Fandom and Viewer Issues: "Fan" Is Short for "Fanatic"

[InsertWordHere]

 

Seriously, has anybody ever seen a more dysfunctional, war-torn fandom than Once in any of their other fandoms?

After Buffy pretty much threw a live grenade into every subset of its fandom with the infamous "Seeing Red," I thought I had seen the lowest a fandom could sink. I lived through the HP ship wars and the Snape wank and I thought that was all pretty ugly. I saw what the Doctor Who fandom said about Martha Jones because she wasn't Rose Tyler and I shook my head in disgust. A few months ago on TWoP (RIP), I believe I said I thought the OUaT fandom had not yet reached the point of no return. That was before I foolishly decided to immerse myself in the fandom wars on tumblr (my own fault, I know).

 

After the events of this hiatus, I am sorry to say that I was wrong. Congratulations, OUaT fandom, you win.

[Rumsy4]

I'll have to agree. I haven't experienced fandom wank that can be compared to the disgusting behavior I have witnessed in this fandom. People do know know how to show common courtesy, let alone treat people with respect. I'm appalled. 

[retrograde]

I haven't observed that many fandoms up close, but I did chat on the Castle board for a few years, and that fandom can get pretty nuts. Nowhere near the level of infighting OuaT has (probably because there aren't really multiple competing ships), but the nastiness directed at the actors on a personal level was beyond anything I've seen before or since (though my hunch is that it might be worse on more teen-oriented shows?). So at least the Once fandom comes out looking better on that comparison. Hooray?

 

I have long suspected that the Buffy fandom would have gotten much messier if it had all played out in the age of Twitter and tumblr. 

 

I see your point and yet what standard of measurement should they use to figure out what "society" is calling for? 

"Gee, Eddy, media critics say we should work harder to cast more people of colour on our show, but my white supremacist neighbor thinks we shouldn't. I just don't know who to listen to!" Come on now. The idea that the media should feature a more diverse range of people and stories is neither radical nor flash in the pan. The writers on this show seem like fairly intelligent, fairly progressively-minded people. They live in a very diverse, reasonably liberal city. They know which way the wind is blowing. (The network executives... yeah, I'll believe they live in an out-of-touch bubble of rich white dudes).

 

Sometimes entertainment is just entertainment.

I just can't agree with this statement. The media we consume shapes our society. OuaT is a show that a major TV network puts a crap-ton of money into and airs in a prime spot and has a large number of viewers. If we are to believe the marketing, it is a show that families across America sit down and watch together. It doesn't exist in a vacuum -- it is part of America's (and now many other country's) popular culture.  

 

I'm not saying I realistically expect OuaT will go breaking through many boundaries any time some. But I think people have a right to call out areas where they think the show could do better, and I think the showrunners are capable of listening and taking some of it on board without compromising their grand artistic vision.

[stealinghome]

"Grand artistic vision" really meaning "gee, we never bother to plot anything out in a coherent manner, BUT WOULDN'T IT BE COOL IF..."! If you're making it all up as you go, you don't get to bitch about someone "disrupting" your vision or wtfever.

Edited September 17, 2014 by stealinghome

[Souris]

I haven't observed that many fandoms up close, but I did chat on the Castle board for a few years, and that fandom can get pretty nuts. Nowhere near the level of infighting OuaT has (probably because there aren't really multiple competing ships), but the nastiness directed at the actors on a personal level was beyond anything I've seen before or since (though my hunch is that it might be worse on more teen-oriented shows?). So at least the Once fandom comes out looking better on that comparison. Hooray?

 

I have long suspected that the Buffy fandom would have gotten much messier if it had all played out in the age of Twitter and tumblr. 

 

I definitely suspect you are right about that. I watched Buffy and enjoyed it a lot, but I never stepped foot in the online fandom. I saw the farthest outskirts now and again, and that told me I really didn't want to go to there. I don't watch, but I get inklings from things I run across online that the Vampire Diaries fandom might be pretty ... dramatic. That's definitely teen-oriented. I'm really sorry (and kind of surprised) to hear there is nastiness directed toward the actors on Castle. Another show I don't watch, but I have not gotten fandom-drama inklings there. I always thought it seemed like a fairly benign show that wouldn't cause that sort of thing!

 

I guess a lot of it for all shows is the social media that's out there now; opinions are widespread, immediate and somewhat anonymous. That's a recipe for trouble. And like you said, Once has tons of different ships, which always seem to create drama.

