This article is…kind of bad?
> Despite claiming the show’s staff were “champions of inclusivity and acceptance,” and having multiple resources within the studio to tell an inclusive story, showrunners Joaquim Dos Santos and Lauren Montgomery failed to follow even the most basic best practices for depicting minorities during their tenure at DreamWorks.
What were these best practices?
> At the same time, the studio ignored warnings from LGBT individuals that Voltron’s story
Are “warnings from LGBT individuals” fan opinions?
> Gay fans have spoken on how the ending of Voltron sent a clear hurtful message
> The loss of the sole gay male hero in western animation was a devastating blow for queer fans
Misleading personal opinion, he’s not dead.
> as though they were far more interested in getting the credit for a gay wedding
Speculation treated as fact.
> the studio acknowledged they had multiple gay writers on staff for other shows, any of whom could have easily been called in to consult.
Is there any proof that’s a normal, common thing to do? Projects are generally pretty self-contained. Even later in the article itself it says that unrelated writers stepping up is unusual and unreliable.
> The answer, unfortunately, appears to be simple arrogance.
Speculation treated as fact.
> A source familiar with the events confirmed to GeekDad that the two straight showrunners wrote the the ending without involving the people they claimed to represent, or their own diversity consultant, in the process. Ultimately, when Dos Santos and Montgomery set off to depict the first gay male wedding in western animation, they chased their own ephemeral idea of “what’s good for gay people,” instead of actually speaking to gay people.
They offer no direct quotation from this mystery source. The second sentence is, again, speculation treated as fact. If you follow the link to the other article, what’s actually said about the diversity consultant is “a diversity consultant that productions work with from time to time”, which sounds a lot more like someone who isn’t available all the time. Noelle’s interview also does not say that she involves the people she claims to represent; what she gives is a standard response about being thoughtful and respectful.
Incidentally, this–the “hard evidence”, the thing the title of the article is about–is the ninth paragraph in. It is vaguely defined (what is a diversity consultant, what power do they have, what qualifications do they have, and what could they have done? That information isn’t here), poorly contextualized, and lacks any kind of direct quotation.
> Despite their failure to do basic review
Article has failed to establish both what basic review is and that the failure happened.
> still months before the final season would air
It’s weird how people are critical of crunch culture these days but also demanding that an entire TV season be reanimated in two months.
> hurtful epilogue
> prevent the gay hero from retiring
> injurious to the queer community
This is all personal opinion and salt and anger that the writer’s personal interpretation didn’t make it to the screen. And christ, injurious? Really? Really? That’s the biggest threat to the queer community these days, one character in a shitty Netflix cartoon getting married too fast?
> saw its approval rating tumble into single digits on Rotten Tomatoes
This whole article is a slanted opinion piece that offers no evidence to support itself except an anonymous source that it won’t quote in any way, shape, or form, but totally proves that several people on-record with their names attached to public statements are lying. This is only half a step above actual fan fiction.
Hell, even the linking OP text contains the clear lie that “they ignored comments from the consultant” when the article asserts that the diversity consultant was not specifically seeked out. 26,000 notes and none of you noticed that?
Why are you giving this any credit whatsoever?
