And probably seeing a homoromantic subtext in what clearly a friendship can be considered a product of toxic masculinity: "Two men talking to each other about their feelings? It's so gay !!!"
Spoilers The Falcon and Winter Soldier discussion
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
I've seen both at conventions, and it was never brought up to them, nor did I hear it among the innumerable fans I've known over the decades. Almost universally, fans viewed Kirk and Spock as best friends / surrogate brothers, which was more than apparent in how they treated each other in TOS/TAS/TOS movies.
However, you would need to deep dive in interviews to see if any writer asked that question.
I would be very afraid to do so, because it would be yet another confirmation of human stupidity.
I have nothing against shipper fiction, but it is fantasy. There would be nothing wrong about asking an actor about their opinion on shipper fiction, but dont try to bring subtext to a story or criticize a story based on your personal desires? There have been many same sex couples shippes in fan fiction, but that does not have a anything to do with intentions.
And still fandom is skinning Anthony Mackie alive because he gave an awkward answer to a question they shouldn't have asked him. I am just an amateur actor, but if ever asked such a question I would immediately answer "Maybe I'm not the right person, you should ask the director or the author what they think about this relationship". But sadly he is now paying the price for trying to give an answer. I am beginning to regret the times when there was a healthy distance between entertainment workers and the audience.
In MY OLD EDITION of Star Trek The Motion Picture the Novel, Kirk is interviewed by a student who assumes that Kirk and Spock were gay. Kirk says he would never be dumb enough to pick a lover who only bones once every seven years. The narration also says that every one in the 22nd century is Bisexal except Kirk.
(Does Kirk call McCoy Bones because of how well or how often he bones?)
I just looked though my epubs.
NOT THERE!
A homosexual Purge happened at some point between the early eighties and the early naughties.
Shame!
Shame!!
On one hand the novel is by Gene Roddenberry, on the other hand it was probably ghost written.
By the way, It seems that the first first explicit homoerotic story about Kirk/Spock dates back to 1968:
https://www.cercatoridiatlantide.it...-of-the-first-slash-fanfictions-on-star-trek/
https://www.cercatoridiatlantide.it...-of-the-first-slash-fanfictions-on-star-trek/
FYI - Kirk and Spock 'slash fic' has been around since the '70s.
Edited to add:
^^^
That's what I get for replying before I read the entire thread.
Sam and Thor were making out a lot in the comics a few years ago.
Same and Jane Foster.
That's movie money, if Anthony can remind all, that he needs to be in a Thor Movie macking on shrivelled husk chemotherapy version of Natalie Portman.
Oh.
I just had a terrible thought...
Boy Thor was still romantic with dying Jane, and from his perspective, an immortal with infinite youth and superlative health...
He couldn't see a difference between the young woman when he first met her in 1962 and Jane's final emaciated days.
(She's Valkyrie now, but did she have to die to get that job?)
Same and Jane Foster.
That's movie money, if Anthony can remind all, that he needs to be in a Thor Movie macking on shrivelled husk chemotherapy version of Natalie Portman.
Oh.
I just had a terrible thought...
Boy Thor was still romantic with dying Jane, and from his perspective, an immortal with infinite youth and superlative health...
He couldn't see a difference between the young woman when he first met her in 1962 and Jane's final emaciated days.
(She's Valkyrie now, but did she have to die to get that job?)
What blew my mind about that was how Variety cherry-picked quotes to stir up a controversy that shouldn't exist. Being hetero isn't a personality disorder.
Not just Variety. io9 and AV Club did it, too. I'm sure other less reputable sites did it, too.
There is nothing wrong with interpreting two male characters as being in love, and Makie's reply had a strong "no homo" vibe that understandably offended a lot of people.
There is ALSO nothing wrong with wanting to see more emotionally healthy platonic male friendships, and being annoyed at the way some people always interpret such relationships through a queer lens without leaving space for platonic male friendships is also understandable.
Ultimately, the solution to BOTH problems is for productions to have more canonically gay characters and more canonically platonic male friendships, so that both sides' legitimate needs for representation are met.
There is ALSO nothing wrong with wanting to see more emotionally healthy platonic male friendships, and being annoyed at the way some people always interpret such relationships through a queer lens without leaving space for platonic male friendships is also understandable.
Ultimately, the solution to BOTH problems is for productions to have more canonically gay characters and more canonically platonic male friendships, so that both sides' legitimate needs for representation are met.
The named sources jumped to a self-conceived conclusion (about any number of things). Not really shocked.
Why should anyone be offended? He's the actor portraying the actual character, and he should be the one to know whether or not said character is homosexual or not. Not everyone in the world is homosexual, just as not everyone in the world is heterosexual or bisexual.
If some fans are saying, "Hey I think The Falcon and the Winter Soldier are homosexuals..."
And the main actor of one of the character hears about this and responds with: "No. The character I play isn't homosexual..." (Unless he did so in a derogatory manner of some kind); there's nothing to be offended over.
Last edited:
Can’t we just have characters be gay, straight or otherwise without reactionary anger about both too much and too little representation?
