“Pathetic, it’s a ridiculous feeble gesture towards the vital politics of the stories that should be told…I think huge, cleaning warning bells are ringing as the giants rise up with Netflix and Disney+ especially. I think that’s a very great worry. Loki makes one reference to being bisexual once, and everyone’s like, ‘Oh my god, it’s like a pansexual show.’ It’s like one word. He said the word ‘prince’, and we’re meant to go, ‘Thank you, Disney! Aren’t you marvelous?’ It’s a ridiculous, craven, feeble gesture towards the vital politics and the stories that should be told. So they will damn us with their condescension in the end. So that’s my worry now.”—Queer as Folk and It’s a Sin creator Russell T. Davies, slamming Disney+ for its portrayal of the character Loki (Tom Hiddleson) as bisexual in a new streaming series. In the comics, Loki is both sexually and gender fluid, and can morph into a woman at will. While the show acknowledges Loki’s sexuality in an oblique way, Davies argued in a recent webinar that the show actually robs LGBTQ viewers of proper representation.
jayceecook
Sorry RTD but you are one of the last people who should be trying to police how other shows go about their business. Your portrayals of LGBTQ characters is far, far from perfect. Especially your love of the “bury your gays” trope and abysmal writing of bisexual characters. While I agree it wasn’t that spectacular of a moment the show will be back for a second season so there’s the potential to explore more of that side of the character.
Cam
Oh please, I think the guy who wrote Queer as Folk, It’s a Sin, Cucumber, Dr .Who, Torchwood, etc. can absolutely call out Disney obviously catering to the homophobes in Russia and China by keeping their characters straight straight straight except for one or two words that can be edited out for distribution in those countries.
jayceecook
@Cam Actually he kind of doesn’t. He’s not calling out Disney or Netflix because of China and Russia. Seriously…is that all you think about?
He’s calling them out for their poor representation of LGBTQ characters and the undue excitement that a lot of fans give these companies for tossing out a crumb here and there as a token of positive representation.
As a former stan of RTD I’m very, very familiar with his work. I own a lot of it. However, he has been called out over the years for his own problematic depiction of not just LGBTQ characters but also female characters. Even IAS, which yes was good, was criticized for some of it’s deserved failures. If the character isn’t a white, gay, British, biological male rest assured they will be as one dimensional as the paper the script was printed on.
I still enjoy a lot of his stuff. I will forever be thankful to him for bringing back Doctor Who even if it wasn’t perfect. However he needs to take a look inward and realize he has also been part of the problem with poor LGBTQ representation in television.
Pistolo
Your feelings about RTD aren’t relevant to the fact that he’s right on the money in this instance. Disney wants the queer dollar but they’ve no intention of ever making good on representation on any meaningful way. The examples even in the past 5 years are endless. Look at Cruella, it’s a movie about FASHION and the gay men in it aren’t explicitly gay, just minions or accessories. When people deigned to simply relate to Bucky as a possibly queer character, Disney went out of it’s way to publicly squash that. As they did with Ayo, originally intended to be very explicitly queer in Black Panther. They’re OK with a villain alluding to bisexual trysts in a roundabout way which isn’t much further at all than pretty much ALL their coded queer villains in movies 25+ years ago. It’s fine to feel however you want about RTD but never, ever, ever, ever let Disney off the hook.
Cam
@jayceecook
Disney was literally called out by another director for minimizing LGBTQ representation so the movies would sell in China and Russia. So that part is accurate.
And then your comment of “I’m a fan but……” Does nothing to invalidate his comment. Disney and Marvel are trying to get away without any real LGBTQ representation and he called it out.
But it’s a very troll move to deflect from the message to vaguely attack the guy pointing out the bigotry.
Cam
He’s right, Disney in the U.S. was trying to make a HUGE deal that they added in a gay character in the Avengers movie and it turned out to be a guy in a grief meeting at the beginning, and it was stuck on so late they didn’t even bother to hire an actor, they had an assistant director do it.
And no doubt “Husband” was edited into “Wife” for the Chinese, Mid-East, and Russian Versions.
TheAllSeeingEye
Yes, they overhyped it, all over the internet and in all the press junkets & interviews. I’ll agree that Disney wants to milk the LGBTQ community it for all it’s worth, but make sure they’re sellable in the above mentioned markets. But I have to give the Russo brothers some credit. They wanted to make it an organic part of the film, which I guess it was. (It wasn’t coded or suggested, it was explicit.) Disney then took the reigns and screamed, “Look, it’s a gay!”
I’d never heard that it was stuck on so late. I’d be eager to see some sourcing on that.
Also, it wasn’t an AD, it was the film’s (co-)director, Joe Russo.
Cam
@TheAllSeeingEye
Except it was added to the film after Disney was getting a huge amount of backlash for not having LGBTQ representation and they didn’t even bother hiring an actor for it.
TheAllSeeingEye
Like I previously said, as much as I’d like to take your word for it, I’d like to see some sourcing for that claim.
Cam
@TheAllSeeingEye
You seem VERY focused on trying to argue this point and it’s interesting that a 3 second Google search could have answered the question for you.
