For queer-interested viewers, Netflix’s San Junipero was one of the most impactful episodes of the last TV season, where – despite being a show that deals in dark and sometimes awful things – Black Mirror pulled out an extremely well-received hour of TV that left most of its f/f viewers feeling happy and uplifted. In the first of an ongoing roundtable series about issues surrounding positive LGBTQ+ representation, we gathered a group of LGBTFDB volunteers to discuss how the episode both touched on the Bury Your Gays (BYG) trope and also had a unique approach that seemed to subvert it. An edited version of the discussion is below.
**Major spoilers for “San Junipero” – Black Mirror Season 3, Episode 4**
JMP (Director of Content & Volunteer management, LGBTFDB): Thank you all for joining us, we have all these interesting topical conversations on a daily basis and we finally figured why not give people some insight into the kinds of things that we discuss in the course of our work? I want to start off with an intro question which is both simple and difficult at the same time. Here we go: Where do you feel San Junipero stands in relation to BYG? And why?
MG: Maybe I’m too black and white about it, but to me, it is the Bury Your gays trope because they buried their gays. It’s as simple as that for me. Tropes, particularly in TV, are just storytelling devices or conventions that often turn cliche because of overuse. They’re not inherently bad. However, BYG is an extremely negative and harmful trope that has become so tiresome and overused – usually because of ignorance, heteronormativity, or latent (sometimes outright) homophobia. What makes San Junipero so unique is that they took those things about the trope and spun it on its head and used that ignorance/heteronormativity/homophobia to ‘trick’ its viewers. It’s one of the more interesting uses of the trope, but it’s still a trope.
I just think it’s remiss to say it’s not BYG because they did show them “dead” on screen – Yorkie had a sheet pulled over her head, Kelly was lowered into the ground and had a tombstone, the last shot the episode is the AI warehouse – but it’s fair to say you can like what they did with it.
Choxxly: Counter to that, I feel that San Junipero doesn’t fall into the BYG at all. The final act of “upload” is their happy ending, and whilst their physical bodies may have died, their actual selves – their minds – carried on afterwards. As the nurse character Greg says to Kelly “If you can call it dying.” I think it depends on where you stand, almost on a religious level, as to what death is. But if the body is merely a vessel and it is our minds that give us life then they are not truly dead. And hence, for me, the show does not fall into the BYG trope.
Dina: I feel like it isn’t BYG because the entire episode questions the possibility of a life after physical death. They don’t call it passing “away”, they call it passing “over” and there is a clear distinction. I think, in this sense, we have to take the context and the framework of an episode (or a show) into consideration. And in the World of San Junipero physically dying doesn’t mean you are really gone. We see these characters story in San Junipero and to them it feels real, therefore it also feels real for us. To me it isn’t BYG because to me they are living on. And the difference between this and for example when dead lesbian characters “lived on” as AI’s like Lexa in The City of Light (on The 100) or Root as The Machine (on Person of Interest), is that we actually get to witness it.
Rav: I don’t personally think it’s an example of it. I can grant that it may technically fit under it, but if the trope is applied to it, then with a huge asterisk to denote the ways in which the show subverted it. That trope has so much to do with the ending of a story and the person and that relationship. In this case, it’s clearly a happy ending for them, going off far into the future. In the universe it set up, it’s a different state of being that makes it still possible to exist and be happy. However, it can fit into it because they do both have to die to get that happy ending. That’s a weird message. We talk about context all the time, and yes, none of this is in a vacuum.