[Camera One]

I don't watch teen shows anymore but way back then, there would be some heated arguments among shippers in shows like "Dawson's Creek" or "Smallville".  But then again, there's a limit to how far things can go in a message board, before the world of social media.  Are there crazier fandoms with teen shows?  I'm not familiar with any of them now.  I guess there will always be rude segments of any fandom.  I recently realized some elements of the "Glee" fandom are very angry and bitter and would be rude towards certain characters/actors they perceive to be getting more songs or focus.

 

With "Once Upon a Time", I don't follow anything Once related on Tumblr, Twitter or Facebook (since I'm a spoiler-avoider).  So I have been blissfully unaware of the Ogre, uh I mean Fandom wars.   I mean, I've only seen a little bit of it these last few days when I skimmed a few after the Tea incident, but I wasn't really interested enough to read the posts, which seem to be mostly I *heart* whoever.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Camera One

[Souris]

So I have been blissfully unaware of the Ogre, uh I mean Fandom wars. 

 

Ha! "Ogre Wars" would've been an awesome title for this thread!

[retrograde]

I'm really sorry (and kind of surprised) to hear there is nastiness directed toward the actors on Castle. Another show I don't watch, but I have not gotten fandom-drama inklings there. I always thought it seemed like a fairly benign show that wouldn't cause that sort of thing!

The issue is/was mostly people confusing the lead actors and their characters, I think. Pretty much every woman Nathan Fillion has publicly dated (or even not so publicly, the really rabid fans seem to watch other people in their social circles like hawks) has been harassed on Twitter for not being Stana Katic. And while she has been very, very private about her personal life, the one time a crew member hinted she had a boyfriend, all hell broke loose. "WHY HAS SHE BEEN LYING TO US?!?!" Gee I can't imagine. Oh, and then there was the time he apparently unfollowed her on Twitter...

 

And then also lot of people also just hate that Fillion seems more enthusiastic about Firefly and the Whedonverse than Castle (which, duh). A lot of hardcore fans (in many shows) seem to need the actors to be as enthusiastic about the storylines and ships as they are, which I think is a really hard ask (and basically an impossible one on the relationship front, unless you are lucky enough to be Josh Dallas and Ginnifer Goodwin). But as evidenced by TeaGate, even when they do show enthusiasm, it causes just as many problems. 

 

Maybe one thing that has changed with Twitter is that it is more obvious that actors have lives and interests outside of their shows. Their work is just that: work. We (I mean, collectively) spend our spare time obsessing over them and their characters and fake relationships, but they don't. I think that is maybe hard for some people (I want to say especially teens, but maybe that's unfair?) to accept. 

Edited September 17, 2014 by retrograde

[InsertWordHere]

I have long suspected that the Buffy fandom would have gotten much messier if it had all played out in the age of Twitter and tumblr.

I've suspected this as well, so maybe it was unfair of me to compare the two. Buffy did have the Bronze message board and the writers and some of the actors frequently stopped by to chat but I never saw the kind of comments there that I've seen repeatedly directed to Adam Horowitz and JMo on twitter. Maybe the difference is that people did not have a platform where they could relentlessly direct their vitriol to one specific person. If you have a rare chance to speak to the creators of your favorite show, are you really going to use your time complaining, even if your issues are valid? And unlike twitter and tumblr, I believe the Bronze had mods. Also, despite the show's faults in later seasons, Joss Whedon was generally treated as a god in the Buffy fandom, similarly to how the SQ fandom seems to treat Lana Parrilla.

[Jean]

At the end of the day tv shows/entertainment biz is only in the business of making money. Would it be nice if they were also interested in being responsible representatives of society? Sure but I don't think it's going to happen. Network tv is largely risk adverse. That's what cable is for.

Why do people think there are more female lead roles now than say 30 years ago? Cause the advertisers and network execs figured out women have huge buying power. It's not so much about movement towards equality and diversity as much as the talking heads want you to believe. Cold hard facts, it's all about the money.

So listen to "what the fans really want" comes down to what Once's target demo is. I don't know what it is since I stopped watching live after S1. You can usually tell what the target audience is by the ads running during the show. It's a niche show so I'm sure it's a narrow target. Like I'm positive they're not targeting the single 18-34 males and therefore they probably don't give a flying fig what that population looks for in a tv show.

