this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
778 points (96.6% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
2092 readers
194 users here now
A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.
Rules:
- Be civil.
- Please do not link to pirated content.
- No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
- Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
[Insert County ]love story
A teen love story
A divorcee love story
Yes. We do this for all types of shit all the time. Just because you put gay in front of it doesn't make you homophobic.
Nowhere in the original comment did they say it is a gay love story.
Full disclosure: I'd probably call it a gay love story before encountering this post. But there is fair point in the title of the post - why do we need to differentiate love stories based on what sexuality are the protagonists? And if we do that, why not do the same if protagonists are heterosexual? Then the classifications you mention would have to go like:
[Insert country] gay love story
A teen hetero story.
A divorce bi story.
The sexuality really should be secundary classificator.
The most common option is always left out. We say Thai food or Chinese food but no one says "Lets have some American food tonight" when living in the US, because it's implied if no other type is mentioned.
I don't think there's anything wrong with calling it a gay love story or just a love story, one just offers more information.
... But we do? When deciding whether to go for lunch, everyone I know very much will say, "Do you want Mexican, Thai, American,..." and so on.
So a post-apocalyptic love story? Cuz that seemed to be the main theme. Unless you were just too caught up over the characters being gay to notice.
Offermans character was deep in the closet and his future husband had to break down some heavy emotional walls. It was his first relationship with a man.
Being gay was very much part of the theme and wasn't just some offhand detail about them imo.
There was a lot to the episode but pretending their sexuality had no impact on how the story was told or its impact is silly. I don't think it would have been as touching without it.
Some of you really need a rewatch.
You should really rewatch it, because the genders could be changed and it'd still be a good episode.
No mattrr how much people whine or gloat about it, the gayness wasn't required. It's not a "gay" story. That's the entire point Offerman is making.