OP: I do think SJ falls into the trope, even though they’ve made a valiant attempt at trying to subvert it. It was an interesting use of the trope, certainly, but they still chose that narrative device to tell their story. It’s a bit troubling too if you think about it in the larger context of the real world and the history associated with the Bury Your Gays trope specifically. At the end of the day, both of the girls had to die, because they couldn’t be together in their lifetime. Yorkie in particular didn’t sit too well with me since her entire storyline revolves around her misery in life, which was directly caused by a horrible accident which occurred due to her coming out. Of course it depends on how a person feels while watching San Junipero, but I think it sends an iffy message because once again it seems to portray the idea that queer women can only find happiness in death, which implies they cannot be happy with each other during their lifetime. This is further reinforced if you contrast with Kelly who got to live a “real” long, mostly happy married life with a man and even had a child. Granted it didn’t particularly end well but the episode left me feeling wanting. I thought to myself “that’s it? That’s the best we can get? A copy of our consciousness uploaded to a virtual program?”
But I think it also depends fundamentally on one’s relationship to sci-fi and the notion of life and death. For some, I believe San Junipero was satisfying because they accept it is fiction and they accept it as truth in the fictional world, but when you have a show like Black Mirror, that is meant to specifically provoke thought in the world about future possibilities and the human relationship to technology. The show doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and my concern comes from how this impacts the most vulnerable demographic that might see it. It’s a mixture of the message it sends and quite plainly the fact that they buried their gays.
MG: To build off of what the others said in terms of it subverting the trope, I just think that once their physical selves have died, they aren’t actually feeling those feelings of being happy – you need life to appreciate it. The San Junipero world only works as an escape to a conscious person. The final shot being the AI warehouse means to me, it’s just a copy of their mind, not their actual mind. This makes me see it exactly the same as the Lexa in the City of Light or Root as The Machine. I think they were far more effective at spinning the positivity in it and it gives a sense of optimism that The 100 fully failed at and that Person of Interest was only mildly effective at. But when you strip it away, it’s really the same thing, I think.
Choxxly: I would say that as a show that is dark and has often got such negative endings, I think that they got a “happy” ending was revolutionary. Whether or not it fits into BYG, they do get to spend “the rest of it” together. I think if the scenes during the credits had been more implemented into the episode itself we might feel differently and see it as being more “real”.
Rav: This really does seem like one of those things where, as OP said, it depends on how one relates to sci-fi and the belief that it really is them in SJ. I fully believe that it is. The show believes that it is. This goes down into philosophical questions, “what does it mean to feel”, “what is happiness”. There’s so much media dedicated to how AIs become sentient and think, if we accept that the conceit in a show like Humans or Westworld, for example, is circuitry able to think and feel for itself, why can a human consciousness transferred into that not be able to do the same? Why is a physical body needed?
Aside from that, I think it also really depends on how we’re approaching this “BYG trope”. As MG mentioned, a trope is a trope. They were f/f characters, they died. That happened. But the argument is if it comes with the baggage of it all, the negative connotations? The tragedy, the finality, the use of it to further someone else’s story. I don’t think those are things that most viewers take away from it.
Choxxly: But Rav, if their consciousness is living on in SJ, did they die?
Rav: In their own world, they refer to it as death, and in the context we can relate to it, it’s death.
OP: Yes, but ultimately that sends the wrong message to me. Yorkie’s life was tragic, so her death was happy? In life there are no do-overs. You should make the best of what you have. It’s a little easier to squander when you believe there is something beyond death, it’s a little easier to flirt with dangerous notions if you’re mentally or emotionally in a bad place. And we don’t know for sure if it’s them or if it’s a copy of their consciousness who believe it is them. Their real consciousness could have very well gone to a supernatural afterlife.
JMP: So it seems like the main issue is whether they really died?
OP: That fully depends on your beliefs. Yorkie seems convinced there is nothing after death. Kelly seems to be unsure, though tending on the notion there is no afterlife.
Dina: But the context of Black Mirror is all about fictional future possibilities. Should we not be in these stories because we’d rather have fulfilling “happy endings” in stories that are about the world we live in now? I want both.
MG: Oh, I wholly think we should be in these stories and I’m not saying they didn’t do this effectively. Overall episode praise is on point – it is objectively (and subjectively for me) an excellent hour of television. The rewatch made me even more impressed with what they were able to do as an episode of television. I just think it’s an interesting use of the trope, but still the trope. Tropes are always going to be used in television, but it’s how creative the writer is in writing them.
