Ah, but lots of people say every single gay character is just there to be gay. That's literally what they see every time they meet a gay character.
Unfortunately that is largely down to some in the LBGT community (to be honest your a good example) complaining non stop about people not being represented that whenever a gay character appears people assume there just there to be "edgy" or to give people representation for little or no reason to the plot.
To be honest there are only two ways a gay character can be implemented and both have problems.
1On one hand you can make the character obviously gay from the beginning either by adding a second character who is utterly pointless to identify the relationship or make the character refer to their sexuality repeatedly. This isnt what people do in real life and it seems and comes across as fake and stereotypical or gives us a partner secondary character that has little purpose. Either way this character becomes defined by their sexuality which isnt a good thing.
Tara from the show is a good example for the entirety of her season 4 role she bangs on about being a lesbian, dates another lesbian who has about three lines before dying and she stuck out for that case.
These characters can improve with time and to be honest this can only be done by playing there sexuality down a bit. Tara is now much more of a rich character as a result. Shes funny, she makes jokes, shes a bit of a dork, her sexuality is a part of her but dosnt define her which is good to see.
2 The other way to do it is to take and existing character and reveal they are gay. This works better however this can still come across as pandering to minorities if it is done for next to no reason or for shock value. For example if there is some hints that eventually lead to the reveal (which shouldnt be a massive thing anyway as it dosnt matter).
However taking Ellie from the last of us as an example the sudden change in left behind to make her a lesbian was just... sudden; the main game gave no hints of anything and while I was okay with it, the sudden change was jarring and felt a bit like a cash in to draw in a more diverse fanbase.
Again this works better and is more realistic but its natural for people to see a character as pure pandering when there gay, most notably as its become the "thing" to have a gay character often for little purpose. Also people are concerned the character will change as a result which to be fair in shows they often do.
So while I and most people dont have a problem with gay characters they need to be handled appropriately because they can easily come across as pandering, fake and the token character
Personally I feel I've seen some shows and character that really work and are among my favourites but most honestly dont
Ah, but lots of people say every single gay character is just there to be gay. That's literally what they see every time they meet a gay cha… moreracter.
So it basically amounts to the same thing.
For example, people complained about Walter and Matthew as being included. Either they were complaining about them being just there to be gay - which would be absurd as it isnt even stated - or they're just hating on it.
People still view the presence of homosexuals as a political statement as opposed to a simple fact of life, unfortunately.
Ah, but lots of people say every single gay character is just there to be gay. That's literally what they see every time they meet a gay cha… moreracter.
Unfortunately that is largely down to some in the LBGT community (to be honest your a good example) complaining non stop about people not being represented that whenever a gay character appears people assume there just there to be "edgy" or to give people representation for little or no reason to the plot.
To be honest there are only two ways a gay character can be implemented and both have problems.
1On one hand you can make the character obviously gay from the beginning either by adding a second character who is utterly pointless to identify the relationship or make the character refer to their sexuality repeatedly. This isnt what people do in real life and it seems and comes across as fake and stereotypical or gives us a partner secondary character that has little purpose. Either … [view original content]
Why are you blaming the people who want representation for poor characterizations from writers? It's not their fault that (generally heterosexual) writers feel the need to create entirely new characters with flat personalities to shove into the plot because they don't want to taint their existing complex characters with alternate sexualities.
However taking Ellie from the last of us as an example the sudden change in left behind to make her a lesbian was just... sudden; the main game gave no hints of anything and while I was okay with it, the sudden change was jarring and felt a bit like a cash in to draw in a more diverse fanbase.
She's a fourteen year old girl. That's... kind of the age people start realizing their sexuality. The fact it would be "sudde"n makes sense, because it's sudden for her, too. And it was never a change. She was never introduced as heterosexual. She was given a sexuality after being presented with none.
To be honest there are only two ways a gay character can be implemented and both have problems.
Ah, but lots of people say every single gay character is just there to be gay. That's literally what they see every time they meet a gay cha… moreracter.
Unfortunately that is largely down to some in the LBGT community (to be honest your a good example) complaining non stop about people not being represented that whenever a gay character appears people assume there just there to be "edgy" or to give people representation for little or no reason to the plot.
To be honest there are only two ways a gay character can be implemented and both have problems.
