Diversity is everywhere in 2020 — and, when it fits the story, that’s a good thing.
Dana Terrace wanted to write a bi character into the animated show The Owl House and, at first, received resistance. Ultimately, Disney allowed her character through with her sexual orientation in tact.
The Owl House follows Luz Noceda, a 14-year-old Dominican-American girl who stumbles upon a magical world and attempts to become a witch. On Aug. 8, the show aired a prom-themed episode in which Luz dances with another female character, Amity, who is shown to have a crush on Luz. After the episode’s debut, creator Dana Terrace tweeted, “In [development] I was very open about my intention to put queer kids in the main cast….When we were greenlit I was told by certain Disney leadership that I could NOT represent any form of bi or gay relationship on the Channel.” “I’m bi! I want to write a bi character, dammit!” she continued.
The Owl House Features Disney’s First Bisexual Lead Character | PEOPLE.com
Some might notice above that I added “when it fits the story” and it sounds like from her quote this writer wanted to insert a bi character because she was bi.
I’m interested in stories about LGBQT+ characters but not for characters originally straight being rewritten as LGBQT+ to fit with the current times. I think there is an important distinction there. Plenty of great stories about all kinds of different characters with different races and sexual orientation that we don’t need to take traditionally established characters and force a certain sexual orientation on them. That isn’t happening here, it’s a new creative work, which I fully support.
For a more specific example of what I don’t support, see: Velma “officially” a lesbian in Scooby-Doo is relevant to the show … how?
I’m all about creativity and definitely see plenty of stories that can be told with LGBQT+ characters as the lead, so kudos to Disney for The Owl House. No idea how good the show is or not — we don’t have Disney TV, only Disney+ — that is ultimately what will matter, not that it was the first to break down a wall that frankly shouldn’t even have needed to be broken down. Disney, really, you couldn’t have had a main bisexual character in something earlier than 2020? Still, glad this particular glass ceiling is cracked now, regardless if it took nearly 100 years to do so. Yes, Disney was founded in 1923, so darn near 100 years.
The Owl House can be found airing on the Disney Channel. Eventually it will appear on Disney+, but it’s not there as of this writing.
Movies, Movies, Movies 
Yeah sure, why not. I might have mentioned this in the Velma being lesbian post you wrote, but I’m getting a little tired of this oversaturation involving sexual diversity. It’s not that I think it’s a bad thing, there’s just say too much of it. Kind of wished we dabbled more in diverse mental disabilities for main characters (like autism, down syndrome etc.) I especially appreciate the asexual representation, as I am one.
Examples include Sherlock from the BBC show and Obi Wan, by the way. Nice.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s a slippery slope.
I think exploring characters of all backgrounds is worthwhile. There is something to the point that movies pick too many stereotypes too often. However, rewriting classic characters to be a different sex like say James Bond as a woman, I’m just not a fan of doing. Create new characters and have them be what you want.
The problem with calling out a character’s sexual orientation is when it doesn’t fit the story. The writer specifically saying she was bisexual and wanted to have a bisexual character is all well and good if it fits the story. I haven’t seen this, so no idea if it’s relevant to the story or not. Velma’s sexual orientation in 1969 wasn’t part of the story.
LikeLiked by 1 person