JMP: Since we kind of going in this direction I want to throw the question out there: The aspect that makes this episode such a big discussion point for us is the fact that their minds live on after they die. It is actually only a little over halfway through the episode that we learn that Yorkie and Kelly as we meet them are virtual representations of their minds. Would it have made a difference if we met them in their physical form first?
Rav: I can’t really define that, I went in fully spoiled. But if I were to imagine that I didn’t know, I don’t think I’d feel differently? Because the revelation that they’re actually these elderly women about to die, to most viewers would make them think, oh, SJ’s great, it allows them so much. And I don’t think that would change if that revelation happened earlier.
OP: I’m not sure it would have made a difference for me, however I think what would have made a difference for me is if they hadn’t died during the episode. I think if they had been dead from the beginning, that’s where it would be different.
MG: This is maybe more a question for those that don’t see it as BYG. I do think the way it’s revealed is very effective in getting you to invest in their love story. I think if the main story is their older, physical forms with the flashes to the San Junipero world, then it’s a sadder story with a sadder tone. But we get to see them free and happy and without inhibition, and that helps to think they circumvent the trope. It’s clever.
Dina: To me it wouldn’t have made a difference. At least I don’t think so. The important part to me is how they explain the reality of San Junipero and that we spent the majority of the episodes time there.
Choxxly: I don’t know if that possible to say. It would make it a different show, and as Yorkie says it is unlikely given their limitations in their bodies. If we’re talking earlier in their lives then Kelly was married, had she not been her story and her character would have been different anyway. Part of what makes the episode so powerful is that it is such a big deal to Kelly. Kelly was reticent because she felt like it was a betrayal to her daughter and husband, which if anything makes it seem more real, at least to them, then just an augmentation of consciousness. That she actually chose to make that leap and pass over to SJ is a real statement of intent for her character. She’s saying that her relationship with Yorkie is as meaningful as the one with her husband and she wants to “live” on with her.
OP: Did she “come around” though? I feel like as a viewer I wasn’t convinced that she had fully come around on her own in the sense of accepting reality and looking forward to it. I feel like she was settling (not for Yorkie but for the reality of San Junipero).
Choxxly: I think that’s available for interpretation, but the fact she chose to go to SJ speaks volumes, previously the mere idea had been a betrayal for her family, the change in her decision is her “coming around”.
Rav: I think they did show Kelly making some sort of shift, starting off blase, not looking to stick around or get seriously invested, then becoming increasingly attached to Yorkie and becoming conflicted about it, only becoming as angry and emotional as she did near the end because it was getting to her. Like, she visits her, proposes marriage, gets married, and in the end, passes over and makes out with Yorkie in a convertible. I think, like any rom-com happy ending, there may be some qualms, but that’s just how it is. Like, the quintessential romcoms, Pretty Woman, Sleepless in Seattle, You’ve Got Mail, let’s throw in Imagine Me and You, there are issues and settling in every case.
JMP: So how does Kelly changing or not changing her mind influence the notion of BYG? Does it have an impact on how we view the story?
Rav: I think it changes it in the sense that if it’s real or not, then that shows what death is or isn’t in this world and to her. Is she literally committing suicide, or is she just making a permanent move?
OP: It does have an impact on how the story is viewed, though. For me ultimately it’s the difference between settling versus being confident in her decision and actively choosing it because she wants to not just because she feels she owes it to someone (and this would go either way, whether she’d gone to San Junipero or not).
MG: It doesn’t impact how I view it. Because I think the question is how the viewer sees San Junipero. Maybe it does in the sense that we are seeing it through Kelly and so her evolution in how she sees may reflect how some see it. But for me, I still don’t see it as real and Kelly possibly coming to that conclusion – I’m not entirely convinced of that – doesn’t change that for me.
