Gays and Minorities as villians in fictional media... Good? Bad?

[RJ 17]

So suppose we had a straight up Disney film, with an openly gay villain character who's sexuality bared nothing on the plot.

That being said, why does the audience need to know the villains sexuality in the first place? It's the same as the author of Harry Potter coming out in a press conference and just announcing "Oh, by the way, Dumbledor is gay." I honestly have no idea why she did that, it has absolutely nothing to do with the character, the story, or how the character behaves in the story. There's no hints that he's gay, no signs that he's gay, absolutely no point to him being gay in a story that is devoid of sexuality to begin with. There's no point in announcing that he's gay other than, well, to just announce "Oh, by the way, he's gay."

And that's really the core of the situation here if you ask me. Disney films are (for the most part) movies meant for kids. True, back in the day (and perhaps even now) there were silly people working in the animation department that would slip things into the movie that shouldn't be there (i.e. the imfamous "Priestly Boner" in Little Mermaid), but beyond that it's like you said: sexuality has absolutely no baring on the story....so why even bother elaborating on it?

There's nothing WRONG with having gay and minority villians, to answer your question more directly, but in the case of sexuality, there's no need for the audience to know it or even think of it unless the character ends up kissing/having sex with/being romantic with a member of the same gender. If there's no such scene, then I highly doubt the audience cares about the character's sexuality. Race is even less of a factor considering there's jerks and assholes in every race, I'd say it'd actually be more racist to depict every villian as a white male. Equal rights for all means that even minorities - sexual or racial - aren't free from being depicted as villians.

 

[SonicWaffle]

I don't think she was particularly interesting, just came across as a generic less than competent female teen sidekick.

Associate =/= sidekick

After becoming Batgirl she was no longer functioning as a sidekick, more of an independent operator, with all of the competence that implies. That was what I found interesting about her series, the fact that the character had outgrown the Robin & Spoiler identities where she was fighting crime for someone else's sake - to stop her father, for her boyfriend, to please Batman - and was doing it because it was what she wanted to do. When Bruce Wayne returns "from the dead" and appears in her life, she pops him in the jaw and lectures him on how he can't treat her like a sidekick anymore.

Swap her for Misfit, or maybe Year One Batgirl.

I never understood Misfit. What was the point, just to have some teenage doofus for a comic relief sidekick? The Birds already had comic relief with Lady Blackhawk, who managed to be funny while also being a badass character in her own right.

Not that I'm saying that I didn't like her...though she worked better as Spoiler, being Batgirl's sidekick instead of Batgirl...especially in that they got rid of the more popular Cassandra Cain for someone so generic.

Cassandra never seemed all that popular to me, whereas now that Steph is benched from the DCU there is an actual fan campaign to bring her back. Possibly I'm mis-remembering, but much as I liked the Cass character I don't recall there being such a concerted effort to bring her back as Batgirl.

 

[JimB]

Is it morally okay to have villains with different sexual orientation, or race, or religion?

Whether it would be wrong or not depends on the intention and the skill with which that intention was executed. I would be automatically leery, as the Disney formula is generally to define a villain by his deviation from the norm; so homosexuality, which is deviant by statistical definition of the word (no moral judgment implied on my end), would be very difficult to pull off as being unrelated to the other deviations that make the villain evil. But as to whether such a thing is categorically immoral regardless of context, no, of course not. I have to wonder why you'd even ask that.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I don't think she was particularly interesting, just came across as a generic less than competent female teen sidekick.

Associate =/= sidekick

After becoming Batgirl she was no longer functioning as a sidekick, more of an independent operator, with all of the competence that implies. That was what I found interesting about her series, the fact that the character had outgrown the Robin & Spoiler identities where she was fighting crime for someone else's sake - to stop her father, for her boyfriend, to please Batman - and was doing it because it was what she wanted to do. When Bruce Wayne returns "from the dead" and appears in her life, she pops him in the jaw and lectures him on how he can't treat her like a sidekick anymore.

I personally didn't find any of that particularly compelling or believable, though I missed the part where she meets Batman when he comes back.

I never understood Misfit. What was the point, just to have some teenage doofus for a comic relief sidekick?

More or less, yeah.

Cassandra never seemed all that popular to me, whereas now that Steph is benched from the DCU there is an actual fan campaign to bring her back. Possibly I'm mis-remembering, but much as I liked the Cass character I don't recall there being such a concerted effort to bring her back as Batgirl.

