TV/Movies Megathread

[CountDeMoney]

Rewatching Spartacus (series). I like TV shows about gladiators.

Never took you for a sociopathic homosexual.  Go fig.

[Josquius]

[Eddie Teach]

Richard Simmons if he were a man?

[celedhring]

There's a surprisingly decent show beyond all the T&A in Spartacus.

[viper37]

Think of it this way: you complain (rightly) that so many Quebec TV shows are centered around Montreal, and that no show seem to take place in a region you may recognize as yours. It sends a message: your stories are not important / not interesting enough to be shown. And if, in TV shows, people from the Bas-du-Fleuve were *always* shown as the typically retarded rural cousin, you may think that, at some point, it would be nice if they showed rural tech savy entrepreneurs in a positive, serious light as opposed to constant comic relief or as a foil for the sophisticated Montrealer. Now, even in those shows centered in Montreal, we are light years away from having 30% of the characters being "non-white", yet, that is the proportion of Montrealers who self-identify as "visible minority". (I am aware the analogy is not perfect).

I don't want to see myself on tv
I want to see people smarter than me, stronger than me.  That's what I like about american tv.
I feel Quebec tv is often dumb down for the audience, instead of presenting smart people (Les belles histoires des pays d'en haut being the latest example)

I certainly want to see diversity on television (and in movies), but just as I find stupid to use a white man because the audience can't relate to a female/black/asian, I find equally stupid this need that you need a token black or token gay character in a tv show.

I just finished rewatching Deep Space Nine.  That captain is a black man.  Only in 2 episodes did it really matter.  He could have been asian.  It could have been a woman.  It could have been a white man.  This is what I like: create a role where anybody could get the part, rather than token roles where everything is centered on their cultural identity.

I also just watched Frontier, about the fur trade in the James Bay area in the 18th/19th century.  Great tv show.  Again, you have wonderfully written characters.  I don't feel like they created token roles for the female: be the pretty girl of the show, fall in love with every male you encounter, etc.

This, I want to see.  But casting a woman for the sake of having a woman?  Nope.

[viper37]

Well, you're in for a surprise if you buy Thor comic books again, then 

Thor is a man! 



I just don't really care, especially if it's comic books

My answer to your question is simple: why not? I have seen so many stories with white men, that I find exploring new angles and sensibilities more interesting and engrossing, as a viewer.

Ok, I'll illustrate what I'm talking about.

Exhibit #1: Deanna Troy on Star Trek TNG
Exhibit #2: Black Widow in Marvel

#1 was created because they needed more women on the show.  The original had one, a black, they needed to top that with two females, and at least one in a sexy outfit.  That's what I'm talking about.

#2 The character, as it developped on screen (not very familiar with the source material) came quite naturally.  She ain't the pretty gal meant to fall in love with any male she encounters, the time of one movie/episode.  She is a complete character.  I don't see a woman, I see an agent.  I don't feel they created the character of Black Widow on screen just for the sake of having a woman.

[Oexmelin]

I don't want to see myself on tv

Perhaps not. But perhaps it is also because the need to see projection of yourself is already sated by a ton of heroic hetero white men, that you could conceivably project as being a better version of you (stronger, sexier, smarter). After all, and celedh can correct me if I am wrong, identification, or at least, sympathizing with the hero, is a key aim of popular fiction. And perhaps if every time you saw someone with whom you were supposed to identify, that person was proven to be inferior in every way to the real hero, it may become old after a while.

I will not comment about plot of Quebec TV since I can no longer watch it. I only know that the casting is less than diverse.

I certainly want to see diversity on television (and in movies), but just as I find stupid to use a white man because the audience can't relate to a female/black/asian, I find equally stupid this need that you need a token black or token gay character in a tv show.

I think everyone would agree that tokenism is bad - i.e., having a black character for the sake of having a black character (and usually staying within stereotypes). But some would argue that it was because the issue was raised in the first place, and that tokenism happened first, that eventually producers (and perhaps white audiences as well) began opening their minds to other possibilities. Like:

I just finished rewatching Deep Space Nine.  That captain is a black man.  Only in 2 episodes did it really matter.  He could have been asian.  It could have been a woman.  It could have been a white man.  This is what I like: create a role where anybody could get the part, rather than token roles where everything is centered on their cultural identity.

I think it's great - and I think that was a deliberate casting procedure from Deep Space Nine. But I also think one would have to be naive to think blind casting is the standard in the industry: I am pretty sure that choice had to be discussed over and over again with the producers. And sometimes, even when race of the character is not at all an issue in the script, the imagination of casting agents and producers with eyes on numbers, is severely limited.

[Valmy]

I would say tokenism is better nothing though. You got to get experienced and recognizable minority actors out there somehow.

[Valmy]

#1 was created because they needed more women on the show.  The original had one, a black, they needed to top that with two females, and at least one in a sexy outfit.  That's what I'm talking about.

Damn there really was only one in the original series. Huh. Some gender equal future there Roddenberry.

[Oexmelin]

Sure, it's better than nothing. That's what Hattie McDaniel said... in 1939. I think it's time to no longer be contented by it. Plus, as Viper mentioned, it's lousy writing.

[Valmy]

Sure, it's better than nothing. That's what Hattie McDaniel said... in 1939. I think it's time to no longer be contented by it. Plus, as Viper mentioned, it's lousy writing.

I don't think Hattie's roles count as tokenism. All do respect to a great actress. When I think of tokenism I think of just randomly having one of the characters be a different race for no particular reason. The Zulus being played by black people in Zulu is not tokenism.

[Barrister]

Sure, it's better than nothing. That's what Hattie McDaniel said... in 1939. I think it's time to no longer be contented by it. Plus, as Viper mentioned, it's lousy writing.

I don't think Hattie's roles count as tokenism. All do respect to a great actress. When I think of tokenism I think of just randomly having one of the characters be a different race for no particular reason. The Zulus being played by black people in Zulu is not tokenism.

I agree.  A black woman playing a black slave during the civil war is not tokenism.

[Malthus]

Anything in which the casting appears to be set by influences wholly extraneous to the story can lead to lousy storytelling, by definition if the extraneous factors are obvious to the audience and are not part of the story the creators are trying to tell.

That is just as true for casting all-white actors because that would appeal the majority (or because the big name draws are all white), as it is for casting token minorities to satisfy some sort of formal or informal social equality guidelines.

Doesn't mean that creators should not include more minorities (even the term "minority" has lost much of its meaning). Just that it should be done organically, in ways that enhance and deepen the particular story being told. But then, that is true for any casting decision: the identity of the particular actor chosen ideally should enhance the story. 

[Valmy]

Heh. I meant all DUE respect.

Geez. Sorry Hattie.

[Valmy]

Anything in which the casting appears to be set by influences wholly extraneous to the story can lead to lousy storytelling, by definition if the extraneous factors are obvious to the audience and are not part of the story the creators are trying to tell.

That is just as true for casting all-white actors because that would appeal the majority (or because the big name draws are all white), as it is for casting token minorities to satisfy some sort of formal or informal social equality guidelines.

Doesn't mean that creators should not include more minorities (even the term "minority" has lost much of its meaning). Just that it should be done organically, in ways that enhance and deepen the particular story being told. But then, that is true for any casting decision: the identity of the particular actor chosen ideally should enhance the story. 

You can really only go into that kind of detail if it is a main character though.