JMP: Someone mentioned the context on the BYG trope is what makes that trope especially bad. Looking at its origins within the Hays Code and using it as punishment (direct or indirect) for being gay. There are two sides I’ve seen on SJ from that perspective: One is that since they still needed to die to be happy, it does reinforce the concerns with regards to BYG. The flip side to that is, since death is no longer a ‘punishment’ that it diminishes harm. What is your take on this?
MG: Interestingly, this is still kind of in full effect in their “real world” physical selves, so I think San Junipero plays both of sides of the fence here. I think they get around the idea of Hay’s Code by doing what you said – making them die to be happy. But not just that – Yorkie’s condition of being a quadriplegic is a direct result of the narrative punishing her for being gay. She comes out, has a huge fight with homophobic parents and then she’s in a car accident that has her live most of her life in bed on ventilators. And Kelly seemingly lived a closeted life – she always knew she was bi and attracted to women, but she never did anything about it and never acted on it and implied that she was using San Junipero in part to be able to do that and have fun in a way she didn’t let herself otherwise. It’s great that they get this kind of happy ending, but they still tell the story in a way that could have probably avoided traditional censorship in many ways.
Also, the guy at the video game early who says there are different endings if you’re playing one or two player – I think that’s exactly what they did here. They gave you the “they didn’t end up together after all” ending and the “happily ever after” ending, depending on if you watched the entire credits. Again, playing both sides of the fence.
Choxxly: It has a huge impact on the way I see the story. After they get married she tells Yorkie it was “just a gesture” to help her pass over. She was initially so against the idea herself, seeing SJ just as a place to have fun before the end, live out fantasies she hadn’t had the opportunity to do so in her own life time due to marriage. But on meeting Yorkie she seems to realise that there can be more for her in SJ, and yes, that is why she becomes so enraged, because that’s not what she wanted. That she chooses to stay is more meaningful than the marriage, because it is considered and as Yorkie says “this chance” that she “want[s] to share” with Kelly. That it is such a big deal to Kelly, especially when they can delete themselves and “die” at any time, shows that it is more than just an AI, it’s the possibility of sharing another lifetime with another human being. In doing so it moves away from BYG and instead gives them both a happily ever after.
OP: This question to me is the crux of it for me. How the television show relates to the real world and doesn’t exist in the vacuum. I firmly believe that it reinforces the notion that you are not allowed to be happy in real life, or you can’t possibly be happy in real life if you are gay.
Dina: The Hays Code was specifically to condemn homosexuality. I don’t see this in this episode at all. They aren’t being punished for being gay, the narrative of the story in my opinion does not align with the Code at all.
MG: They aren’t being punished in the San Junipero world, but they are in the physical “real” world.
OP: The Hays Code ended a surprisingly long time ago though, but its legacy is still pretty clear in how it influences queer deaths on television. I don’t think any of the lesbians who died during the 2015-2016 season were intentionally punished for being gay, at all. But they still fall into the trope because of the association it creates in the mind of viewers.
Rav: Yeah, I’m going to have to agree a bit with the influence of the Hays Code on this. It’s not necessarily in the intention or association of it, most viewers now don’t even know what it is, and most creators don’t think of it at all when they’re writing their stories, they’re simply telling their stories that they think are just the product of their own completely bias-free imaginative thoughts, but they are very heavily influenced – as we all are – by history and the media they grew up with.
Choxxly: The Hays Code says that “deviant” characters (including all LGBT characters) must not be made sympathetic or rewarded. I’m sorry, but I am invested in their relationship, I am sympathetic to these characters who are rounded and, despite being in an artificial environment, real characters. They have story arcs and growth. Changes in opinion, and in Kelly’s story even a shift in philosophy. They have problems and grow together, have experiences and adventures. Laugh, love, cry. And they get to have “forever” together, I don’t see that as punishment, but as a possibility. If we take the idea of “forever, unhurt, safe and happy” as punishment, then religions would not exist, because that is the promise given by heaven. This is a reward. If anything it is a subversion of the Hayes code. SJ is meant to be heaven, after all: “heaven is a place on earth”.
