this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
804 points (100.0% liked)
[Dormant, please move to [email protected]] Movies and TV Shows
2720 readers
1 users here now
Please move to
This is a community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.
Rules:
- Keep discussion civil and on topic.
- Please do not link to pirated content.
- No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
- Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you also refer to romantic stories between man and a woman (traditionally referred to as "love stories") as "heterosexual stories"?
It's okay to clarify and specify when something is gay.
Its clearly its own sub genre, Netflix has specific categories for it and Asian culture has an acronym (BL for boy love). Many people prefer it over the rest, even without being gay themselves.
Acknowledging a difference isn't necessarily an insult.
The ENTIRE POINT is that it is NOT from the "gay" culture, you numpties. You are CHOOSING to miss the entire point.
It is NOT a "gay" story. It's a homosexual love story. The fact you don't know there even is a difference says a lot about how far you need to grow.
[Insert County ]love story
A teen love story
A divorcee love story
Yes. We do this for all types of shit all the time. Just because you put gay in front of it doesn't make you homophobic.
So a post-apocalyptic love story? Cuz that seemed to be the main theme. Unless you were just too caught up over the characters being gay to notice.
Offermans character was deep in the closet and his future husband had to break down some heavy emotional walls. It was his first relationship with a man.
Being gay was very much part of the theme and wasn't just some offhand detail about them imo.
There was a lot to the episode but pretending their sexuality had no impact on how the story was told or its impact is silly. I don't think it would have been as touching without it.
Some of you really need a rewatch.
You should really rewatch it, because the genders could be changed and it'd still be a good episode.
No mattrr how much people whine or gloat about it, the gayness wasn't required. It's not a "gay" story. That's the entire point Offerman is making.
Nowhere in the original comment did they say it is a gay love story.
Full disclosure: I'd probably call it a gay love story before encountering this post. But there is fair point in the title of the post - why do we need to differentiate love stories based on what sexuality are the protagonists? And if we do that, why not do the same if protagonists are heterosexual? Then the classifications you mention would have to go like:
[Insert country] gay love story
A teen hetero story.
A divorce bi story.
The sexuality really should be secundary classificator.
The most common option is always left out. We say Thai food or Chinese food but no one says "Lets have some American food tonight" when living in the US, because it's implied if no other type is mentioned.
I don't think there's anything wrong with calling it a gay love story or just a love story, one just offers more information.
... But we do? When deciding whether to go for lunch, everyone I know very much will say, "Do you want Mexican, Thai, American,..." and so on.
If I were asked to qualify one, sure. It's a love story about a gay couple. It's a gay love story. If they were Indonesian it would be an Indonesian love story.
The story isn't about them being gay. Its about them being in love and dealing with the post apocalyptic bullshit along with their relationship. To call it a "gay story" is to single out the one tiny part of it that is them being gay and reduce the whole thing to that. I doubt you'd just classify Schindlers list as a "Jew story" or Black panther as a "Black story". I do like how you slipped from it being a "gay story" to a "gay love story" tho, nice save. The quote was about people calling it a gay story, not a gay love story. I think even subconsciously you understand that "gay story" is not really a good way to summarize that story.
In no world is somebody asking for more detail on a story going to want to hear "its a gay story" and be satisfied. If they want details you'd tell them more, and if they didn't a more accurate summary would be "love story" or even "post apocalyptic gay love story" but just "gay story" is like calling lord of the rings a "travel diary"
That argument is a bit like the idea of colorblindness when it comes to discussing race, however. It doesn't do justice to be dismissive of identity in the name of equality because that ignores the different social contexts that are inherent to that identity.
I would say the fact that it is a gay love story is very significant to note for that particular episode given the time period that The Last of Us takes place in. What I mean is: society collapses in summer of 2003 in the Last of Us TV series (10 years earlier than the game). These characters are living in Massachusetts, which is one of the first states to recognize gay marriage, but would not have occurred until late 2003 if society hadn't collapsed almost overnight earlier that year. Obergefell v. Hodges would be another 12 years off, making widespread legitimacy of gay marriage a distant fantasy.
These two characters, effectively, had to live their entire lives closeted in a broadly homophobic society that would not recognize them. But it was after the collapse of that society that they were at liberty to be their true selves and, as we see, become happier after the apocalypse than they were before. It would not be the same story at all if it was turned into a hetero relationship.
You see, if they had mady ANY commentary about all of that stuff you said, THEN I'd be OK throwing "gay" on "love story". But it didn't.
Being gay was not a critical part of the story, no matter how much people celebrate it for that. It WAS NOT an important part of the story, even if it was an important part of why people got emotional over the episode.
The ENTIRE POINT is that the episode was otherwise normal. That's what Offerman is saying. It's NOT a gay story. It's a love story where the characters happened to be men. If society were actually progressive, "love story" would be far more accurate, because that's all that happened.
I've had more dick in my mouth than your mother, don't call me a bigot for using adjectives.
If they were black, it would similarly be a black love story - but what do you think choosing to describe it as a black love story indicates?
There's a million different lenses to look through when describing a story or a relationship - the aspects we choose to point to (particularly unprompted, as was the case for the trolls) tend to indicate more about us than the story - particularly when they have no meaningful bearing on the story.
Saying they're black or gay when it has no bearing on the story doesn't tell anyone much. You didn't choose to say they were loving, outdoorsy, not super-physical, middle-aged, wealthy, blonde, family-oriented.... Noone is coming out to crucify me here - talking about race isn't taboo - but the non-relevant aspects of the relationship you choose to highlight for reasons tells plenty about you.
By who? Unless you're clicking tags on netflix I don't think anyone is going to have this hypothetical convo:
Oh there's a great episode you should watch
Oh whats it about? Tell me more?
Its gay
Oh ok thanks, all I need to know.
The quote is about them calling it a "gay story" not a "post apocalyptic gay love story". The reductive 2 word description is rightfully annoying to a man who brought a well written and fleshed out love story to life, only to be told he made a "gay story"
No.
I would argue that the sexual orientation of the characters does make a difference in the story.
They're living in a world with little trust, and they have to overcome that. Neither one can be sure that the other is trustworthy, and won't kill them when they're not looking. And they have to overcome the remaining stigma of same-sex relationships, which could end very badly in the same way. They are both walking through two minefields, in a way which is different from how a similar heterosexual story would play out. Maybe?
It is definitely first and foremost a love story, but it's not only a love story, and looking away from other aspects does a disservice to everyone.
Each of those (especially the platonic relationship one) would be a different story, even if they would all be first and foremost "love stories."
Yet nobody is here calling it an American love story.
well, did America still exist in the story?
I don't recall them naming it. However, it was in the geographic region of America, even if society had broken down.
They also didn't identify the characters as gay. They could have been bi or pan. That do snt seem to be a point of contention though, oddly.
And yet in the original comment you never said it would be a gay love story. You just said gay story.
But let me rephrase that then - would you call a love story between a heterosexual man and a woman a "hetero love story"?
The "gay" in "gay love story" is a secondary classificator - it's a love story of two people who happen to be gay. A "gay story" could be a love story, but could also be a story of someone finding their identity, about their struggles in the world as a gay person etc.
Exactly. Just like that classic 1970 film staring Ryan O'Neal and Ali McGraw: Straight White American Love Story
I think they're innocent in their meaning, but don't understand the nuance of what you're trying to tell them.