1On one hand you can make the character obviously gay from the beginning either by adding a second character who is utterly pointless to identify the relationship or make the character refer to their sexuality repeatedly. This isnt what people do in real life and it seems and comes across as fake and stereotypical or gives us a partner secondary character that has little purpose. Either … [view original content]
Ah, but lots of people say every single gay character is just there to be gay. That's literally what they see every time they meet a gay cha… moreracter.
So it basically amounts to the same thing.
For example, people complained about Walter and Matthew as being included. Either they were complaining about them being just there to be gay - which would be absurd as it isnt even stated - or they're just hating on it.
People still view the presence of homosexuals as a political statement as opposed to a simple fact of life, unfortunately.
Ah, but lots of people say every single gay character is just there to be gay. That's literally what they see every time they meet a gay cha… moreracter.
So it basically amounts to the same thing.
For example, people complained about Walter and Matthew as being included. Either they were complaining about them being just there to be gay - which would be absurd as it isnt even stated - or they're just hating on it.
People still view the presence of homosexuals as a political statement as opposed to a simple fact of life, unfortunately.
Actually... @RosemaryTWDFandoes have a point. They can and have changed the gender of characters in the show from what they were in the comics.
For example: Lizzie and Mika played Ben and Billy from the comics. Yeah some things were different, Lizzie and Mika weren't twins, some things about their characters were altered, but over all Lizzie and Mika played those two boys.
Now I'm not saying Aaron will be replaced with a female and the story will go from there... I'm just saying that there is a possibility for Aaron to be female in the show instead of a male like the comics.
While the show has followed the comics broadly, there are so many things they haven't followed completely. Merle and Daryl, Carol's character, Lizzie and Mika, T-Dog, The Farm arc and The Prison arc, the ruthlessness of the Governor, Hershel's death, Dale's death, Shane's death, Tyreese's death, and that's only some of it!
It's very possible that the Aaron character could easily be replaced by a female character.
How in any way is that offensive? This is always part of a reply half the time when people talk about this as though people win the argument by claiming offence
How is there a third way? Either a character starts of gay and that defines the character or they have a character revealed to be gay later on.
I have no issue with gay characters but these are issues when they are implemented like it or not. particularly in the current climate when there is a gay character in every movie or show, especially as being gay shouldnt be a big deal anyway.
Relationships as a whole are seen like this and are poorly done. Bella swan and Tris prior are great examples of how romances dont work as a whole anyway straight or not, having characters obsessed or defined by their partners makes them seem one dimensional. Sarita from the game being another example of a pointless character. Gay characters suffer as they often need a partner and therefore are defined by their romance, that dosnt mean they cant become better as characters over time but this is still a case
Why are you blaming the people who want representation for poor characterizations from writers? It's not their fault that (generally heteros… moreexual) writers feel the need to create entirely new characters with flat personalities to shove into the plot because they don't want to taint their existing complex characters with alternate sexualities.
However taking Ellie from the last of us as an example the sudden change in left behind to make her a lesbian was just... sudden; the main game gave no hints of anything and while I was okay with it, the sudden change was jarring and felt a bit like a cash in to draw in a more diverse fanbase.
She's a fourteen year old girl. That's... kind of the age people start realizing their sexuality. The fact it would be "sudde"n makes sense, because it's sudden for her, too. And it was never a change. She was never introduced as heterosexual. She was given a sexuality after being presented with none.… [view original content]
well the difference here is that billy and ben weren't big characters in the comics when compared to how lizzie and mika were in the show they had no development at all in fact the moment when ben killed billy was completely out of no where and had no build up or anything i think they changed their gender so that people wouldn't figure out that they were meant to fill billy and ben's role (which by the second half of season 4 people already worked it out anyway so yea) while on the other hand aaron is a character who has a bigger role in the story so i doubt they would change him out of all people
Actually... @RosemaryTWDFan does have a point. They can and have changed the gender of characters in the show from what they were in the c… moreomics.
For example: Lizzie and Mika played Ben and Billy from the comics. Yeah some things were different, Lizzie and Mika weren't twins, some things about their characters were altered, but over all Lizzie and Mika played those two boys.