I'm led to believe Cain's run on Batgirl sold substantially better than Brown's.

 

[SonicWaffle]

I personally didn't find any of that particularly compelling or believable, though I missed the part where she meets Batman when he comes back.

It's when he's running about in that invisible cyber-suit, remember? Pretending to be some kind of criminal so he can get involved in the day-to-day of Gotham without revealing that he's alive. Predictably Steph is pretty annoyed at him for still acting like he knows better than everyone else, and tells him so.

More or less, yeah.

Didn't seem necessary to me. The character was more of an annoyance than anything. Birds was a pretty decent book, and I didn't feel like it needed a quirky sidekick to complete the package.

I'm led to believe Cain's run on Batgirl sold substantially better than Brown's.

Have you got a cite? I tried to google, but all I'm getting is "Why isn't Stephanie Brown back yet?!" results

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's when he's running about in that invisible cyber-suit, remember? Pretending to be some kind of criminal so he can get involved in the day-to-day of Gotham without revealing that he's alive. Predictably Steph is pretty annoyed at him for still acting like he knows better than everyone else, and tells him so.

Not read that.

Didn't seem necessary to me. The character was more of an annoyance than anything. Birds was a pretty decent book, and I didn't feel like it needed a quirky sidekick to complete the package.

Yeah, I didn't have anything against Misfit as such, but the way she was used was very annoying and pointless.

Have you got a cite? I tried to google, but all I'm getting is "Why isn't Stephanie Brown back yet?!" results

http://arsmarginal.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/cass-cain-counts/

 

[SonicWaffle]

Not read that.

S'not bad. Not great either. It's mostly just him hanging about checking to make sure everyone has been OK in his absence, which of course they have. Funny in a few places, particularly when he makes his big reveal to Steph and she just shrugs it off with "of course you were coming back, nobody stays dead anymore"

Yeah, I didn't have anything against Misfit as such, but the way she was used was very annoying and pointless.

As far as I can recall, she wasn't used at all. She'd just hang about in Oracle's tower, or occasionally get herself into scrapes which needed to be resolved, like the child character on a sitcom.

http://arsmarginal.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/cass-cain-counts/

I can't seem to find the actual numbers - all they've got there are some figures for the Cass book and a comment to the effect of "the new Batgirl doesn't sell this many"

Not that they're necessarily wrong, but they certainly are biased!

 

[Jaeke]

You mean like in Skyfall?

Seriously....
The ninja of all ninja's...
All I can hear is the wind in the cherry blossoms.

OT: But seriously, Skyfall has a villain that's both. And it works.

 

[kailus13]

Disney villains always come across more as asexual to me, but that of course is also labelling a minority as deviant.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As far as I can recall, she wasn't used at all. She'd just hang about in Oracle's tower, or occasionally get herself into scrapes which needed to be resolved, like the child character on a sitcom.

More or less, yeah..

I can't seem to find the actual numbers - all they've got there are some figures for the Cass book and a comment to the effect of "the new Batgirl doesn't sell this many"

Not that they're necessarily wrong, but they certainly are biased!

Hang on:

http://comicsbeat.com/dc-comics-month-to-month-sales-may-2012/

Apparently, just over 22k before the reboot. A quick skim through looks like sales tripled with the reboot, despite predictions from a lot of fans about it inevitably being terrible.

 

[Casual Shinji]

And that NChick episode was kind of missing or just ignoring the purpose of the characteristics behind the Disney villians they used as examples. Those villians are foppish not because the filmmakers are trying to use gay stereotypes (subconsciously or not) to villify the characters, but because they're trying to present them as shallow, greedy, and duplicitous.

I thought thats pretty much exactly she/sassy gay freind said...

Yet they both still sorta spin it into a (subconscious or not) slap against the gay community. Even misreading Scar's sarcastic "I shall practice my curtsy" as signifying that he's gay or pushing the gay stereotype because he's the villain.

I know her little strawman bit with Nella was an attempt to shut up anyone who might want to utter the phrase "you're reading too much into this", but she kinda was.

 

[SonicWaffle]

I know her little strawman bit with Nella was an attempt to shut up anyone who might want to utter the phrase "you're reading too much into this", but she kinda was.

