Animated Romance

[Antiyonder]

Gargoyles creator Greg Weisman on a character he outed 5 years ago:
"What I said, I believe, is that in my opinion Lex is gay -- though he may not yet realize it. And that we would be consistent with that knowledge... as I believe we have been up to this point. But that in the current world climate we would not be addressing it on the show at all. Not explicitly or implicitly. It's a d@mn shame, and since we're talking about episodes that don't exist it would be easy for me to be brave now and pretend that we'd be open about it, but that would be a lie of expectation, and I try to be more honest than that with the fans. All I promised was consistency. It may sound like a subtle distinction, but believe me it is not. It may also sound like a cop-out, and believe me, IT IS. But it's a cop-out that comes out of the fact that if I even attempted an implicit portrayal, it flat out would not get on the air. And I could stand my ground. And I would get fired. And then there'd be no consistency either. Someday, I hope to live in a braver more understanding world... but we ain't there yet. And I think what we're doing is at least a step in the right direction."

Actually, Gargoyles #8 has already alluded towards his sexuality. I suggest you look for the issue to see if it works.

 

[judyindisguise]

Just because it doesn't exist in canon isn't much of an argument in the kid-aimed fandoms..

Should this even be an issue in kid-aimed fandoms, however? That's what bugs me most about that stuff - stories and especially art are posted on the net where any kid can see it. If the people involved would invent their own characters, fine, but using someone else's like that is pretty low IMO.

 

[Mad Mod 49]

Just because it doesn't exist in canon isn't much of an argument in the kid-aimed fandoms.

How so? If the characters are not gay in canon, I see no reason to make them gay in fanon. My main problem of course is that fanon yaoi/yuri is not about gay tolerance or any such matter, it's there because guys and girls get off on that kind of thing. As Raven would say, it's just pointless.

 

[BrendaBat]

Originally posted by Silverstar
The Robin/Starfire pairing didn't come out of nowhere; it originated from the 80's New Teen Titans comics. And IMO, it did develop on the show; it's just that the series' characters were so watered-down that we didn't get to see any serious character development of anyone.

I don't care how awesome their romance was in the comicbook. The cartoon should be able to stand on its own two feet.

Just because [homosexuality] doesn't exist in canon isn't much of an argument in the kid-aimed fandoms.

Originally posted by judyindisguise
Should this even be an issue in kid-aimed fandoms, however? That's what bugs me most about that stuff - stories and especially art are posted on the net where any kid can see it. If the people involved would invent their own characters, fine, but using someone else's like that is pretty low IMO.

I understand what you mean. It bothers me when weirdo fans turn obviously straight characters gay just because thats their kink (anime fangirls are the worst offenders here). However, I still don't see anything wrong with fanartists indulging their offbeat ship for a kids' show like Kim Possible as long as they don't make anything too explicit.

 

[Luna]

Gargoyles creator Greg Weisman on a character he outed 5 years ago:
"What I said, I believe, is that in my opinion Lex is gay -- though he may not yet realize it. And that we would be consistent with that knowledge... as I believe we have been up to this point. But that in the current world climate we would not be addressing it on the show at all. Not explicitly or implicitly. It's a d@mn shame, and since we're talking about episodes that don't exist it would be easy for me to be brave now and pretend that we'd be open about it, but that would be a lie of expectation, and I try to be more honest than that with the fans. All I promised was consistency. It may sound like a subtle distinction, but believe me it is not. It may also sound like a cop-out, and believe me, IT IS. But it's a cop-out that comes out of the fact that if I even attempted an implicit portrayal, it flat out would not get on the air. And I could stand my ground. And I would get fired. And then there'd be no consistency either. Someday, I hope to live in a braver more understanding world... but we ain't there yet. And I think what we're doing is at least a step in the right direction."

.... ...I'd actually forgotten that about Gargoyles,that Lexington was intended to be gay...Still,despite the fact they're both aimed at children,Gargoyles just doesn't seem as "Kiddy"(for lack of a better word,and not meant in a bad way) as Kingdom Hearts and most other Disney properties...

 

[Hordesman]

Actually, Gargoyles #8 has already alluded towards his sexuality. I suggest you look for the issue to see if it works.

Yeah, I read it. It's cute so far, and I'm curious how it plays out. The quote I posted earlier was in reference to the tv show but I'm inclined to think the comic will work within the current bounds of kids tv. Disney still looks over the books before they go to press.

Should this even be an issue in kid-aimed fandoms, however? That's what bugs me most about that stuff - stories and especially art are posted on the net where any kid can see it. If the people involved would invent their own characters, fine, but using someone else's like that is pretty low IMO.

