If you think that kiss is inserted to further the level of the battle against the magisterium then I do know what to say. You’ve not been watching or noticing modern productions in recent years. Representation is the driver here, not structural narrative enhancement. That’s the point.
@Mascot I’ll come back later. Need to finish War and Peace first (trans characters and lesbian hand holding allowing)
Ironically there’s only 2 people on here who actually know me.
Thats got little to do with the movies themselves. Their earnings dropped during covid - Theme Parks and Cruise lines don’t do so well during global pandemics. They have also spent the last couple of years investing heavily into its streaming business which has eaten up a lot of the cash the business generates. There have also been concerns about the viability of its ESPN franchise with the decline in cable viewing.
However, earnings for this year are expected to double, with free cash flow growing 200%.
By the way, while @klopptimist was frothing at the idea of two androgynous, multi-dimensional, ageless angels being gay, he missed the much bigger change to the story - that Mary Malone, who is a main character and plays a big part in the narrative, is straight in the books, but gay in the TV show. Again, it isn’t a problem, but it’s far more noteworthy that the bloody angels.
It’s easy to see why this was changed. Mary’s role is to be the serpent - she has to encourage Will and Lyra to embrace their love for each other, abandon the innocence of childhood, and find their first awakening of adult sexual desire - which heals the cracks between worlds and stops the bleeding of dust.
The books were written when the church had a much more intolerant view of sex full stop, before female priests and the like. The idea of Mary abandoning her faith because she fell in love with a man, no longer has the scandalous implication that it had within dogmatic religious institutions thirty odd years ago. That he she fell in love with a woman would put her her in direct opposition with her faith in 2022, and as such makes total narrative sense.
Personally I was more offended by the idea that as Mary is trekking through a variety of worlds and camping under the stars, she is managing to maintain perfectly shaved armpits. In 2023, you can show homosexual relationships and a war with an oppressive, dogmatic god, but don’t you dare show a scrap of female body hair 
You read @Limiescouse’s excellent explanation of why this is the case and say ‘oh yeah - I hadn’t thought of that. Thanks’.
We’re literally discussing a TV show.
Wall St’s perspective on streaming has changed over the course of this year. Prior to that it was all focused on paid subscribers. It’s why we’ve seen so much new content on all these services as they were all content to spend themselves into enormous losses as a way of attracting subs. They are all enormous companies that can suffer these losses in the short term and so were willing to do so because losing money with more subscribers was better for their stock price than a smaller but profitable service. At some point this year it changed, and this is why we’re now seeing more ruthlessness on what is getting greenlit and cost cutting on every service.
Disney has been hit particularly hard by this change in perspective because of the way their unexpectedly positive subscriber numbers were achieved. There is lots going on there, but the biggest issue is their numbers were heavily boosted by winning the cricket coverage in India, but those subs were the equivalent of only about $1 a month. So compared to everyone else, their average revenue per sub is really poor. And that now matters in a way it didnt 12 months ago. Even more problematic is that the contract is coming up again and is expect to be much more expensive to win this time. That leaves Disney facing the dilemma of either paying far more for a demo they dont think they can monetize any more, or lose the rights and with it almost all of their Indian Sub base in a move that will decimate the overall subscriber numbers. Wall St has viewed this as a no win situation and it’s being baked into the price already
One of the female ghosts in the US version of Ghosts has hairy armpits.
They also have gay ghosts. I’m really confused about what I should be most outraged about.
Bad US remakes of British telly
As long as they never touch BlackAdder……
It’d be hilarious if they remade it with a black lesbian Blackadder.
You might literally explode.
Imagine. They could do a series on every assassinated US President with a Blackadder being the chief of staff for each
They would have to change the name to whiteslug, or maybe that would be the transgender version.
I think they should make Aragorn gay (and Frodo was definitely smashing Sam).
That’s actually a very good idea.
He wasnt because he was very repressed. But Rosie was definitely made to wear a Frodo mask when they got it on.
Strange way of discussing a TV show when you’re having to use the term “gay”, “black” or “homophobic” 10-20 times and then go on to describe what constitutes to those things…one could say you’ve taken the discussion of a TV show out of context.
My partner maintains the reason why Frodo has to leave for the undying lands is because he is in love with Sam, and cannot bear to see him in a hetrosexual marriage. His reference to ‘a wound that won’t heal’ is entirely metaphorical, and is in fact the pain of unrequited love.
Repeat viewings of the film have made it increasingly difficult to argue against this interpretation. 
Frodo, Sam and Gollum alone together in the mountains around Mordor… you’re telling me things didn’t get a little freaky on those cold nights? Come on now.
Maybe the first season they can be part of James Maddison’s entourage at the constitutional convention. Everything is going great only for Baldrick and Blackadder to say the wrong thing that pisses off South Carolina and hey presto…slavery is written into the constitution.