically* reveal the sexuality of the lesbian character *only*? No other characters in SD reveal their sexuality, no? If we are going to reveal the sexuality of the characters, then why should Velma be the only one to reveal? The other characters should confirm their orientation as well, which likely includes straight heteros. I mean hey, if you are going to make sexuality important in SD, you need to reveal for every character in SD if you want to be truly inclusive.

This is a flimsy diversity attempt. All of these lame diversity pushes are going to stupendously backfire once people have had enough and get fed up with the forcefeeding. 99% of diversity in media these days is contrived, shallow crap to check a box off. They have to commandeer characters and stories and change the race of the character, the sex of the characters, their sexuality,.....it never ends. Diversity is now formulaic crap garbage. It is an sttempt that is the equivalent to the trend of sriracha in everything that lazy chefs did for a while and fizzled out. Coming up with novel stories and characters who just happen to be diverse is hard, therefore we get lazy, unauthentic attempts like this that take over a children's character and make sure they jam it down the throats of children. Why is there sooooooooo much attention on over representing all of these identity groups when they make up such a small fraction of the country?

+100 Hollywood is going to slowly destroy itself if it keeps going down this path. People get annoyed when you change well known characters for the sake of diversity. It comes across as lazy and box checking. They need to create original diverse and LGBQT characters. No on seemed to have a problem with the gay couple on Modern Family or the gay characters on Will and Grace for example. It was an original show with original characters. Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians were both very successful movies with a diverse cast.

Velma wasn't "changed".

She has always been gay. It was just less obvious back in the olden times.

+1 But it's interesting to see the same people who were oblivious to the subtext are now furious about the *invention* of trans kids and the *shoehorning* of gay/minority characters into shows - representation matters even more than I thought. These fools actually thought we didn't exist at all because Velma didn't kiss a girl on their Saturday morning cartoons. Now we're being "invented" and being more upfront about Velma's orientation instead of keeping it subtle is "lazy and box checking".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we have to go out of our way *specifically* reveal the sexuality of the lesbian character *only*? No other characters in SD reveal their sexuality, no? If we are going to reveal the sexuality of the characters, then why should Velma be the only one to reveal? The other characters should confirm their orientation as well, which likely includes straight heteros. I mean hey, if you are going to make sexuality important in SD, you need to reveal for every character in SD if you want to be truly inclusive.

This is a flimsy diversity attempt. All of these lame diversity pushes are going to stupendously backfire once people have had enough and get fed up with the forcefeeding. 99% of diversity in media these days is contrived, shallow crap to check a box off. They have to commandeer characters and stories and change the race of the character, the sex of the characters, their sexuality,.....it never ends. Diversity is now formulaic crap garbage. It is an sttempt that is the equivalent to the trend of sriracha in everything that lazy chefs did for a while and fizzled out. Coming up with novel stories and characters who just happen to be diverse is hard, therefore we get lazy, unauthentic attempts like this that take over a children's character and make sure they jam it down the throats of children. Why is there sooooooooo much attention on over representing all of these identity groups when they make up such a small fraction of the country?

+100 Hollywood is going to slowly destroy itself if it keeps going down this path. People get annoyed when you change well known characters for the sake of diversity. It comes across as lazy and box checking. They need to create original diverse and LGBQT characters. No on seemed to have a problem with the gay couple on Modern Family or the gay characters on Will and Grace for example. It was an original show with original characters. Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians were both very successful movies with a diverse cast.

Velma wasn't "changed".

She has always been gay. It was just less obvious back in the olden times.

+1 But it's interesting to see the same people who were oblivious to the subtext are now furious about the *invention* of trans kids and the *shoehorning* of gay/minority characters into shows - representation matters even more than I thought. These fools actually thought we didn't exist at all because Velma didn't kiss a girl on their Saturday morning cartoons. Now we're being "invented" and being more upfront about Velma's orientation instead of keeping it subtle is "lazy and box checking".

Maybe they were always aware but are furious that it's being said outloud now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we have to go out of our way *specifically* reveal the sexuality of the lesbian character *only*? No other characters in SD reveal their sexuality, no? If we are going to reveal the sexuality of the characters, then why should Velma be the only one to reveal? The other characters should confirm their orientation as well, which likely includes straight heteros. I mean hey, if you are going to make sexuality important in SD, you need to reveal for every character in SD if you want to be truly inclusive.

This is a flimsy diversity attempt. All of these lame diversity pushes are going to stupendously backfire once people have had enough and get fed up with the forcefeeding. 99% of diversity in media these days is contrived, shallow crap to check a box off. They have to commandeer characters and stories and change the race of the character, the sex of the characters, their sexuality,.....it never ends. Diversity is now formulaic crap garbage. It is an sttempt that is the equivalent to the trend of sriracha in everything that lazy chefs did for a while and fizzled out. Coming up with novel stories and characters who just happen to be diverse is hard, therefore we get lazy, unauthentic attempts like this that take over a children's character and make sure they jam it down the throats of children. Why is there sooooooooo much attention on over representing all of these identity groups when they make up such a small fraction of the country?