(0:21 - 0:42)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFUGypuyja0&feature=player_detailpage
Now I'm not saying Aaron will be replaced with a female and the story will go from there... I'm just saying that there is a possibility for Aaron to be female in the show instead of a male like the comics.
Hey you know i had a girfriend who i lost, a girlfriend.... A GIRLFRIEND
So was it also over the top when they established that Merle was a pervert who wanted to screw Andrea in the first season and third season? Or that Carol and the other women in the group missed their vibrators? Remember all that totally irrelevant stuff dealing with sexuality that actually helped us build an understanding of the characters through casual talk? There is absolutely no difference between Tara's case and those except that Tara is gay and you've chosen to focus on it because it sticks out to you. Believe it or not dude, gay people aren't noticeably gay most of the time so the only way to establish a gay character is have them bring it up at some point in casual conversation.
In no way was Tara's case handled like a bad stereotype. You know how I know? Because a lot of people didn't even notice. Hell, I didn't notice the first time and neither did a lot of people on TWD forums. If it was as you said, everyone would get it automatically. And I distinctly remember that they didn't. So either it was shoved at us, or it was so casual people missed it. Can't have it both ways.
Hey random lady your hot... (5 seconds later) shit now we're together boo yah. P.s im a lesbian/No lesbian lover you died, after all that developed relationship we had.
So I imagine you also had a problem with Beth dating some random guy at the prison who died in the same episode, right? Yeah, somehow I sincerely doubt it. You may make the claim that you think it was a waste of characterization or whatever, but I'm willing to bet you had no issue with the out of nowhere romance. Or how about Tyreese and Karen? It was so obviously an attempt at interracial romance being thrown in there for the sake of diversity, right?
Guess what? It's the exact same thing as either of those two situations (their setup, I mean, the only one that has any plot relevance is Tyreese and Karen), except like I implied, any physical relationship between the two is largely kept hidden unlike the heterosexual romances, and the scene in which they flirt is only there so that it is made clear that they're together in subsequent scenes as time passes (because time passes strangely in that entire episode). Literally everything else in the episode focuses on the plot of the Governor. In absolutely no way is their relationship forced onto the audience or shoved in our faces. Certainly not any more than a relationship like Glenn and Maggie; they meet and in like two days they fuck. Yeah, it's part of the comics, and it was dumb then too.
The only way you could think it was shoved in our faces is a) if you have some hangup with gay people, or b) you're so firmly entrenched in the hetero-normative media that anything else must be a desperate attempt at shoving representation at us, despite how casually it is treated, and you don't get anymore casual or non-forced than Tara and Alisha. They meet, and over time they are in a relationship. That's it. We don't even get a scene of the two of them together that isn't cut short because of plot reasons (the scene where Tara's niece runs up and wants to play tag).
The rest of the season she got better but still brought it up constantly in conversations so she just felt like a person they forced in for representation.
Constantly? She brought it up twice. In one scene, it's because Eugene was hitting on her, and it was a comic relief scene. Nothing forced about that. In another, Tara reflected on the fact with Glenn that her girlfriend died at the prison while they were having a heart-to-heart. It was also the only time she ever mentioned Alisha again. Oh, man, so forced in, right? It's brought up in another scene, but Abraham is the one who starts the discussion. Tara is just there and doesn't really contribute nor deny anything. He does all the talking.
The fact shes gay is still there (such as the stuff with rosita) but its not shoved in your face constantly. I like her character as there is something to like.
What stuff with Rosita? Maybe I missed something. She's mainly had scenes with Eugene or mentioning Eugene when she's with Glenn and Rosita. The only thing I can think of is when she took a peek at Abraham and Rosita screwing, which could easily be implied a different way if we hadn't already gotten development on her character being a lesbian.
I like her now too, as I said, but there was actually more to her character in season 4. She was feeling lots of guilt over the fact that she had been an accessory to Hershel's death and helped the Governor, so she pushed herself onwards through her own pain, mental and physical (in episode 4x15), in order to do the right thing for Glenn, and by extension Maggie. That drive was what made me like her in the first place. She had lost as much as anyone else had but never brought it up until that scene in the tunnel, and Glenn never noticed her personal sacrifices until Rosita finally clued him in. She has significantly less to do now, but considering how much we learned about her previously, it doesn't feel cheap or like they don't know what to do with her.
Your kidding right?