So here is a section from one of the dozens of articles that came up.
https: //www .breezejmu. org/opinion/opinion-disney-s-same-sex-representation-is-questionable/article_3e8b09aa-37e6-11ea-8036-ffdfab5ee788.html
“”The biggest factor that seems to hold Disney back from following through on same-sex couples is the threat it poses to the company’s foreign revenue, especially in regard to China, a country where only a small portion of the population approves of homosexuality, according to Newsweek. Cnet.com claims that modern Hollywood seems to prioritize the Chinese box office over the domestic box office due to how much China can make or break the amount of revenue a film pulls in. For example, Screenrant reports that 2013’s Chinese premiere of “Iron Man 3” had four minutes of extra footage constructed to appeal to the nation’s audiences. The film went on to gross an impressive $121 million from China alone. “”
TheAllSeeingEye
Whoa. I simply asked for a source on your initial assertion. I looked. After several searches, looking for anything referring to the Russos and Disney and pandering to the LGBT community and placating Russia & China, there was nothing. Sure, I can find several dozen articles, either casting Disney in a positive light for its progressiveness, or vilifying them for too little too late pandering tactics. But none of them have any corroboration of your original claim that the Russos declined to hire an actor or made a last minute snap decision to add the footage. Including your link.
Not trying to turn this into an argument. Apologies. I don’t disagree that Disney is a shitty company that has profited off of us while trying to keep us in the dark for decades. I was thrown out of Disneyland in the 80’s for wearing what I thought was a cleverly subtle gay rights t-shirt for chrissakes. But I don’t have a source for that. It’s hearsay.
CatholicXXX
But Miley Cyprus forgave them. so it’s all okay.
Jake123
Agree with him. To be perfectly honest I found all the Marvel Disney Shows bar Wanda Vision pretty sub par.
Donston
I’m not a big fan of Davies’ work overall, but he has done some solid and groundbreaking and things.
The fact that a brief acknowledgement of something “gay” was used to promote the show was just cynical. It’s all about using allusions to “queer-dom” or a brief/silly mention in order to be considered “progressive” and to get some social media buzz. It’s not much more than variations of baiting, and it’s condescending and exploitative.
LumpyPillows
You seem to not like anything. It’s a bit dreary being you.
BoomerMyles
Weren’t ALL the actors in QAF straight men playing gay characters?
Davies finally made up for it with an all gay cast in IAS.
LumpyPillows
Actor’s sexualities are irrelevant, so that is nonsense based on today’s hysteria, so if QAF were even a current show I would say you a bit off base. That said, QAF was monumentally groundbreaking in its time representing gay actors as the leads and not sidekicks. No one cared then if the actors were straight. We cared that there was finally something like this on TV. You people can always find some nit to pick at. Dreary little men, but then there have always been dreary little gay men with their snippy barbs – quite the caricature when it comes down to it.
BoomerMyles
You’re projecting your own inferiority issues here.
There IS an observable difference IN palpable autheticity between a STRAIGHT actor portraying a gay character and a GAY actor. Very obvious between QAF and IAS.
QAF WAS groundbreaking but lacking. Otherwise why did Davies correct this in IAS?
Dymension
No, not all the actors in QAF were straight. Actually, at least four of them were gay. Among them Randy Harrison, Scott Lowell, Robert Grant, and some of the smaller roles.
Archie
No, three characters are gay in QAF – Justin, Ben, Emmitt.
Brendan76
Justin (Randy Harrison), Ben (Robert Gant), and Emmett (Peter Paige) were in the American version of QAF, which was a remake based on Davies’ original British version that was set in Manchester’s Gay Village, starring mostly straight actors like Aiden Gillen (Littlefinger from Game of Thrones) and Charlie Hunnam (more recently known for Sons of Anarchy). It did have Antony Cotton, though, who is gay in real life as well as in his current role on the British soap opera “Coronation Street” (also set in Manchester), but most of the core cast were not played by gay actors. The American version didn’t have that many gay actors either, though, honestly.
LumpyPillows
You know, in 1999 no one cared that the actors might be straight.
BoomerMyles
I’m talking about Davies original QAF.
All the principal gay characters were played by straight actors.
Now they play VERY straight characters.
BoomerMyles
Craig Kelly who played the main character Vince was also a straight actor.
LegionKeign
And yet the GLB & Trans Communities will still watch the shows/films and flock to “Gay Days”.
Sometimes we are a little eager to accept what little is offered. Perhaps if we stopped spending our time/money on disney, maybe, then we could get real representation.
HankHarris
It was a ridiculous throw away line – ‘a little of both’ and of course he has a romantic relationship with Sylvie – so lazy and expected. She could have been a sister/daughter/mother type figure, but they go the lazy route.
LumpyPillows
I wasn’t really sure what he was trying to say. I had to read it a few times. I would have liked to see Loki get some gay love, but these types of shows rarely dig into relationships, and never show sexy sexy stuff.
Dymension
I am a gay man and I remember where I was when I first saw a man-to-man kiss that was not a porn movie. Can’t we just watch movies now without having them be overly politicized? If it don’t fit, don’t force it! I don’t want to watch entertainment that feels like a public service announcement. It’s like the guys go to kiss and they all but turn to the camera and wink…
There are some fabulous real LGBT movies made by LGBT directors. Watch those!
Cam
So in other words ignore the actual character in the comic books and make him straight, then ghettoize any mention of LGBTQ characters into small art films.