Velma is new Scooby-Doo Halloween movie identifies as LGBQT

[Anonymous]

You know, lots of knew shaggy was stoned as young kids because we had older siblings. Doesn't mean we were all first grade potheads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope they remake all of your childhood classics with POC and/or make them part of the LGBTQ!

This thread is GOLD!

OMG. That would be awesome. The RWNJs are going to freak TF out.

Racists & homophobes will come out of the woodwork.

Actually, it's already happening - just look at the little mermaid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually hate that nobody who looks like me is NOT gay, not that you care about the distinction.

This pushes a very narrow view of sexuality and even gender. It’s artificial and comes across as pushing an agenda, not representing true diversity.

[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

"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.

Agree. Lame backpedaling lies by someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually hate that nobody who looks like me is NOT gay, not that you care about the distinction.

This pushes a very narrow view of sexuality and even gender. It’s artificial and comes across as pushing an agenda, not representing true diversity.

So you would have been fine if Daphne came out (even though that would be out of character)?

[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

"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.

Agree. Lame backpedaling lies by someone.

It helps when you actually read the article.

"Responding to a fan on Twitter, James Gunn, who wrote the screenplay for “Scooby-Doo,” a 2002 live-action film, wrote in 2020 that “Velma was explicitly gay in my initial script.”

“But the studio just kept watering it down & watering it down, becoming ambiguous (the version shot), then nothing (the released version) & finally having a boyfriend (the sequel),” he wrote in the tweet, which was reported widely at the time and has since been deleted.

That same year, Tony Cervone, the co-creator of “Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated,” a 2010 series on Cartoon Network, posted an image on Instagram of Velma standing in front of a Pride flag"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually hate that nobody who looks like me is NOT gay, not that you care about the distinction.

This pushes a very narrow view of sexuality and even gender. It’s artificial and comes across as pushing an agenda, not representing true diversity.

So you would have been fine if Daphne came out (even though that would be out of character)?

Why is Daphne being gay “out of character” but Velma being gay is “in character?” Did I miss something very major about these cartoons? There was no sexuality, it was just a goofy cartoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually hate that nobody who looks like me is NOT gay, not that you care about the distinction.

This pushes a very narrow view of sexuality and even gender. It’s artificial and comes across as pushing an agenda, not representing true diversity.

So you would have been fine if Daphne came out (even though that would be out of character)?

Why is Daphne being gay “out of character” but Velma being gay is “in character?” Did I miss something very major about these cartoons? There was no sexuality, it was just a goofy cartoon.

Daphne dated Fred. And, yes, you missed something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually hate that nobody who looks like me is NOT gay, not that you care about the distinction.

This pushes a very narrow view of sexuality and even gender. It’s artificial and comes across as pushing an agenda, not representing true diversity.

So you would have been fine if Daphne came out (even though that would be out of character)?

DP but yeah. Absolutely. It's not the idea of any character being gay, it's the "oh THAT explains why she's not Traditionally Pretty and Femme" implication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know, lots of knew shaggy was stoned as young kids because we had older siblings. Doesn't mean we were all first grade potheads.

So your older siblings were all potheads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually hate that nobody who looks like me is NOT gay, not that you care about the distinction.

This pushes a very narrow view of sexuality and even gender. It’s artificial and comes across as pushing an agenda, not representing true diversity.

So you would have been fine if Daphne came out (even though that would be out of character)?

Why is Daphne being gay “out of character” but Velma being gay is “in character?” Did I miss something very major about these cartoons? There was no sexuality, it was just a goofy cartoon.

Daphne dated Fred. And, yes, you missed something.

Velma dated Shaggy.

[Anonymous]

Shaggy and Velma were an item.

[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

"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.

Agree. Lame backpedaling lies by someone.

It helps when you actually read the article.

"Responding to a fan on Twitter, James Gunn, who wrote the screenplay for “Scooby-Doo,” a 2002 live-action film, wrote in 2020 that “Velma was explicitly gay in my initial script.”

“But the studio just kept watering it down & watering it down, becoming ambiguous (the version shot), then nothing (the released version) & finally having a boyfriend (the sequel),” he wrote in the tweet, which was reported widely at the time and has since been deleted.

That same year, Tony Cervone, the co-creator of “Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated,” a 2010 series on Cartoon Network, posted an image on Instagram of Velma standing in front of a Pride flag"

2002? 2010? What does that have to do with original Velma?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I loved the show as a kid and never once wondered or thought about the sexual identity of the characters. I don’t understand the need to define them now in the show- can’t they just solve mysteries and eat Scooby snacks?

+ 1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved the show as a kid and never once wondered or thought about the sexual identity of the characters. I don’t understand the need to define them now in the show- can’t they just solve mysteries and eat Scooby snacks?

+ 1

You didn’t have to wonder. They portrayed hetero crushes and hetero relationships in a lot of the episodes. They didn’t just solve mysteries and eat Scooby snacks. Why is it suddenly a problem “defining sexuality” when it’s a homosexual crush?