Velma is new Scooby-Doo Halloween movie identifies as LGBQT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. I don’t think a single person has answered how they knew this all along, except for someone who said it her hairstyle. Was it something she said? How did you know?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/arts/television/scooby-doo-velma-lesbian.html

So according to that article, Velma dated both Shaggy and Johnny Bravo in the early years of the cartoon, presumably when most of us here actually watched or even thought about these characters. Her rise as an LGBTQ icon is more of a post-2000 internet fandom thing. So excuse me for not knowing.

The writer said he did it on purpose. Most young people date the opposite of their attraction when they are LGBT, to “fit in”. He purposely wrote it awkward and forced.

Oh but that couldn’t apply to Fred or Daphne?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. I don’t think a single person has answered how they knew this all along, except for someone who said it her hairstyle. Was it something she said? How did you know?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/arts/television/scooby-doo-velma-lesbian.html

So according to that article, Velma dated both Shaggy and Johnny Bravo in the early years of the cartoon, presumably when most of us here actually watched or even thought about these characters. Her rise as an LGBTQ icon is more of a post-2000 internet fandom thing. So excuse me for not knowing.

The writer said he did it on purpose. Most young people date the opposite of their attraction when they are LGBT, to “fit in”. He purposely wrote it awkward and forced.

Cool. Again, my 8 year old self was not picking up what he was putting down. Who knew Scooby Doo was so nuanced and layered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. I don’t think a single person has answered how they knew this all along, except for someone who said it her hairstyle. Was it something she said? How did you know?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/arts/television/scooby-doo-velma-lesbian.html

"Previous “Scooby-Doo” writers and producers have said that Velma was a lesbian, but said pushback by studios would not allow them to depict her as one on screen."

Gotta love unattributed, uncited sentences like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. I don’t think a single person has answered how they knew this all along, except for someone who said it her hairstyle. Was it something she said? How did you know?

Exactly how was I as a young child watching this supposed to pick up on subtle clues? The previous poster is an idiot calling people clueless for not getting it and they also lack reading comprehension skills. Just because I point out Hollywood's lazy box checking diversity pushes these days does not mean I have hostility over being inclusive . I mentioned shows like Modern Family and Will and Grace because they were great shows with funny characters and it didn't come across as box checking at all. Euphoria is another great example of a show featuring a transgender character with an interesting storyline. Hollywood needs to create more original diverse characters rather than remaking an old movie or show and "modernizing" it. Get it?

It's a modern new take/remake, not a duplicate. Funny how you're not nitpicking all of the other ways that the stories have been modernized.

If being inclusive is too much of a stretch for you, then go watch the old versions.

No you still don’t get it but go on insisting posters don’t believe in inclusivity when it was clearly stated it is important but shouldn’t be forced. Once again Hollywood in general needs to stop remaking and modernizing old movies and come up with something original. You’re so determined to think of everyone as homophobic and bigoted you’re not even reading what posters are actually saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's always been a lesbian, it's just that mores have changed enough that subtext can now be text.

She looks pretty hetro hot here…

It takes a special kind of idiot to think you've disproved her queerness by pointing out she's pretty.

DP. I agree with you, but then why are so many saying they knew she (or, say, Peppermint Patty) were gay all along? What’s the tell if not their physical appearance?

I actually hate all of this. Every character that doesn’t meet a very narrow characterization of “femininity” is now gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay but there is something wrong with telling kids that any person who is slightly quirky or not masculine and feminine in a particular way is gay. This is remarkably toxic and stupid.

I was never “feminine” like Daphne, I was always a Velma, and I never had homosexual leanings in the slightest. I am just a slightly less feminine heterosexual woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's always been a lesbian, it's just that mores have changed enough that subtext can now be text.

She looks pretty hetro hot here…

It takes a special kind of idiot to think you've disproved her queerness by pointing out she's pretty.

DP. I agree with you, but then why are so many saying they knew she (or, say, Peppermint Patty) were gay all along? What’s the tell if not their physical appearance?