What society calls for is meaningless to the execs. You have to drive or create a market. All those people calling for more diversity? All fine and good but are they still watching the show full of good looking 18-34 white heterosexual people? That's all they want your eyeballs lining their pockets. You know why the fanatics on the internet are largely ignored? Cause the execs know they will still watch the show regardless. On top of that free buzz! Win-win. It's the casual viewers that will just turn off a show or switch to another that hurts their pockets.

Gee, Eddy, media critics say we should work harder to cast more people of colour on our show, but my white supremacist neighbor thinks we shouldn't. I just don't know who to listen to!"

Well I would say this depends to the head honchos. They would ask: Are the majority of the watchers white supremacists? Are they going to turn off the show if an Asian person was cast? Yes? Who are our ad buyers? Oh that company that sells "Go White Supremacy bumper stickers." Yeah then they'll probably be catered to. The viewers calling for more diversity, will they still watch if there's only white hetero males? Oh they will? Problem solved, no need to listen to them. They won't affect our revenue.

[FurryFury]

I have long suspected that the Buffy fandom would have gotten much messier if it had all played out in the age of Twitter and tumblr.

 

The worst thing is, I'd probably participate. I mean, I wouldn't bully the actors (that's really stupid, and I don't really get why people are so obsessed with celebrities, I prefer to live vicariously via fictional characters rather than real people), but I wouldn't resist joining Twitter just to tell Marti Noxon what I think about her showrunning season 6 or to Espenson for her Spuffy shilling. Yeah, I do have really strong opinions about Buffy.

 

Like I'm positive they're not targeting the single 18-34 males and therefore they probably don't give a flying fig what that population looks for in a tv show.

 

Every show on TV would love more 18-35 males watching them - it's the most coveted demographic. But you're mostly right, the target audience of Once (and probably ABC is general) is mostly female.

[Serena]

I definitely suspect you are right about that. I watched Buffy and enjoyed it a lot, but I never stepped foot in the online fandom. I saw the farthest outskirts now and again, and that told me I really didn't want to go to there. I don't watch, but I get inklings from things I run across online that the Vampire Diaries fandom might be pretty ... dramatic. That's definitely teen-oriented. I'm really sorry (and kind of surprised) to hear there is nastiness directed toward the actors on Castle. Another show I don't watch, but I have not gotten fandom-drama inklings there. I always thought it seemed like a fairly benign show that wouldn't cause that sort of thing!

TVD has fairly standard ship vs ship wars (like Captain Swan vs SwanFire in OUAT, if SF were given more support on a canon/show level). I'm not much in the Castle fandom, but I've noticed that pretty much everyone ships the main couple, but a group really, really loves the lead actress/female character and gets pretty pissed at the lead actor/network/etc when they think she hasn't been given her due or dissed. Kind of like SQ or (to a lesser extent) SF fans getting pissed at JMO for criticizing Regina and/or Neal.

[ShadowFacts]

 

You know why the fanatics on the internet are largely ignored? Cause the execs know they will still watch the show regardless. On top of that free buzz! Win-win.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head.  I've always thought the producers love all the controversy they can get.  And the executives love that as well.   All the melodrama on social media takes free publicity to another level. 

[sharky]

Not to beat a dead horse, but this show has done diversity -- at least a little bit -- and they got crap for it. Remember that they cast a black actor to play Repunzel and it caused a shitstorm among some in the fandom because Repunzel is supposed to be white. So when it comes to things like Swan Queen, it's not that fans want diversity, they just want THEIR diversity.

I read a great interview that Orlando Jones did recently -- sounds like they are having issues in the Sleepy Hollow fandom with ships -- and he had a quote that essentially said, "Ship the ship you want, it's a big harbor." Why can't the fandom just leave it at that?

I also can't remember being in this kind of fan nonsense, even when I was deep in The Office fandom and those actors were early adopters on MySpace. That being said, I do remember a group of us leaving TWOP because of issues there. So crazy that I got warnings a few times for boards on boards talk and yet this whole thread would've likely been banned there for the same reason. I'm glad we're able to talk here about what we're seeing, if only to prove that we are not alone in wanting a normal fandom.

[Jean]

 

Every show on TV would love more 18-35 males watching them - it's the most coveted demographic.

Yeah coveting is different from targeting. Every executive and advertisers would die for broad appeal but that's not a model they work with, most especially scripted dramas. It's usually very narrow and targeted. The broad appeal are saved for the big special events with huge broad number of watchers, like the Superbowl.  What they can do is if the direct target is say females with families, they'll ask if the men are sitting down and watching with their partners? The percentage of males that do watch, are they watching it because someone is? Or is there a direct appeal for them?