Nah, Shinji, I think you're just reading too much into it.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Sexuality shouldnt matter, unless he is a gay man killing other gay men because of his own issues with being gay. Even those from other races are not villians due to there colour. I think its a non issue really. But as with race, it can be linked to a villian such as muslim terrorists, i guess you could have a white american muslim terrorist, i guess it works better with an asian person. You can be a gay villian as long as your not a cliche over the top campy gay villian.

To be honest, only issues i have is that cliche black villian "gangsta" spouting ghetto talk rubbish. Hate that.

I guess what i mean is its not a problem for a villian to be gay of a certain race as long as they are not a cliche character and have depth.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I know her little strawman bit with Nella was an attempt to shut up anyone who might want to utter the phrase "you're reading too much into this", but she kinda was.

Nah, Shinji, I think you're just reading too much into it.

Well hell, everyone is reading too much into everything these days. Jafar supposed gayness never crossed my mind till people started mentioning it.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Apparently, just over 22k before the reboot. A quick skim through looks like sales tripled with the reboot, despite predictions from a lot of fans about it inevitably being terrible.

Hmm. I'm not sure how I feel about that, to be honest. On the one hand I think it's good comics are selling well, because I loved the medium, but on the other I'm disappointed that this had to happen after they've already wrecked the comics I knew and loved.

Of course, we can't forget that part of the sales rise will be due to the phenomenal success of The Avengers raising the profile of superheroes as a whole, as well as the third of Nolan's Batman movies, but I'm sure the New 52 has played a part.

Really, I'm glad, I just wish this could have happened without scrapping all those books I enjoyed and replacing them with (to my mind) inferior versions.

 

[snekadid]

If its just one villain... then no, it would be retarded to say that something is offensive just because one villain is gay/black/quadriplegic/etc. Just like the arguments that something was sexist because one character was both female and evil, it doesn't work as a negative unless its depicted as their evil because they are (ETC!).

I can only really think of one game that fit the bill and it wasn't even offensive because it was so outrageously done. I am of course speaking of Godhand, the game about fighting waves of the most over the top gay stereotypes yet to grace media. It had no ability to offend me or anyone I showed because it was so overblown that you couldn't even realistically connect the characters in the game to real life people of any sexuality. Plus the story was retardedly bad so that also took away my ability to take it seriously.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Well hell, everyone is reading too much into everything these days. Jafar supposed gayness never crossed my mind till people started mentioning it.

Granted my memory is far from fantastic, so I could be entirely wrong, but wasn't Jafar's plan to take over the kingdom by getting married to a lady? I always thought he was relishing the chance to bang Jasmine.

 

[JayElleBee]

It's the same as the author of Harry Potter coming out in a press conference and just announcing "Oh, by the way, Dumbledor is gay." I honestly have no idea why she did that, it has absolutely nothing to do with the character, the story, or how the character behaves in the story. There's no hints that he's gay, no signs that he's gay, absolutely no point to him being gay in a story that is devoid of sexuality to begin with. There's no point in announcing that he's gay other than, well, to just announce "Oh, by the way, he's gay."

She didn't just come out and say it with no prompting. Someone asked her if Dumbledore ever found 'true love' and she then said that she saw him as gay, to preface her elaboration on his relationship with Grindelwald. Would you rather she answered with a yes or no, rather than giving information on a character when someone specifically asked for it?

And I don't know where you get this idea that a character's sexuality has nothing to do with them. I'm pretty sure most people would say that their sexuality has an effect on their life and that should be no different for fictional characters. Just because it has no bearing on the story doesn't mean the author shouldn't know this information.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Well hell, everyone is reading too much into everything these days. Jafar supposed gayness never crossed my mind till people started mentioning it.

Granted my memory is far from fantastic, so I could be entirely wrong, but wasn't Jafar's plan to take over the kingdom by getting married to a lady? I always thought he was relishing the chance to bang Jasmine.

Yeah, but I think people always regard to that a bit jokingly, like "Oh yeah right, Jafar... You're marrying Jasmine because you obviously like women soooo much".

Most if not all male villains in Disney seem to be based on the standard dastardly villain with top hat and handlebar moustache reveling in their own evilness. Over the years this over the top image has apparently become synonymous with being gay. Or maybe I'm just overthinking it.

But think about it... The greatest villains tend to be over the top and campy.

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

Does it really matter a persons sexuality has nothing to do with being a villain or not people are always so fixated on such arbitrary physical or personality traits I don't get it.

People love to be politically correct and shove their viewpoints and opinions down other people's throats mostly....