I actually hate all of this. Every character that doesn’t meet a very narrow characterization of “femininity” is now gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay but there is something wrong with telling kids that any person who is slightly quirky or not masculine and feminine in a particular way is gay. This is remarkably toxic and stupid.

I was never “feminine” like Daphne, I was always a Velma, and I never had homosexual leanings in the slightest. I am just a slightly less feminine heterosexual woman.

+1

It’s too much. I like watching creative movies….but this is a subplot in every. Movie. Now.’

Done with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's always been a lesbian, it's just that mores have changed enough that subtext can now be text.

She looks pretty hetro hot here…

It takes a special kind of idiot to think you've disproved her queerness by pointing out she's pretty.

DP. I agree with you, but then why are so many saying they knew she (or, say, Peppermint Patty) were gay all along? What’s the tell if not their physical appearance?

I actually hate all of this. Every character that doesn’t meet a very narrow characterization of “femininity” is now gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay but there is something wrong with telling kids that any person who is slightly quirky or not masculine and feminine in a particular way is gay. This is remarkably toxic and stupid.

I was never “feminine” like Daphne, I was always a Velma, and I never had homosexual leanings in the slightest. I am just a slightly less feminine heterosexual woman.

Eae name.these slightly less than feminine characters who are now gay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's always been a lesbian, it's just that mores have changed enough that subtext can now be text.

She looks pretty hetro hot here…

It takes a special kind of idiot to think you've disproved her queerness by pointing out she's pretty.

DP. I agree with you, but then why are so many saying they knew she (or, say, Peppermint Patty) were gay all along? What’s the tell if not their physical appearance?

I actually hate all of this. Every character that doesn’t meet a very narrow characterization of “femininity” is now gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay but there is something wrong with telling kids that any person who is slightly quirky or not masculine and feminine in a particular way is gay. This is remarkably toxic and stupid.

I was never “feminine” like Daphne, I was always a Velma, and I never had homosexual leanings in the slightest. I am just a slightly less feminine heterosexual woman.

So then you think all lesbians should be portrayed as "feminine"?

Nothing wrong with being less feminine - straight or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. I don’t think a single person has answered how they knew this all along, except for someone who said it her hairstyle. Was it something she said? How did you know?

Exactly how was I as a young child watching this supposed to pick up on subtle clues? The previous poster is an idiot calling people clueless for not getting it and they also lack reading comprehension skills. Just because I point out Hollywood's lazy box checking diversity pushes these days does not mean I have hostility over being inclusive . I mentioned shows like Modern Family and Will and Grace because they were great shows with funny characters and it didn't come across as box checking at all. Euphoria is another great example of a show featuring a transgender character with an interesting storyline. Hollywood needs to create more original diverse characters rather than remaking an old movie or show and "modernizing" it. Get it?

It's a modern new take/remake, not a duplicate. Funny how you're not nitpicking all of the other ways that the stories have been modernized.

If being inclusive is too much of a stretch for you, then go watch the old versions.

No you still don’t get it but go on insisting posters don’t believe in inclusivity when it was clearly stated it is important but shouldn’t be forced. Once again Hollywood in general needs to stop remaking and modernizing old movies and come up with something original. You’re so determined to think of everyone as homophobic and bigoted you’re not even reading what posters are actually saying.

So then you oppose every single remake ever made? Whether there are any changes to sexuality or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. I don’t think a single person has answered how they knew this all along, except for someone who said it her hairstyle. Was it something she said? How did you know?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/arts/television/scooby-doo-velma-lesbian.html

So according to that article, Velma dated both Shaggy and Johnny Bravo in the early years of the cartoon, presumably when most of us here actually watched or even thought about these characters. Her rise as an LGBTQ icon is more of a post-2000 internet fandom thing. So excuse me for not knowing.

The writer said he did it on purpose. Most young people date the opposite of their attraction when they are LGBT, to “fit in”. He purposely wrote it awkward and forced.

Cool. Again, my 8 year old self was not picking up what he was putting down. Who knew Scooby Doo was so nuanced and layered?