 

The difference between A&E listening to fans and network listening to their target audience? People called for LGBT representation (supposedly) and so A&E gave them lesbian Asian Mulan with the unrequited love. I don't believe for one second Mulan was originally conceived as a lesbian. I also don't think it's an accident at all that Asian Mulan, one of the less popular Disney "princesses" was the lesbian and not Aurora, their classic Disney Princess. If LGBT was what the general targeted audience wanted (and backing it up by tuning out in droves at the lack of one) then you betcha an LGBT character would've been given a prominent role. For publicity and media purporses? ABC would say ok Once doesn't have a regular LGBT character but one of our other shows do! Go watch it! See we're a network that loves and promotes diversity. Of course they won't mention that, that other show has a different target.

[stealinghome]

At the end of the day tv shows/entertainment biz is only in the business of making money. Would it be nice if they were also interested in being responsible representatives of society? Sure but I don't think it's going to happen.

Well, yeah, and that's why the media and fans do continue to need to call TV shows out when they are horrible with representation.

 

And don't tell me representation doesn't sell. Scandal has a huge following and gets pretty damn good ratings. When were soap operas popular? In the 80s, when they tackled issues of extreme societal relevance, representing all sorts of people and viewpoints. This past week, Taraji P. Henderson and Idris Elba's movie topped the box office by 10 million over the next closest competitor. The market for a more diverse media field is there.

[KingOfHearts]

Diversity itself is a great thing, but I wouldn't want them to start adding in characters from every minority or group on the planet just to be politically correct. Now, adding diversity to open the show up to new areas of creativity is an amazing idea. I'm all for that. There's a fine line between just appeasing a select group of people and actually thinking outside the box. Shows in general quickly go to hell when they start to please everyone. Again, diversity is great, but it has to be for the good of the show, not to please unhappy campers.

 

Personally, in my opinion, Once's problem is more about writing quality. It doesn't matter how many types of people you have in it if the writing is crap. 

 

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but this show has done diversity -- at least a little bit -- and they got crap for it. Remember that they cast a black actor to play Repunzel and it caused a shitstorm among some in the fandom because Repunzel is supposed to be white.

 

I remember that. Now that was stupid. There's been plenty of other black people on the show, too - Lancelot, Sidney, The Fairy Godmother, Billy, and Tamara, to name a few. I think people were mad because it wasn't Tangled.

Edited September 17, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[sharky]

Good point. People got uppity about Repunzel being black (or African-American, trying to be careful because I can't remember if she's a Canadian actor). But in the end, it's a moot point because they completely wasted those flashbacks with a whole lot of nothing. I guess when we say "diversity" they interpret that to mean diversity of story quality. Some weeks re great, some really not, but we said we wanted diversity! ;-)

[maryle]

I' m considering myself very progressive I'm living in Canada, bilingual and I have a degree in counselling in mostly working in this field of work.

So, I just roll my eye if someone calls me homophobic over a tv shown. Not even sorry about that.

Actually I Watched  a lot of show who have  homosexual sl ( Orphan black, modern familly, Grey...) and that really fine with me. I really want to see more diversity everywhere.

But here the bullying come from a minority who choose to impose their fantasy upon the majority.

As a casual watcher I always believe that Regina are heterosexual women and never saw a little bit of their suppose chemistry.

I saw a woman who was ( still is ) narcissistic and perverse  and a another who was feling out of place, lonely, searching for ... That season 1 for me. Now a minority wish that all of sudden these two woman all of sudden fall for each others.

That's nothing to do with diversity because they just do not care for Mulan and Aura.

[Jean]

Yes KingofHearts! Are people going to be happy with a diverse characters that are written shoddily? If Woegina was Asian or black or a transgender, would that stop the complaints about her character?

 

 

And don't tell me representation doesn't sell. Scandal has a huge following and gets pretty damn good ratings.

 I never said representation doesn't sell. I said non-diverse white only shows still sell, and sell well.  Someone said this already, one show can't be everything for everybody. A corporation might.