My stance, to borrow the Gargoyles once more... If Goliath and Elisa can do it, so can Lexington and whoever he's with. I don't like explicit relationship stuff either. And I don't think a pairing being same gender makes it any more adult than an opposite one is. I was maybe 7 when totally out of the blue, it ocurred to me that sometimes people of the same sex just get married.

How so? If the characters are not gay in canon, I see no reason to make them gay in fanon. My main problem of course is that fanon yaoi/yuri is not about gay tolerance or any such matter, it's there because guys and girls get off on that kind of thing. As
Raven would say, it's just pointless.

The issue is that most canons don't allow the possibility yet. Do I have issues with most fandom slash? Yes, yes, and yes. I wrote a Bobobo fic that totally skewered yaoi cliches, but I still want the canon. The genre stuff. Brokeback Mountain as a real Western with gay leads, not a pathetic Larry Craig emo-fest. And I'm writing my own comic with that in mind, but I reserve the right to explore some ships that canon won't allow yet.

How so? If the characters are not gay in canon, I see no reason to make them gay in fanon. My main problem of course is that fanon yaoi/yuri is not about gay tolerance or any such matter, it's there because guys and girls get off on that kind of thing. As Raven would say, it's just pointless.

That's it for the most part, but I can't be the only person out there who'd rather see Shuichi and Yuki deal with the PTA rather than rut. Slashcast actually includes GLBT news for example.

 

[BrendaBat]

origionally posted by Hordesman
My stance, to borrow the Gargoyles once more... If Goliath and Elisa can do it, so can Lexington and whoever he's with. I don't like explicit relationship stuff either. And I don't think a pairing being same gender makes it any more adult than an opposite one is.

Thats a good point (can't believe I didn't think of it ).
The Goliath/Elisa pairing has always grossed me out a little. Even as a kid, I was surprised that Disney censors let that stuff go on the Disney Afternoon!
Also, it would seem really unfair if Disney allowed Goliath and Elisa to violate the laws of nature with their unholy union and then didn't let poor Lexington have a Gargoyle boyfriend.

And before any Gargoyles fan jumps down my throat, I already know that Elisa and Goliath's relationship was well developed, romantic, totally meant-to-be, and all that good stuff. Doesn't make it any less gross.

 

[Mad Mod 49]

Still,despite the fact they're both aimed at children,Gargoyles just doesn't seem as "Kiddy"(for lack of a better word,and not meant in a bad way) as Kingdom Hearts and most other Disney properties...

True for the most part, especially with Kingdom Hearts (I took one look at the slash in that fandom and now stay the hell away.) but some Disney properties can actually have subtle hints at gay relationships, the most obvious being Lilo & Sitch (Jumba and Pleakley anyone? )

My stance, to borrow the Gargoyles once more... If Goliath and Elisa can do it, so can Lexington and whoever he's with.

Agreed on that for the comics; I could understand why the show wouldn't allow it but I don't think the comics are really read much by kids anyway so I don't see what's stopping 'em...

but I still want the canon. The genre stuff. Brokeback Mountain as a real Western with gay leads, not a pathetic Larry Craig emo-fest. And I'm writing my own comic with that in mind, but I reserve the right to explore some ships that canon won't allow yet.

Lol, exactly. That's another issue I have with fanon slash...it's not even that much gay as much as it is fey; just a bunch of stereotyping.

 

[judyindisguise]

Thats a good point (can't believe I didn't think of it ).
The Goliath/Elisa pairing has always grossed me out a little. Even as a kid, I was surprised that Disney censors let that stuff go on the Disney Afternoon!
Also, it would seem really unfair if Disney allowed Goliath and Elisa to violate the laws of nature with their unholy union and then didn't let poor Lexington have a Gargoyle boyfriend.

And before any Gargoyles fan jumps down my throat, I already know that Elisa and Goliath's relationship was well developed, romantic, totally meant-to-be, and all that good stuff. Doesn't make it any less gross.

I think there's a difference, though, between Goliath and Elisa being an "item" and any kind of boy/boy relationship with Lexington. With Goliath and Elisa, we're still talking male and female, and Goliath is very humanoid; because of that fact, the pairing is IMO far less disturbing than Roger and Jessica Rabbit, for instance. But any kind of depiction of a gay couple on a kids' show is still considered controversial and IMO, is not likely to happen anytime soon. There are many parents - if not the majority of parents - who would object to such a depiction. I'm not certain it's the business of cartoon producers to introduce that depiction to children anyway. Any more than I thought it was J.K. Rowling's business to introduce it to children via her revelation about Dumbledore. That came off as a stunt IMO - if she truly wanted to be inclusive, to preach tolerance, than Dumbledore's sexuality should have been mentioned in the books IMO. The fact that she waited until all the books were finished and sold before she dropped her bombshell didn't impress me at all. And I daresay at least some parents felt betrayed. But it's all water under the bridge now...