OP: It’s no longer really about censorship, though. It’s about taking narrative elements that were enshrined as a result of the Hays Code. There’s also been in the last 20 maybe even 30 years in general a tendency of moving towards making “villains” and “monsters” seem sympathetic, to make their stories more poignant. So the fact that the characters in SJ are sympathetic is neither here nor there.
Rav: The story we see is of them becoming happier. The suffering is in the past, the present and future are about them being happy. But, I do think that it’s not a deliberate subversion. So that’s interesting.
Dina: I also don’t really have that much of an issue with the tragic past. Because ultimately they get their happy ending and it therefore seems to me that they overcame all the struggles in the end.
MG: I still think they play both sides on that with the ambiguous ending. They ended happy after the credits. Alone before. That’s part of how I think they play both sides. Ultimately they do show them happy. But they give you “alternate endings” as the video game guy says early on. So in this context, the show isn’t subverting it, they are giving you the choice as a viewer.
Dina: I don’t know, I feel Kelly’s “I’m ready for the rest of it” is a pretty heavy hint that she is going to San Junipero even without the scenes during the credits.
Choxxly: But Kelly choses to play “2 Player” and gets her happy ending. Just because it’s in the credits doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Rav: That is a very interesting look at it. I don’t see it as an alt ending but simply playing with the format, giving an extra jolt to the viewers who think it’s ending and then pulling out the surprise. The after-credit sequence isn’t optional, it’s something every viewer should see.
Choxxly: It also gives us a snapshot of their life afterwards, something we wouldn’t be given without losing a scene somewhere else in the episode given time constraints of an episode. Additionally it’s a nice way of doing it, very powerful and the cinematography is beautiful.
Rav: I think it’s a cute little reference and a lightbulb moment when people realize, but the story that people take away is that Kelly chose the “2 Player” ending.
OP: That’s actually a good point. I almost turned the episode off before the credits rolled and I wouldn’t have seen that ending. And I remember I had a fleeting thought after the credits about how weird it was to do it post-credits, like they didn’t deserve their happy ending WITHIN the episode. With the “1 Player” or “2 Player” analogy foreshadowing it, if you take it as an “alternate” ending it makes a lot more sense.
MG: I agree on that. That’s the ultimate takeaway. I just see it as another way that the show plays both sides a little. But the resounding takeaway is the “2 Player” game for sure.
Choxxly: But it’s more like a film that way.
JMP: So, people on social media were generally very positive and happy about SJ, even though we see one of them die and a casket lowered into the ground. Why do you think there is such a difference between what we see and what we perceive?
Choxxly: Because despite the physical deaths they got a “happily ever after”. Unconventional, yes. Final, no.
Rav: Yeah, lol, that’s pretty much it. The story built up to the physical deaths and indeed, their physical lives, being just part of their world – and they were still going to get much more.
Dina: It comes back to what we discussed in the beginning. Most of us disassociate their physical death from their “story” ending. It feels like their life, their story, is continuing and they get to live it happily together. Death in the physical sense loses its meaning a bit in the framework of this episode.
OP: I don’t have a very strong opinion on this because for me the nice feeling was mostly during the episode. I did not feel really good about it after it ended. But I think in understanding other people’s point of view, it’s probably because the majority of people don’t really perceive it as death, at least not in the conventional sense.
MG: Both of those things are done amidst very happy moments, so it offsets the feelings associated with death almost entirely. You see Yorkie die, but she just got married to the woman she loves in her real life, a near impossibility moments earlier. You got to see the proposal and her “pass over” into the only life that made her happy. And for Kelly, you see her lowered into the ground but it’s during the credits when they’ve got “Heaven is a Place on Earth” blaring in the background and it’s intermixed with the Yorkie SJ scenes and their reunion. So it’s all very feel good.
OP: That too, all the non-verbal cues make a difference. Music is a huge factor in influencing emotion in film and television.
MG: They kind of successfully subvert the feelings people normally have when their favorite characters die by embedding them in happy moments.