First episode
Hey you know i had a girfriend who i lost, a girlfriend.... A GIRLFRIEND
Second episode
Hey ra… morendom lady your hot... (5 seconds later) shit now we're together boo yah. P.s im a lesbian
Third episode
No lesbian lover you died, after all that developed relationship we had.
The rest of the season she got better but still brought it up constantly in conversations so she just felt like a person they forced in for representation.
This season shes gay but thats only a part of who she is, shes funny, she makes jokes shes a bit of a dork. The fact shes gay is still there (such as the stuff with rosita) but its not shoved in your face constantly. I like her character as there is something to like.
Well, Walter was well-written. Matthew was barely a character, but he came across well enough that we felt bad that he died.
I think you need to keep in mind that Walter and Matthew's relationship was always an off-screen thing. It's usually a gay couple on screen that attracts ire from stupid people. Hell, a lot of people didn't even know they were together because it was so subtle, and while subtlety can certainly be a good thing, it really doesn't say much for the audience not complaining about them. It's also not exactly a good sign that a gay couple was introduced, only for both to be killed off in the same episode and the only characters in the latter half of the episode who could not be saved. Nick and Alvin could be saved. Walter and Matthew were to be killed no matter what after their table scraps of development. Make of that what you will.
which most gays aren't, which is why people think gays are in just for the sake of being gay.
I call bullshit on the idea that it's the writing they have a problem with. To use Tara from the show as an example, the first indication we get that she is gay is from a casual conversation that a lot of people didn't even notice at the end of an episode. For the rest of the episode, we get no indication of her sexuality, we just learn that she is someone who is very defensive of her family, which sets up her character.
My point is... even though it was so small a thing, I still remember people complaining that they were trying so hard to toss in a gay character just because they were gay. Think about that for a second. A ten-second revelation that a lot of people didn't even notice... and it was just way too much for some people. So no, I think when people can't handle mentioning of gay people and their sexuality, it has less to do with their characters and writing, and a lot more to do with the casual mentioning that they exist.
A lot of people also bitched when the possibility of Daryl being gay came out, despite his huge popularity and the development he had for three seasons. There is absolutely nothing in the series to contradict it, and yet people were screaming that it would "ruin his character". See, that's not a matter of worrying about the writing; that's a matter of attributing negative characteristics to being gay because the people who say such things are dumbshits who have hangups with gay people. That's the reality.
I never heard one person complain about Walter and Matthew being gay. They were well written characters, which most gays aren't, which is why people think gays are in just for the sake of being gay.
I see your point, excellent post btw. I've never had a problem with gay characters, and I usually am more focused on the writing, which probably made me blind to the fact that people will be negative anyway.
Well, Walter was well-written. Matthew was barely a character, but he came across well enough that we felt bad that he died.
I think you … moreneed to keep in mind that Walter and Matthew's relationship was always an off-screen thing. It's usually a gay couple on screen that attracts ire from stupid people. Hell, a lot of people didn't even know they were together because it was so subtle, and while subtlety can certainly be a good thing, it really doesn't say much for the audience not complaining about them. It's also not exactly a good sign that a gay couple was introduced, only for both to be killed off in the same episode and the only characters in the latter half of the episode who could not be saved. Nick and Alvin could be saved. Walter and Matthew were to be killed no matter what after their table scraps of development. Make of that what you will.
which most gays aren't, which is why people think gays are in just for the sake of be… [view original content]
Okay firstly I have no problem with it..... I dont know why people leap on that
Believe it or not dude, gay people aren't noticeably gay most of the time so the only way to establish a gay character is have them bring it up at some point in casual conversation.
Yes they dont, which is part of the problem. Thats what I said, Tara bringing it up so much is not what people do. The eugene thing I agree with but other times..... did that have to be there etc? A line that shes gay cool, but its not a big deal and I dont need to hear about it or see it. gay people aren't any different.
I imagine you also had a problem with Beth dating some random guy at the prison who died in the same episode, right? Yeah, somehow I sincerely doubt it.
You mean that red shirt.... yes I had the same problem. Alisha was an okay character for that purpose as Zack was, both were poor characters in that sense. However at least Beth and Tyreese were regulars; however Tyreese's extreme reaction to Karen was more grating than Alisha ever was. Oh and hooking up Sasha and Bob also kind of felt like a cheap way to improve both characters; when you look at it Bob changed immensly going from pretty depressed alcholoic to jovial all the time.