 

[Movie06]

Romance can work as long as it isn't overdone and annoying. And personally, I' am getting tired of the countless romance fanfics. I mean as much as I like characters Rogue, Raven, etc. but couples like ROMY or the Beast Boy & Raven are getting annoying and tiring.

 

[Jave]

I think there's a difference, though, between Goliath and Elisa being an "item" and any kind of boy/boy relationship with Lexington. With Goliath and Elisa, we're still talking male and female, and Goliath is very humanoid; because of that fact, the pairing is IMO far less disturbing than Roger and Jessica Rabbit, for instance. But any kind of depiction of a gay couple on a kids' show is still considered controversial and IMO, is not likely to happen anytime soon. There are many parents - if not the majority of parents - who would object to such a depiction. I'm not certain it's the business of cartoon producers to introduce that depiction to children anyway. Any more than I thought it was J.K. Rowling's business to introduce it to children via her revelation about Dumbledore. That came off as a stunt IMO - if she truly wanted to be inclusive, to preach tolerance, than Dumbledore's sexuality should have been mentioned in the books IMO. The fact that she waited until all the books were finished and sold before she dropped her bombshell didn't impress me at all. And I daresay at least some parents felt betrayed. But it's all water under the bridge now...

Well, there are a few occasions like in the first Pepe LePew cartoon. In that one, Pepe chased after a male cat. Heck, there were lot of male-kissing moments in Looney Tunes overall, and while they were definitely done for comedy purposes, they were still there.

On a more serious approach, there was also Card Captor Sakura which had every controversial pairing in the book. Males, cousins, females, adults and minors... Sure it was all taken out in the American dub, but the original was also considered a kids' show.

I agree with you on the Potter books though. It seems to me that Rowling didn't include the whole "Dumbledore is Gay" stuff in the books because she was afraid her editor will force her to take it out. If she didn't include it in the books, she should have never revealed it, it's pointless.

Off-topic corner: 4 IMOs in a single post are 3 IMOs too many.

 

[Kryten]

Stan and Wendy broke up a very long time ago.

And that's really the "jump the shark" moment for me. The show lost its heart and became pretty much non-stop "Matt & Trey vs. the straw man of the week".

 

[Lavenderpaw]

I agree with you on the Potter books though. It seems to me that Rowling didn't include the whole "Dumbledore is Gay" stuff in the books because she was afraid her editor will force her to take it out. If she didn't include it in the books, she should have never revealed it, it's pointless.

HP isn't animation though...

 

[TheVileOne]

Wait a minute . . . Goliath and Elisa had sex?

Also, screw Kagome and Inuyasha and screw that whole God forsaken show that never did a damn thing. A dumbass couple that forgets any progress they make one episode later doesn't deserve to exist.

Also Jiraiya knows what true love is. Jiraiya deeply loves someone. Whether that person returns that love well . . . figure it out.

 

[Mandi-chan]

plus the whole Zuko/Katarra/Aang love triangle.

*groans* There is NO triangle in the cannon of the show. That's purely FAN created, and there have been NO indications whatsoever that Katara or Zuko find each other attractive or have crushes on one another.

Just because she decided to give him the benifet of the doubt at the end of season 2 and offered to heal his scar, does not make suddenly make the two undying lovers! And even in that scene, there was nothing there that implied a romantic connection between the two.

I don't mean to rant, but I find it very irritating when people act like the fan-made Katara/Zuko is real in the show.

Aang recently kissed Katarra for the whole time, but Katarra looked a little ambiguous about it.

She didn't break away from the kiss, and didn't seem to mind it to me...she looked a little upset because Aang leaves her right after kissing her to face the Firelord, and just before kissing her Aang gave her his doubts that he would survive the battle.

Aang recently confessed his love for Katarra, so who knows. The series seems to favor Katarra and Aang as its OTP.

They've been building up this relationship since the very first episode of the show, and have had hints (obvious on Aang's part, subtle on Katara's) littered throughout all three seasons that indicate that the two have romantic feelings for one another.

Plus, Aang has matured a great deal (most of it occured in season 1) and is no longer a "goofy kid" in Katara's eyes...making the relationship much more appealing.