Did u pick up that scooby and shaggy are stoned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's always been a lesbian, it's just that mores have changed enough that subtext can now be text.

She looks pretty hetro hot here…

It takes a special kind of idiot to think you've disproved her queerness by pointing out she's pretty.

DP. I agree with you, but then why are so many saying they knew she (or, say, Peppermint Patty) were gay all along? What’s the tell if not their physical appearance?

I actually hate all of this. Every character that doesn’t meet a very narrow characterization of “femininity” is now gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay but there is something wrong with telling kids that any person who is slightly quirky or not masculine and feminine in a particular way is gay. This is remarkably toxic and stupid.

I was never “feminine” like Daphne, I was always a Velma, and I never had homosexual leanings in the slightest. I am just a slightly less feminine heterosexual woman.

So you hate that somebody who looks like you is gay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. I don’t think a single person has answered how they knew this all along, except for someone who said it her hairstyle. Was it something she said? How did you know?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/arts/television/scooby-doo-velma-lesbian.html

So according to that article, Velma dated both Shaggy and Johnny Bravo in the early years of the cartoon, presumably when most of us here actually watched or even thought about these characters. Her rise as an LGBTQ icon is more of a post-2000 internet fandom thing. So excuse me for not knowing.

The writer said he did it on purpose. Most young people date the opposite of their attraction when they are LGBT, to “fit in”. He purposely wrote it awkward and forced.

Cool. Again, my 8 year old self was not picking up what he was putting down. Who knew Scooby Doo was so nuanced and layered?

Did u pick up that scooby and shaggy are stoned?

Were you a drunk as a kid or something? Were your parents drunks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Velma is a great character - smart, funny.

Everyone should be fighting for her to join their team.

Smart and funny, yes. Pretty? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. I don’t think a single person has answered how they knew this all along, except for someone who said it her hairstyle. Was it something she said? How did you know?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/arts/television/scooby-doo-velma-lesbian.html

So according to that article, Velma dated both Shaggy and Johnny Bravo in the early years of the cartoon, presumably when most of us here actually watched or even thought about these characters. Her rise as an LGBTQ icon is more of a post-2000 internet fandom thing. So excuse me for not knowing.

The writer said he did it on purpose. Most young people date the opposite of their attraction when they are LGBT, to “fit in”. He purposely wrote it awkward and forced.

Cool. Again, my 8 year old self was not picking up what he was putting down. Who knew Scooby Doo was so nuanced and layered?

Did u pick up that scooby and shaggy are stoned?

Were you a drunk as a kid or something? Were your parents drunks?

Lol you’re just realizing now that they are stoned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. I don’t think a single person has answered how they knew this all along, except for someone who said it her hairstyle. Was it something she said? How did you know?

Exactly how was I as a young child watching this supposed to pick up on subtle clues? The previous poster is an idiot calling people clueless for not getting it and they also lack reading comprehension skills. Just because I point out Hollywood's lazy box checking diversity pushes these days does not mean I have hostility over being inclusive . I mentioned shows like Modern Family and Will and Grace because they were great shows with funny characters and it didn't come across as box checking at all. Euphoria is another great example of a show featuring a transgender character with an interesting storyline. Hollywood needs to create more original diverse characters rather than remaking an old movie or show and "modernizing" it. Get it?

It's a modern new take/remake, not a duplicate. Funny how you're not nitpicking all of the other ways that the stories have been modernized.

If being inclusive is too much of a stretch for you, then go watch the old versions.

No you still don’t get it but go on insisting posters don’t believe in inclusivity when it was clearly stated it is important but shouldn’t be forced. Once again Hollywood in general needs to stop remaking and modernizing old movies and come up with something original. You’re so determined to think of everyone as homophobic and bigoted you’re not even reading what posters are actually saying.

So then you oppose every single remake ever made? Whether there are any changes to sexuality or not?

This is hilarious because Scooby-Doo has been in a state of virtually constant remake since the 70s. There's been three separate, pretty different Scooby-Doo shows in the last ten years. Constant update, self parody, and changes are basically the way Scooby-Doo is done.