+100 Hollywood is going to slowly destroy itself if it keeps going down this path. People get annoyed when you change well known characters for the sake of diversity. It comes across as lazy and box checking. They need to create original diverse and LGBQT characters. No on seemed to have a problem with the gay couple on Modern Family or the gay characters on Will and Grace for example. It was an original show with original characters. Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians were both very successful movies with a diverse cast.

Velma wasn't "changed".

She has always been gay. It was just less obvious back in the olden times.

+1 But it's interesting to see the same people who were oblivious to the subtext are now furious about the *invention* of trans kids and the *shoehorning* of gay/minority characters into shows - representation matters even more than I thought. These fools actually thought we didn't exist at all because Velma didn't kiss a girl on their Saturday morning cartoons. Now we're being "invented" and being more upfront about Velma's orientation instead of keeping it subtle is "lazy and box checking".

Maybe they were always aware but are furious that it's being said outloud now.

Or maybe I was just a kid when I watched the original cartoon and a character's sexuality never crossed my mind Of course LGBQT have always existed but you have to be ignorant if you can't see how much Hollywood is force feeding this stuff considering they make up a tiny percentage of the population. I'll give you a recent example. In the recent Netflix series "The Summer I Turned Pretty" they changed the sexual orientation of one of the main characters. It was based off of a novel so it was confusing when they changed it for no reason. Like I said earlier, of course diversity and representation matters but when you change known characters gender, race, or sexual orientation rather than coming up with original ones it does come across as lazy and unoriginal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we have to go out of our way *specifically* reveal the sexuality of the lesbian character *only*? No other characters in SD reveal their sexuality, no? If we are going to reveal the sexuality of the characters, then why should Velma be the only one to reveal? The other characters should confirm their orientation as well, which likely includes straight heteros. I mean hey, if you are going to make sexuality important in SD, you need to reveal for every character in SD if you want to be truly inclusive.

This is a flimsy diversity attempt. All of these lame diversity pushes are going to stupendously backfire once people have had enough and get fed up with the forcefeeding. 99% of diversity in media these days is contrived, shallow crap to check a box off. They have to commandeer characters and stories and change the race of the character, the sex of the characters, their sexuality,.....it never ends. Diversity is now formulaic crap garbage. It is an sttempt that is the equivalent to the trend of sriracha in everything that lazy chefs did for a while and fizzled out. Coming up with novel stories and characters who just happen to be diverse is hard, therefore we get lazy, unauthentic attempts like this that take over a children's character and make sure they jam it down the throats of children. Why is there sooooooooo much attention on over representing all of these identity groups when they make up such a small fraction of the country?

+100 Hollywood is going to slowly destroy itself if it keeps going down this path. People get annoyed when you change well known characters for the sake of diversity. It comes across as lazy and box checking. They need to create original diverse and LGBQT characters. No on seemed to have a problem with the gay couple on Modern Family or the gay characters on Will and Grace for example. It was an original show with original characters. Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians were both very successful movies with a diverse cast.

Velma wasn't "changed".

She has always been gay. It was just less obvious back in the olden times.

+1 But it's interesting to see the same people who were oblivious to the subtext are now furious about the *invention* of trans kids and the *shoehorning* of gay/minority characters into shows - representation matters even more than I thought. These fools actually thought we didn't exist at all because Velma didn't kiss a girl on their Saturday morning cartoons. Now we're being "invented" and being more upfront about Velma's orientation instead of keeping it subtle is "lazy and box checking".

Maybe they were always aware but are furious that it's being said outloud now.

Or maybe I was just a kid when I watched the original cartoon and a character's sexuality never crossed my mind Of course LGBQT have always existed but you have to be ignorant if you can't see how much Hollywood is force feeding this stuff considering they make up a tiny percentage of the population. I'll give you a recent example. In the recent Netflix series "The Summer I Turned Pretty" they changed the sexual orientation of one of the main characters. It was based off of a novel so it was confusing when they changed it for no reason. Like I said earlier, of course diversity and representation matters but when you change known characters gender, race, or sexual orientation rather than coming up with original ones it does come across as lazy and unoriginal.

OK. So you were clueless. The rest of us can see that it's not a change for Velma.

So much hostility over being inclusive of sexual orientation. Why is that?

[Anonymous]

I don’t care about a gay character. I watch She-Ra with my kids. I’m upset that the gay character is yet another stereotype. We should not settle for scraps. This is insulting and yes, misogynist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care about a gay character. I watch She-Ra with my kids. I’m upset that the gay character is yet another stereotype. We should not settle for scraps. This is insulting and yes, misogynist.

You think a lesbian should be the blond bimbo instead of the smart brunette? Smart brunette doesn't fit into your girl on girl fantasy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care about a gay character. I watch She-Ra with my kids. I’m upset that the gay character is yet another stereotype. We should not settle for scraps. This is insulting and yes, misogynist.

The whole show has stereotypes, you’re okay with the other stereotypes?