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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

Right? She was always LGBT. It was clear subtext.

How so? Just because she wasn't a Barbie clone? Why does everyone want to classify and type women so badly?

DP, the people who have been most vocal about her always been a lesbian to me (both before and after this) had been lesbians. "I see myself in this character" is different than stereotyping.

Oh, great, I've been told a number of times that I look like Velma.
So any artsy, bookish brunette with glasses and bangs is now seen as a lesbian. In the USA, of course.

Does that bother you? Why?

Yes. Because straight people don’t want to be thought of as gay.

Why not?

same reason I don't want to be thought of as a criminal or trashy or nerdy etc. I'm not any of those and want to make sure I portray the right image.

Is this a joke or a troll. You're conflating being mistaken for gay with being mistaken as a trashy, criminal nerd? Get out of here.

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.

Right? She was always LGBT. It was clear subtext.

How so? Just because she wasn't a Barbie clone? Why does everyone want to classify and type women so badly?

DP, the people who have been most vocal about her always been a lesbian to me (both before and after this) had been lesbians. "I see myself in this character" is different than stereotyping.

Oh, great, I've been told a number of times that I look like Velma.
So any artsy, bookish brunette with glasses and bangs is now seen as a lesbian. In the USA, of course.

Does that bother you? Why?

Yes. Because straight people don’t want to be thought of as gay.

Why not?

same reason I don't want to be thought of as a criminal or trashy or nerdy etc. I'm not any of those and want to make sure I portray the right image.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right? She was always LGBT. It was clear subtext.

How so? Just because she wasn't a Barbie clone? Why does everyone want to classify and type women so badly?

DP, the people who have been most vocal about her always been a lesbian to me (both before and after this) had been lesbians. "I see myself in this character" is different than stereotyping.

Oh, great, I've been told a number of times that I look like Velma.
So any artsy, bookish brunette with glasses and bangs is now seen as a lesbian. In the USA, of course.

Does that bother you? Why?

Yes. Because straight people don’t want to be thought of as gay.

Why not?

Because lesbians are presented in entertainment as unattractive and frumpy and butch-looking and nobody wants to be thought of that way? How in the world should anyone guess you are gay unless it’s by what you look like?

I know you’re waiting to dance around and scream HOMOPHOBIA but it’s a little more complex than that.

Honestly you are making the case for representation. There are lots of ways that gay people look, talk, and act - and if your impression is that media shows only one version of it, then that is a representation problem. THere should be more gay rep on screen.

Go see the movie Bros! Watch last year’s Home for the Holidays (I think that’s what it’s called) with Kristen Stewart and that awesome actress from Station 11. (Though she was the low point character in the movie, and KS should have gotten together with Aubrey Plaza, but whatever.)

The case im making is that it feeds tired old stereotypes to have the short-haired, bespectacled, unattractive type be the gay one yet again. And nothing I’ve read here has changed my mind on that. It’s not representation I’m taking issue with (why isn’t she asexual, for one. Fits better with her character and not any representation as far as I know) it’s the feeding into tropes.