 

[ROBOTRON]

- I don't particularly care for animated romance....there are exceptions however:

Batman and the mask of the phantasm lady

John Stewart Green Lantern & Hawkgirl

John Stewart & Vixen

The above relationships contributed to the story enough not bore me to death. The worse thing a movie or show can do is bore me. A good example of relationships I hated due to boredom was Peter Parker's romances in the Spiderman movies. UGH.

I know Spiderman wasn't animated, but it still took away from the show instead of adding depth.

 

[judyindisguise]

Well, there are a few occasions like in the first Pepe LePew cartoon. In that one, Pepe chased after a male cat. Heck, there were lot of male-kissing moments in Looney Tunes overall, and while they were definitely done for comedy purposes, they were still there.

On a more serious approach, there was also Card Captor Sakura which had every controversial pairing in the book. Males, cousins, females, adults and minors... Sure it was all taken out in the American dub, but the original was also considered a kids' show.

I agree with you on the Potter books though. It seems to me that Rowling didn't include the whole "Dumbledore is Gay" stuff in the books because she was afraid her editor will force her to take it out. If she didn't include it in the books, she should have never revealed it, it's pointless.

Off-topic corner: 4 IMOs in a single post are 3 IMOs too many.

Yeah, I do kinda overdo that. Like Wilt's "I'm sorry, is that okay?" from Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Afraid of being too forthright, I suppose.

 

[TheVileOne]

*groans* There is NO triangle in the cannon of the show. That's purely FAN created, and there have been NO indications whatsoever that Katara or Zuko find each other attractive or have crushes on one another.

Just because she decided to give him the benifet of the doubt at the end of season 2 and offered to heal his scar, does not make suddenly make the two undying lovers! And even in that scene, there was nothing there that implied a romantic connection between the two.

I don't mean to rant, but I find it very irritating when people act like the fan-made Katara/Zuko is real in the show.

She didn't break away from the kiss, and didn't seem to mind it to me...she looked a little upset because Aang leaves her right after kissing her to face the Firelord, and just before kissing her Aang gave her his doubts that he would survive the battle.

You really should watch the DVD and listen to the audio commentary of the creators of the show. My comments are based off what came out of their own mouths as well.

The way I see it when Katarra confronts Zuko after he joins them, you can read it either as Katarra telling Zuko, "Hurt my man and I will kill you!" or "I'm yelling at you and being angry because of all this sexual tension!" Lol.

I lost a lot of respect for Rowling after she pulled out the gay thing on Dumbeldore so conveniently after the book came out. Not saying Dumbledore can't be gay, just saying that Rowling has no testicular fortitude, bleh .

 

[Luna]

True for the most part, especially with Kingdom Hearts (I took one look at the slash in that fandom and now stay the hell away.) but some Disney properties can actually have subtle hints at gay relationships, the most obvious being Lilo & Sitch (Jumba and Pleakley anyone? )

I love Jumba and Pleakley,though I've never really seen them as a couple,though they do pose as Lilo's aunt and uncle while they're staying at her house......Can't say it'd bother me if they were...

I HATE yaoi involving Kingdom Hearts,though....just because two guys are best friends,it doesn't mean they're romanticly interested in one another (esp. since both Sora and Roxas have a female love interest in the story,in Kairi and Namine,respectively)...

 

[Hordesman]

Quickly on Goliath and Elisa: Being that gargoyles are a race and the series is fantasy, I don't consider it an interspecies relationship any more than I would Superman and Lois Lane. That said, imo I truly believe Lex's relationship shouldn't get any less emphasis than any of the straight characters'. But that's probably what will happen. Disney does vet the comic, after all.

The way I see it when Katarra confronts Zuko after he joins them, you can read it either as Katarra telling Zuko, "Hurt my man and I will kill you!" or "I'm yelling at you and being angry because of all this sexual tension!" Lol.

Or "He's my man, *****!"

I lost a lot of respect for Rowling after she pulled out the gay thing on Dumbeldore so conveniently after the book came out. Not saying Dumbledore can't be gay, just saying that Rowling has no testicular fortitude, bleh .

First off, she was asked about Dumbledore's love life by an audience member in a Q&A. She did not hold a press conference to announce it. Second, I think the position of the book in pop culture was connected with the enormity of this revelation. Dumbledore is a household name. I always figured she'd reveal something like this 20 years down the road about a minor character who didn't survive the series. So I have to say I'm impressed. Ideally, there's more I would have liked but given the world today, given the market being so cautious on this sort of thing... It's a turning point. In its wake is the continued building of a Potter theme park, an extra movie added to WB's series, and who knows what's next?