Maybe it benefited sasha as a character but Bob was just a bit bland once it started.
Tara meeting some chick now would be cool, As I know and care about Tara's character. But relationships on a whole are dull and I'd like this new character to have some purpose/character also. Rosita had this problem until this season she was a nobody last season and the show thankfully made her a bit more than that.
She was feeling lots of guilt over the fact that she had been an accessory to Hershel's death and helped the Governor
Yep I liked that about her character too. The latter half of season 4 I'd admit her character was better however first impressions last for a while and the odd comment just reinforced it
Hey you know i had a girfriend who i lost, a girlfriend.... A GIRLFRIEND
So was it also over the top when they established that Merl… moree was a pervert who wanted to screw Andrea in the first season and third season? Or that Carol and the other women in the group missed their vibrators? Remember all that totally irrelevant stuff dealing with sexuality that actually helped us build an understanding of the characters through casual talk? There is absolutely no difference between Tara's case and those except that Tara is gay and you've chosen to focus on it because it sticks out to you. Believe it or not dude, gay people aren't noticeably gay most of the time so the only way to establish a gay character is have them bring it up at some point in casual conversation.
In no way was Tara's case handled like a bad stereotype. You know how I know? Because a lot of people didn't even notice. Hell, I didn't notice the first time and neither did a… [view original content]
Since when is wanting to see someone that's like you in a game/movie/tv show like any kind of political statement?
I'm sure you've done that before. I do it all the time. It's basically why most of us always end up making player characters that are idealized versions of ourselves in RPGs--to fully embrace something you love is to be able to see a part of yourself in it, and for a lot of people, that's through characters they relate to.
Bella swan and Tris prior are great examples of how romances dont work as a whole anyway straight or not, having characters obsessed or defined by their partners makes them seem one dimensional.
No idea who Tris Prior is, but Bella Swan is just plain old poor writing. That's not the fault of the fact there was a relationship in the plot. It's the fact that the author chose to revolve the entire plot around the relationship. Most LGBT+ aren't asking for that kind of representation. Besides, it's... really only straight characters who get those kinds of plots, regardless.
Sarita from the game being another example of a pointless character.
Now you're just grasping for straws. Again, poor writing. Sarita could have been a great character but wasn't given the chance to be, and it's not because she was dating Kenny, it's because the writers decided that's all she existed for. Would you agree that Omid was a pointless character, for being in a relationship with Christa?
Gay characters suffer as they often need a partner and therefore are defined by their romance, that dosnt mean they cant become better as characters over time but this is still a case
But why do they need a partner? Why can't they just be gay? Why can't there just be a context available where they mention, "Oh, no, I like boys", and everyone else goes, "Oh, okay" and you move on? Like... why is that so difficult? No one's asking for Titanic, here. That's what you don't seem to realize. There's no gay formula when it comes to writing. That's generally why writing is considered a creative practice.
Honestly your entire logic here just seems like one awkward, contradicting attempt to justify the fact you just don't want to see gay characters in something you like.
do you even realize how offensive that sounds
Okay two things
* How in any way is that offensive? This is always part of a repl… morey half the time when people talk about this as though people win the argument by claiming offence
* How is there a third way? Either a character starts of gay and that defines the character or they have a character revealed to be gay later on.
I have no issue with gay characters but these are issues when they are implemented like it or not. particularly in the current climate when there is a gay character in every movie or show, especially as being gay shouldnt be a big deal anyway.
Relationships as a whole are seen like this and are poorly done. Bella swan and Tris prior are great examples of how romances dont work as a whole anyway straight or not, having characters obsessed or defined by their partners makes them seem one dimensional. Sarita from the game being another example of a pointless … [view original content]
Comments
The title :P
Unfortunately that is largely down to some in the LBGT community (to be honest your a good example) complaining non stop about people not being represented that whenever a gay character appears people assume there just there to be "edgy" or to give people representation for little or no reason to the plot.
To be honest there are only two ways a gay character can be implemented and both have problems.