Choxxly: And the music in this episode is awesome. The song “Heaven is a Place on Earth” is the theme for the whole episode.
MG: I noticed on my rewatch that they also slyly open the episode with “Heaven is a Place on Earth” too. Pretty cool.
Dina: And I think “Heaven is a Place on Earth” also alludes to what Kelly says earlier in her conversation with Greg: “Uploaded to the cloud, sounds like heaven.”
OP: I also, and hear me out this may be a little unorthodox, I think perhaps the fact that these aren’t characters we have the time to get to know and get attached to like in a regular TV series without the anthology format, is another reason maybe it doesn’t feel like a loss. For people who watch this series as a whole, these characters were never going to be “theirs to keep”, we were going to move on and lose them in some way or another. Which I think makes people much more accepting of it.
Choxxly: I think that the whole anthology aspect means we’re not disappointed that we’re not going to see more of them. Besides, we saw the important parts, we saw them get their “happy ever after”. We don’t need to see anymore. Though it would be nice to, and the writers give us some of that in the credits.
Rav: I think we’re sadder when we feel that potential has been lost, especially in the case of a love story. If we think that two people who should get to spend more time together, don’t. I think the situation would have been completely different if Yorkie only had passed on and Kelly had not, even though it’s completely possible that she could have met and fallen in love with somebody else. But that’s not the story we saw, we saw Yorkie falling in love with Kelly, so if Kelly only had died, that’d have been perhaps an even bigger tragedy to people than if both had decided to pass on together. One person living on and suffering and having lost the time and joy of the person we saw them fall in love with is particularly hard to take. But in SJ’s case, we got to see them being together after that, with the promise of a forever – something even most fluffy rom-coms don’t get.
MG: I think the anthology factor plays hugely in all of this, and its longevity when people remember and look back on LGBT TV characters. It’s kind of “easy” to be daring and give a happy ending in a one-off episode. Network TV and cable don’t commit to as much because they fear the long-term consequences of putting an LGBT love story front and center? Or I guess that’s the thinking?
Dina: I disagree, Black Mirror never gives a happy ending. Ever. So this episode stood out for me in that sense even when taking out the f/f aspect. The fact that it is a f/f couple makes it doubly special to me.
MG: Yeah but BM will never be remembered as a “gay” show, was more my point. And it’s what I think TV is afraid of, that people will tune out week after week if the leads are LGBT characters. This one episode isn’t going to be BM’s lasting legacy, everyone knows if they tune in to the next, it’s a whole different world. I think it was safe to be bold like this because of both Netflix and the anthology aspect.
Rav: And MG, I totally agree that the anthology factor takes away from some of the claims of subversion and greatness. Just the one episode in more than 3 seasons to feature a f/f couple. An expensive episode, and a happier one than their rest, assuredly. But in the sense of a TV storyline, exactly, the commitment and investment in putting a f/f storyline in the front and center for a long period? That’s not what happened here. We can’t even get stories focused mostly on straight women, let alone f/f women where there’s no option for a man to be included in the story.
MG: And for the record, I appreciate the hell out of that and why I think more and more of us navigate to Netflix, for example
JMP: What do you all think of the episode in general? BYG aside, how did you feel about it?
Dina: I loved the episode. Love rewatching it, love seeing new tiny things I didn’t notice before. It’s a truly fantastic hour of television in my opinion.
Rav: I came into it spoiled and was simply “whelmed”. I liked it, didn’t think it was the best thing ever. I feel like I can appreciate it more in the abstract? Knowing how different it was from other BM episodes, knowing how happy it made other people, the costumes, the beauty of the leads, the cleverness of the script, the OST, that ending, the budget and effort that went into it. But it didn’t affect me that deeply in itself.
