Current Events > How, exactly, is Disney's commitment to more LGBTQIA+ characters pandering?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I keep seeing this criticism upon news that the next phase of the MCU will have significantly more gay/lesbian/trans/non binary/etc. characters

Without knowing any of the scripts, ideas or concepts, how exactly does this criticism make sense? what are they deriving this from?

---

People are dumb

---

and yet, we never got Finn+Poe

>__>

---

A lot of people will argue that it's pandering to simply have a gay person at all.

However, in Disney's case, they do actually have a habit of pandering. Gay people exist in the background in ways that can be easily edited out for international markets.

---

Because any main character that isnt a straight white male is pandering this days apparently.

---

They do it for because its fashionable right now and people generally don't appreciate characters they care about being retroactively changed for a headline grabbing marketing ploy.

---

Kolibri X posted...

They do it for because its fashionable right now and people generally don't appreciate characters they care about being retroactively changed for a headline grabbing marketing ploy.

Which character did they retroactively change?

---

Corporate decisions for the sake of social brownie points with zero regard to the actual social movement is definitely pandering. Now, pandering doesn't inherently need to mean the results will be negative, but it's pandering nonetheless. Whether it's positive or negative depends entirely on the wider reception, whether it's a thoughtful implementation or mindless/lazy hackery to fill some checkboxes so the board members can pat themselves on the back.

pegusus123456 posted...

Which character did they retroactively change?

Iceman

That's the only one I know of though

---

Nemu posted...

Corporate decisions for the sake of social brownie points with zero regard to the actual social movement is definitely pandering. Now, pandering doesn't inherently need to mean the results will be negative, but it's pandering nonetheless. Whether it's positive or negative depends entirely on the wider reception, whether it's a thoughtful implementation or mindless/lazy hackery to fill some checkboxes so the board members can pat themselves on the back.

how do you know pandering is occurring here though is my question


---

Another point that seems kinda silly: comic book characters are changed all the time, depending on who is penning any series at any given time. Why does a movie changing an aspect about a character garner such anger when it seems to happen all the time in print?

---

Hulking and Wiccan are the future of Marvel.

Wiccan is the son of Scarlet Witch.



In the future it is revealed that he becomes the Sorcerer Supreme after Doctor Strange.

Hulkling, who is Wiccans husband, is now the King Of Space.

Its obvious Marvel is setting up Young Avengers to be major players in the MCU.

Considering they always forget about them and being a gay character just means they have a throwaway line that they can easily edit out of the Chinese version, I really dont think they are very committed.

I wouldnt call it pandering. Calling it half assed would be generous.

I can see argument for their removal of all LGBT characters from certain markets as a sign they aren't actually sincere. It's kind of tricky, because they're a business and they want to make as much money as possible (they're sort of obligated to do that by their shareholders) and so following the legal and social environments of some places will require them to remove LGBT or other content in those areas. However just because it's economically sound to do it in some places (like say the West) doesn't mean it's automatically bad and pandering. They could probably make more overall money just having one version of all programming with minimum to no LGBT content, but chose to do it even though it will need to be removed from releases in some areas.

---

I remember when people were freaking out about a gay scene in Beauty and the Beast for months and it was like two seconds long.

---

By definition they are pandering to the woke mob.

---

TerraSeeker posted...

By definition they are pandering to the woke mob.

How?

---

There is no commitment. It's never little more than lazy background elements they can easily erase should the need arise.

ZannoL posted...

Its obvious Marvel is setting up Young Avengers to be major players in the MCU.

"Major players" is a bit of a stretch, since there's currently no indication they'll ever appear outside any of the Disney+ series.

---

ZannoL posted...

Its obvious Marvel is setting up Young Avengers to be major players in the MCU.

Rumors are going around that it will simply be a Disney+ series. Still big, but I don't think YA is gonna be anything major on the level of the movies.

---