In “Queer video remix and LGBTQ online communities” Elisa Kreisinger analyses an array of media texts, both in their original context as well as the context created with them in the form of video editing. Kreisinger treats these "remixes" as media analysis and criticisms themselves and uses them as a framework to express her ideas about the way the entertainment industry portrays queer characters. She does this by not only critiquing queer characters, but straight ones as well - for not being queer.

    One of Kreisinger's main points is that by calling attention to the problems with queer characters in entertainment, one risks limiting the supply of problem characters from which to draw attention. When the subtext that is used to drive the stories of queer characters is removed, there is no longer much to say. However, Kresinger does suggest that Hollywood is so stuck on stereotypes that it will find new ways to add subtext, continually driving the conversation forward. This Idea is reminiscent of Beltran's piece on Latinas and how even though their roles are ever evolving, the stereotypes seem to develop just as fast. She uses feminist analysis to point out that one of the problems that Hollywood has with the queer community is that it is a "threat to masculinity, male privilege, and heteronormativity."(1.4)

    Heteronormativity makes an appearance a couple of time during this piece because most of the videos cited were created to challenge that ideology. Kresinger proves that all types of characters can be perceived as queer by picking videos that show traditionally straight characters in alternative ways. The best example of this is shown with the video "It’s Raining 300 Men." She points out that the movie 300 was created specifically for the straight male audience, but even in such a masculine, testosterone driven film, the remixing of gender roles can still be applied. She even mentions that in the films overall sales, they did appeal to a gay audience which, albeit unintentional, is due to it’s homoerotic undertones.

    All in all, Kreisinger writes for the queer community, but also for anyone who is willing to have an open mind about queer characters in the entertainment industry. She builds off of the videos that she analyses and treats them as media criticisms themselves. Kreisinger draws on feminist studies as she critics the remixes in comparison to their source texts. She argues that gay males are looked at as unmasculine when viewed through the heteronormative gaze. Although these videos bring awareness and increase the number of “legitimate” queer characters, Hollywood will still use them as an opportunity to create even more stereotypical characters, and the cycle with repeat. Kreisinger is ok with this cycle because it continues to push the conversation forward.