1On one hand you can make the character obviously gay from the beginning either by adding a second character who is utterly pointless to identify the relationship or make the character refer to their sexuality repeatedly. This isnt what people do in real life and it seems and comes across as fake and stereotypical or gives us a partner secondary character that has little purpose. Either way this character becomes defined by their sexuality which isnt a good thing.
Tara from the show is a good example for the entirety of her season 4 role she bangs on about being a lesbian, dates another lesbian who has about three lines before dying and she stuck out for that case.
These characters can improve with time and to be honest this can only be done by playing there sexuality down a bit. Tara is now much more of a rich character as a result. Shes funny, she makes jokes, shes a bit of a dork, her sexuality is a part of her but dosnt define her which is good to see.
2 The other way to do it is to take and existing character and reveal they are gay. This works better however this can still come across as pandering to minorities if it is done for next to no reason or for shock value. For example if there is some hints that eventually lead to the reveal (which shouldnt be a massive thing anyway as it dosnt matter).
However taking Ellie from the last of us as an example the sudden change in left behind to make her a lesbian was just... sudden; the main game gave no hints of anything and while I was okay with it, the sudden change was jarring and felt a bit like a cash in to draw in a more diverse fanbase.
Again this works better and is more realistic but its natural for people to see a character as pure pandering when there gay, most notably as its become the "thing" to have a gay character often for little purpose. Also people are concerned the character will change as a result which to be fair in shows they often do.
So while I and most people dont have a problem with gay characters they need to be handled appropriately because they can easily come across as pandering, fake and the token character
Personally I feel I've seen some shows and character that really work and are among my favourites but most honestly dont
Them being done badly is a reason to try to do them better, not to stop doing them at all.
Also, your comment about me...what was it... 'non-stop' asking for gay characters?
Um, no?
99% of my posts have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Why are you blaming the people who want representation for poor characterizations from writers? It's not their fault that (generally heterosexual) writers feel the need to create entirely new characters with flat personalities to shove into the plot because they don't want to taint their existing complex characters with alternate sexualities.
She's a fourteen year old girl. That's... kind of the age people start realizing their sexuality. The fact it would be "sudde"n makes sense, because it's sudden for her, too. And it was never a change. She was never introduced as heterosexual. She was given a sexuality after being presented with none.
do you even realize how offensive that sounds
Notice how a completely drama free, peaceful discussion is going on, and Flog61 has to come in here and start the drama?
Maybe that's because homosexuals continue to make their sexuality a political statement.
Actually... @RosemaryTWDFan does have a point. They can and have changed the gender of characters in the show from what they were in the comics.
For example: Lizzie and Mika played Ben and Billy from the comics. Yeah some things were different, Lizzie and Mika weren't twins, some things about their characters were altered, but over all Lizzie and Mika played those two boys.
(0:21 - 0:42)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFUGypuyja0&feature=player_detailpage
Now I'm not saying Aaron will be replaced with a female and the story will go from there... I'm just saying that there is a possibility for Aaron to be female in the show instead of a male like the comics.
While the show has followed the comics broadly, there are so many things they haven't followed completely. Merle and Daryl, Carol's character, Lizzie and Mika, T-Dog, The Farm arc and The Prison arc, the ruthlessness of the Governor, Hershel's death, Dale's death, Shane's death, Tyreese's death, and that's only some of it!
It's very possible that the Aaron character could easily be replaced by a female character.
Okay two things
How in any way is that offensive? This is always part of a reply half the time when people talk about this as though people win the argument by claiming offence
How is there a third way? Either a character starts of gay and that defines the character or they have a character revealed to be gay later on.
I have no issue with gay characters but these are issues when they are implemented like it or not. particularly in the current climate when there is a gay character in every movie or show, especially as being gay shouldnt be a big deal anyway.
Relationships as a whole are seen like this and are poorly done. Bella swan and Tris prior are great examples of how romances dont work as a whole anyway straight or not, having characters obsessed or defined by their partners makes them seem one dimensional. Sarita from the game being another example of a pointless character. Gay characters suffer as they often need a partner and therefore are defined by their romance, that dosnt mean they cant become better as characters over time but this is still a case
I find this title very inappropriate.