OP: I also came into the episode somewhat spoiled about the concept (though not about the context of the ending) and emotionally fell flat. It was overall well-written and interesting, but it didn’t trigger within me some deep seated feelings of joy or angst. I also think part of my disappointment with the episode was in part due to how overhyped it was. I didn’t see it for the first time until several months after the initial released in part for that reason, but I wonder if I had seen it at the same time as everyone else if I would have felt differently about it. Time will tell, and perhaps I will rewatch it in the future, but I don’t particularly feel the urge or the need to revisit it.
Choxxly: I think it’s an awesome story of possibility and promise. As I said before, the characters have back stories, and grow during the course of the episode. We’re given a relationship that develops, and there are obstacles, there’s baggage. Overall trope-wise you could say that Kelly is falling into the BYG trope, but then within the context of the episode, and given that she’s just “passing through” and “having fun” and I think it’s within character and about her trying to live a life she didn’t get the chance to before. Yorkie’s story allows for an innocence and sweetness, breaking through Kelly’s hardened shell, an awesome storytelling device, and showing a strong and real connection developing. Aside from the f/f stuff it’s one of my favorite BM stories because it’s a rare glimpse into the positives of the use of technology. I think it should also be said that a concept like SJ could have been written so much darker, but there was an active choice by the writers to not only include f/f but to make it a positive, more optimistic episode. Also, awesome music, fantastic use of sets.
MG: BYG or not aside, I wish we could have more television like this. With LGBT characters as the clear leads. Building off the last discussion – would we really get all that in a weekly serial show? Even on cable? I doubt it. But rep-wise, it has an interracial f/f couple. Kelly as a bisexual WOC is a rarity and she shows so much strength and agency. She has a clear love story with both a man and a woman. They gave such meaning to both relationships even without ever even seeing her husband, and it helps that for once it’s that way and not the other. And god, I think Yorkie is a great representation of how so many queer women feel with uncertainty and awkwardness – her “can’t you just make this easy for me” quote was pretty much the most relatable phrase I’ve ever seen uttered on screen. And then to have her fully coming into her own with confidence and fighting for her chance to be happy, it is my favorite Black Mirror episode by far. I do think much of its praise – in terms of the BYG topic only – is in that it was released at the best possible time in that respect. When everyone else was literally dying, here they just figuratively died? But it’s a great piece of television, and I love that they clearly invested in this story. What I think of the BYG does not take away from the fact that this show veered completely off-course from its typical tone to tell this possibly happy story. And I love that about it.
JMP: So I have one final question to wrap it all up: Yorkie & Kelly: Adventures in San Junipero, a Netflix original. Would we watch?
Rav: In answer to whether I’d watch a series, depends on so many factors. Same budget and people as this one? Would it be a drama? A domestic fluffy scifi exploration of the issues they’d face being immortal beings of light? I would.
Choxxly: If it was given the same kind of budget and staffing as the episode was, then I think I would watch it. But then that would depend on what they intended to do with it, I don’t know where they could go or what type of show it would be outside of the BM anthology idea. That story was told, so where would it go?
Dina: I’d watch for sure! I’ve watched truly bad television/movies simply for some f/f content and here I already know that the writers are capable and the production has a high quality. But I also agree that for this story in particular it has come to a nice end and I don’t necessarily need to see more of them. And also I’d immediately be afraid that they would screw this happy ending up after all. So basically: yes, I would watch it but I’m also kind of glad that it ended here, so that I can forever feel this happily about these two characters.
MG: Well, I’d be lying if I wouldn’t at least try it out because as I’ve said a few times, we never get f/f lead characters. So I’d definitely watch. But do I love the premise and would I watch in a dream world where we have an unending number of shows to choose from that are telling our stories? Not really. I don’t love the premise or anything, but I do like the two characters a lot, which often makes a show for me – and in the beggars can’t be choosers world we live in, I’m watching it for sure.
Dina: I mean it would kind of be our duty to watch it – for our people of course – to make sure we accurately report on all the Lesbian and Bisexual women on Television right now
JMP: Right ladies, I want to leave it at that. I’m sure the discussions will continue as we didn’t reach much consensus, but I got some cool little new insights and I hope you did too. Thanks for joining!