[ SECRET POST #4053 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4053 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 16 secrets from Secret Submission Post #580.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

If it's meant to be, let it happen naturally.

This implies that the reason it's not happening is because it wouldn't be natural, like it wouldn't be creatively appropriate or something (I assume). I strongly suspect that's not the reason it's not happening. I am dubious.

But I suspect the problem here is more mutli-faceted than simply refusing to make a character explicitly gay. What's wrong with suspecting that?

I think people are pretty familiar with the general idea that there are financial reasons behind it. They just don't find that an especially compelling excuse. Particularly for a billionaire who is in charge of one of the most valuable intellectual properties in the world.

[(Anonymous)]

This implies that the reason it's not happening is because it wouldn't be natural

In some situations, it wouldn't be natural to just bring it up one's sexual orientation out of the blue (i.e. in battle, as a head master overlooking a school of children under constant treat of an attack by Voldemort, etc.) I'm not saying they shouldn't do it at all, but I am drawing a blank on how they can do it without it seeming out of place, because then it's like they're only putting it there to please people, and that's a hair trigger for some folks demanding better LGBTQ+ representation in media.

I think people are pretty familiar with the general idea that there are financial reasons behind it.

It's not just about finances, otherwise it would be a poor excuse. People pitch exhausting hissy fits. It's illegal in some countries. Who knows the full scope of what they're actually grappling with there? I doubt it's as simple as money. I'm allowed to doubt that. It might be lazy writing, though. That I wouldn't doubt.

[(Anonymous)]

re 1: I think it could have been done in the books - after all, a huge part of Book 6 is devoted to Harry and Dumbledore having private, personal, lessons which include a great deal of conversation not necessarily limited to Harry's formal education, and Book 7 has a ton of stuff with various characters talking about Dumbledore's personal life and early years in various ways. Also, Harry and his cohorts are 17 by book 7.

But I was mostly talking about not doing it in the forthcoming movie when I said that I didn't think it was for creative reasons.

It's not just about finances, otherwise it would be a poor excuse. People pitch exhausting hissy fits. It's illegal in some countries. Who knows the full scope of what they're actually grappling with there? I doubt it's as simple as money.

I guess I just don't see how any of those things are obstacles except insofar as they cause the film to make less money. All of those things I would consider mostly financial.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it could have been done in the books

You know what? I agree with this. My previous brain-picky arguments were mostly fueled by the fact that this wasn't done in the books, and I'm a stickler for adhering to established canon. I wasn't thinking about what should have been done at all, but now that you mention it, if he was truly meant to be gay, I think Book 6 would have been the ideal chance to reveal that, because you're right. Dumbledore and Harry really bonded in that book. It sucks that it didn't happen. What a waste.

I guess I just don't see how any of those things are obstacles except insofar as they cause the film to make less money.

There are reputations to consider, harassment, abuse, etc. It's still not a great choice overall, though. I just hate to see JKR get thrown under the bus for something that might not even be fully her choice. LGBTQ+ deserves more/better representation, though. Maybe next time. Hopefully.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Dumbledore is in the same movie as Grindelwald, in conflict with Grindelwald, with a broken heart because of Grindelwald. How is that "out of the blue?" How do those plot beats not influence scriptwriting and performance? It's the same problem I had with Thor: Ragnarok, one line that makes it clear that Hela killed Valkyrie's lover, and that character's actions make a lot more sense.