Even though its not my thread...
well the difference here is that billy and ben weren't big characters in the comics when compared to how lizzie and mika were in the show they had no development at all in fact the moment when ben killed billy was completely out of no where and had no build up or anything i think they changed their gender so that people wouldn't figure out that they were meant to fill billy and ben's role (which by the second half of season 4 people already worked it out anyway so yea) while on the other hand aaron is a character who has a bigger role in the story so i doubt they would change him out of all people
So was it also over the top when they established that Merle was a pervert who wanted to screw Andrea in the first season and third season? Or that Carol and the other women in the group missed their vibrators? Remember all that totally irrelevant stuff dealing with sexuality that actually helped us build an understanding of the characters through casual talk? There is absolutely no difference between Tara's case and those except that Tara is gay and you've chosen to focus on it because it sticks out to you. Believe it or not dude, gay people aren't noticeably gay most of the time so the only way to establish a gay character is have them bring it up at some point in casual conversation.
In no way was Tara's case handled like a bad stereotype. You know how I know? Because a lot of people didn't even notice. Hell, I didn't notice the first time and neither did a lot of people on TWD forums. If it was as you said, everyone would get it automatically. And I distinctly remember that they didn't. So either it was shoved at us, or it was so casual people missed it. Can't have it both ways.
So I imagine you also had a problem with Beth dating some random guy at the prison who died in the same episode, right? Yeah, somehow I sincerely doubt it. You may make the claim that you think it was a waste of characterization or whatever, but I'm willing to bet you had no issue with the out of nowhere romance. Or how about Tyreese and Karen? It was so obviously an attempt at interracial romance being thrown in there for the sake of diversity, right?
Guess what? It's the exact same thing as either of those two situations (their setup, I mean, the only one that has any plot relevance is Tyreese and Karen), except like I implied, any physical relationship between the two is largely kept hidden unlike the heterosexual romances, and the scene in which they flirt is only there so that it is made clear that they're together in subsequent scenes as time passes (because time passes strangely in that entire episode). Literally everything else in the episode focuses on the plot of the Governor. In absolutely no way is their relationship forced onto the audience or shoved in our faces. Certainly not any more than a relationship like Glenn and Maggie; they meet and in like two days they fuck. Yeah, it's part of the comics, and it was dumb then too.
The only way you could think it was shoved in our faces is a) if you have some hangup with gay people, or b) you're so firmly entrenched in the hetero-normative media that anything else must be a desperate attempt at shoving representation at us, despite how casually it is treated, and you don't get anymore casual or non-forced than Tara and Alisha. They meet, and over time they are in a relationship. That's it. We don't even get a scene of the two of them together that isn't cut short because of plot reasons (the scene where Tara's niece runs up and wants to play tag).
Constantly? She brought it up twice. In one scene, it's because Eugene was hitting on her, and it was a comic relief scene. Nothing forced about that. In another, Tara reflected on the fact with Glenn that her girlfriend died at the prison while they were having a heart-to-heart. It was also the only time she ever mentioned Alisha again. Oh, man, so forced in, right? It's brought up in another scene, but Abraham is the one who starts the discussion. Tara is just there and doesn't really contribute nor deny anything. He does all the talking.
What stuff with Rosita? Maybe I missed something. She's mainly had scenes with Eugene or mentioning Eugene when she's with Glenn and Rosita. The only thing I can think of is when she took a peek at Abraham and Rosita screwing, which could easily be implied a different way if we hadn't already gotten development on her character being a lesbian.
I like her now too, as I said, but there was actually more to her character in season 4. She was feeling lots of guilt over the fact that she had been an accessory to Hershel's death and helped the Governor, so she pushed herself onwards through her own pain, mental and physical (in episode 4x15), in order to do the right thing for Glenn, and by extension Maggie. That drive was what made me like her in the first place. She had lost as much as anyone else had but never brought it up until that scene in the tunnel, and Glenn never noticed her personal sacrifices until Rosita finally clued him in. She has significantly less to do now, but considering how much we learned about her previously, it doesn't feel cheap or like they don't know what to do with her.
Well, Walter was well-written. Matthew was barely a character, but he came across well enough that we felt bad that he died.