If a writer wants to add gay characters, it’s their own creative decision, and if the writer decides their characters are straight, it’s exactly the same. Just enjoy the characters for what they are instead of trying to politicize every little detail of their identity.
If a writer wants to add gay characters, it’s their own creative decision, and if the writer decides their characters are straight, it’s exactly the same. Just enjoy the characters for what they are instead of trying to politicize every little detail of their identity.
Because he implied there's something bad about interpreting Sam and Bucky as being gay or bisexual or pansexual. Had he just said, "You know, I personally don't agree with that interpretation, but it's a valid way to interpret the characters if that's what works for you," it wouldn't have produced such an intense backlash.
That is not how art works; if a work of art does not outright preclude something by directly contradicting it, then many different interpretations of a work of art are valid. There is nothing in the text of the MCU that precludes interpreting Sam and Bucky as attracted to each other; ergo, neither Mackie nor anyone else definitively "knows" if Sam and Bucky are gay/bisexual/pansexual.
You realize how outdated it is to refer to people as "homosexuals" outside of highly technical contexts, right? It's borderline offensive to many gay people because it's a term that was historically used by people who hated them and wanted them to cease to exist. I'm not saying this to be mean-spirited or disagreeable -- I'm saying this in case you're unaware.
Except:
1) Art is a form of communication, and it is the right of every audience member to interpret a work of art uniquely. Unless the work specifically takes an overt, textual stance, any interpretation not explicitly contradicted by the text is valid. Ergo, while it is not a valid interpretation of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier to say that it's racist against black people (it textually takes an overt anti-racist stance), it is a valid interpretation to view Bucky and Sam as gay or bisexual or pansexual (nothing in the text establishes them as not gay or bisexual or pansexual).
2) While he did not outright say there's anything wrong with being LGBTQIA+ by itself, Mackie's choice of words did imply that there's something bad about interpreting Sam and Bucky specifically as being gay/bisexual/pansexual in his choice of language. That's pretty offensive to people who have been denied meaningful representation and who are doing this interpreting because it fulfills an emotional need not to feel invisible to society at large. He could have said he disagreed with that interpretation without saying that it was somehow bad or invalid.
3) The very fact that Marvel does not have any major LGBTQIA+ superheroes in their movies or TV shows is itself pretty damn offensive. LGBTQIA+ people exist, they make up a large percentage of the population, and they deserve representation.
Not in the context of the creators' culture being deeply cisheterosexist for thousands of years. There is no neutrality here: You either: 1) embrace equality for LGBTQIA+ people and thereby feature depictions of LGBTQIA+ characters that are equal to those of the straight characters, or, 2) embrace inequality for LGBTQIA+ people by depicting them in a marginalized fashion, by depicting them negatively, or by not depicting them as existing. If you go with the former route, you are going to make cisheterosexist people angry. If you go with the latter route, you are going to make LGBTQIA+ people angry. The only way you can avoid angering anyone over this issue is if cisheterosexism disappears in the culture in general.
That's easy to say, but a lot of LGBTQIA+ people interpret characters as being LGBTQIA+ because there is a deep emotional need for positive representation in popular media that they don't get, because media traditionally either ignore, marginalize, or stereotype LGBTQIA+ people. Those of us who are cisgender heterosexuals don't have that problem because we see ourselves represented in media all the time and have ever since we were children. The very act of not depicting prominent canonically LGBTQIA+ people in major media like the MCU is itself a political choice.
So you’re saying, you’re either with us or against us? Either see the world the way we do and share our values exactly or you’re an evil bigot?
The world doesn’t work that way. You can’t ask for acceptance of your beliefs without offering acceptance of anyone else’s.
And no, it’s not an inherently political choice. If a writer got an idea for a gay character and the producer nixed it, that’s a political choice. Just saying “This character I designed is straight” is an artistic choice.
And of course there’s nothing wrong with imagining a character is gay, but if there’s no evidence to support it don’t expect the actor to personally entertain your fantasy.
You’re just as demanding of conformity as the other side is.
Yes, there SHOULD be more representation of LGBTQ+ people in media. But you need to learn the difference between ‘Should do it’ and ‘Must do it or else you’re the enemy’.
Only Sith deal in absolutes.
The world doesn’t work that way. You can’t ask for acceptance of your beliefs without offering acceptance of anyone else’s.
And no, it’s not an inherently political choice. If a writer got an idea for a gay character and the producer nixed it, that’s a political choice. Just saying “This character I designed is straight” is an artistic choice.
And of course there’s nothing wrong with imagining a character is gay, but if there’s no evidence to support it don’t expect the actor to personally entertain your fantasy.
You’re just as demanding of conformity as the other side is.
Yes, there SHOULD be more representation of LGBTQ+ people in media. But you need to learn the difference between ‘Should do it’ and ‘Must do it or else you’re the enemy’.
Only Sith deal in absolutes.
Last edited:
That is the issue: at no point in the filmed history of Sam Wilson or Bucky Barnes are they said to be or even hinted at being gay because they are not, and the audience knows this (whether they were comic fans or introduced to them through the MCU), yet some are trying to see that--or a hint of it where it did not exist. This is the essence of what Mackie was saying, yet some are attacking him for stating the obvious.
Similar threads