I think you need to keep in mind that Walter and Matthew's relationship was always an off-screen thing. It's usually a gay couple on screen that attracts ire from stupid people. Hell, a lot of people didn't even know they were together because it was so subtle, and while subtlety can certainly be a good thing, it really doesn't say much for the audience not complaining about them. It's also not exactly a good sign that a gay couple was introduced, only for both to be killed off in the same episode and the only characters in the latter half of the episode who could not be saved. Nick and Alvin could be saved. Walter and Matthew were to be killed no matter what after their table scraps of development. Make of that what you will.
I call bullshit on the idea that it's the writing they have a problem with. To use Tara from the show as an example, the first indication we get that she is gay is from a casual conversation that a lot of people didn't even notice at the end of an episode. For the rest of the episode, we get no indication of her sexuality, we just learn that she is someone who is very defensive of her family, which sets up her character.
My point is... even though it was so small a thing, I still remember people complaining that they were trying so hard to toss in a gay character just because they were gay. Think about that for a second. A ten-second revelation that a lot of people didn't even notice... and it was just way too much for some people. So no, I think when people can't handle mentioning of gay people and their sexuality, it has less to do with their characters and writing, and a lot more to do with the casual mentioning that they exist.
A lot of people also bitched when the possibility of Daryl being gay came out, despite his huge popularity and the development he had for three seasons. There is absolutely nothing in the series to contradict it, and yet people were screaming that it would "ruin his character". See, that's not a matter of worrying about the writing; that's a matter of attributing negative characteristics to being gay because the people who say such things are dumbshits who have hangups with gay people. That's the reality.
I see your point, excellent post btw. I've never had a problem with gay characters, and I usually am more focused on the writing, which probably made me blind to the fact that people will be negative anyway.
Okay firstly I have no problem with it..... I dont know why people leap on that
Yes they dont, which is part of the problem. Thats what I said, Tara bringing it up so much is not what people do. The eugene thing I agree with but other times..... did that have to be there etc? A line that shes gay cool, but its not a big deal and I dont need to hear about it or see it. gay people aren't any different.
You mean that red shirt.... yes I had the same problem. Alisha was an okay character for that purpose as Zack was, both were poor characters in that sense. However at least Beth and Tyreese were regulars; however Tyreese's extreme reaction to Karen was more grating than Alisha ever was. Oh and hooking up Sasha and Bob also kind of felt like a cheap way to improve both characters; when you look at it Bob changed immensly going from pretty depressed alcholoic to jovial all the time.
Maybe it benefited sasha as a character but Bob was just a bit bland once it started.
Tara meeting some chick now would be cool, As I know and care about Tara's character. But relationships on a whole are dull and I'd like this new character to have some purpose/character also. Rosita had this problem until this season she was a nobody last season and the show thankfully made her a bit more than that.
Yep I liked that about her character too. The latter half of season 4 I'd admit her character was better however first impressions last for a while and the odd comment just reinforced it
Since when is wanting to see someone that's like you in a game/movie/tv show like any kind of political statement?
I'm sure you've done that before. I do it all the time. It's basically why most of us always end up making player characters that are idealized versions of ourselves in RPGs--to fully embrace something you love is to be able to see a part of yourself in it, and for a lot of people, that's through characters they relate to.
Well... they're both tilting their heads the same way. That's a start.
...what even
No idea who Tris Prior is, but Bella Swan is just plain old poor writing. That's not the fault of the fact there was a relationship in the plot. It's the fact that the author chose to revolve the entire plot around the relationship. Most LGBT+ aren't asking for that kind of representation. Besides, it's... really only straight characters who get those kinds of plots, regardless.
Now you're just grasping for straws. Again, poor writing. Sarita could have been a great character but wasn't given the chance to be, and it's not because she was dating Kenny, it's because the writers decided that's all she existed for. Would you agree that Omid was a pointless character, for being in a relationship with Christa?
But why do they need a partner? Why can't they just be gay? Why can't there just be a context available where they mention, "Oh, no, I like boys", and everyone else goes, "Oh, okay" and you move on? Like... why is that so difficult? No one's asking for Titanic, here. That's what you don't seem to realize. There's no gay formula when it comes to writing. That's generally why writing is considered a creative practice.
Honestly your entire logic here just seems like one awkward, contradicting attempt to justify the fact you just don't want to see gay characters in something you like.
Aaron Paul?
No, Aaron is a comic book character in The Walking Dead, he is a resident of Alexandria.