 

Scandal is written by Shonda and she's taken the initiative herself. Good for her! She's not writing Scandal as a result of audience needs, it's her vision first and foremost. It's on network tv cause of target audience wants however. But her first network tv show was Greys and the 2 lead characters where white. She had to prove herself to the network first and show that having a diverse cast will sell. Greys was first given only a 10 or 12? episode order and aired on Sunday evenings. When it took off, then they gave it a full series order and moved it to a more important night. It wasn't automatic.

 

 

Well, yeah, and that's why the media and fans do continue to need to call TV shows out when they are horrible with representation.

 

My point is the "calling out" doesn't matter because it's not affecting their bottom line. I'm not saying don't call them out, at all. Are the people doing the "calling out" still watching the show? If yes, there's really nothing more to be said.

[stealinghome]

Yes KingofHearts! Are people going to be happy with a diverse characters that are written shoddily? If Woegina was Asian or black or a transgender, would that stop the complaints about her character?

No, of course not. But let's not act like adding diversity and good writing are mutually exclusive, either--or that it's really that hard to make the show 5% more diverse. Maybe Once would take less criticism for not being diverse if it was, you know, more diverse. Then we would have more energy to funnel into bitching about the writing. :)

 

I never said representation doesn't sell. I said non-diverse white only shows still sell, and sell well.  Someone said this already, one show can't be everything for everybody. A corporation might.

I'm not saying this isn't the corporate logic, but I am saying this seems oddly circular to me. "We've already decided that this show isn't going to appeal to [x demographic], so we won't put anything for [x demographic] in the show." Has it occurred to anyone that putting one member of x demographic in might well help the show pull in new eyes?

Edited September 17, 2014 by stealinghome

[FurryFury]

I'm thinking what Jean's talking about is essentially tokenism - adding a minority, whether sexual or racial, simply for the sake of it. And I agree, it doesn't really make it better. Rapunzel's casting was purposeless, because she didn't do anything important and was, let's be frank, a waste of a well-known character. And they specifically cast a black actress, so as to say "See? Aren't we diverse?" This isn't the way to do it. I'd very much prefer if, instead of Rapunzel, we got an episode fleshing out the backstory of Mulan, who was a minority already present on the show, or maybe they brought back Lancelot, who got such an atrocious send-off in s2. At least they had some relevance in the past and relationships with other characters. I'm pretty sure we'll never see Rapunzel again because she wasn't memorable and didn't do anything.

[Camera One]

I'm pretty sure we'll never see Rapunzel again because she wasn't memorable and didn't do anything.

 

I feel badly for Rapunzel Fans.  Thankfully, there doesn't seem to be any.  Because that storyline they wrote for her was just atrocious.  Funny how they're all over "Frozen" but "Tangled" can get thrown off a tower.  Kudos to the actress who played Rapunzel's mom for trying to act as a background extra despite not having a line.  Wonder where their kingdom actually is. 

Edited September 17, 2014 by Camera One

[FurryFury]

Well, I loved Tangled (way more than Frozen), so that's part of the reason I was really disappointed with that episode. She was Rapunzel in name only.

[Curio]

Well, I loved Tangled (way more than Frozen), so that's part of the reason I was really disappointed with that episode. She was Rapunzel in name only.

I like Tangled way more than Frozen, too. But I guess they couldn't really make the Once Rapunzel like the Tanlged Rapunzel because we already have a lot of Rapunzel/Eugene parallels with Emma/Hook.

[kili]

Funny how they're all over "Frozen" but "Tangled" can get thrown off a tower.

 

I think Tangled got thrown of the tower because they used too much of the Flynn character when constructing Hook. 

 

I think one of the problems they have with diversity is that the source material is not all that diverse. Look at how people have been commenting about how much the characters from Frozen do or do not look like their animated counter-parts. They have more freedom in casting roles that are not originally represented in Disney movies.

[FurryFury]

I don't think Emma's anything like Rapunzel, and Hook's a much darker character than Flynn. The similarities are really superficial and don't go beyond a few shared tropes common to fairytales and adventures.

[FabulousTater]

So you wouldn't think it was a problem if literally 100% of TV shows and movies had heterosexual white men between 25 and 35 in all the roles; no non-white characters, no queer characters, and no women?

 What exactly is the purpose of posing this hypothetical other than to bait an argument or implicitly put words in my mouth? I don’t recall advocating for a homogenous world of milk white men, and your hyperbolic hypothetical has no bearing on reality because in reality, "Literally 100% of TV Shows” are NOT all “heterosexual white men between 25 and 35 in all the roles”. In reality, there are shows  with people from different races, genders, nationalities, sexual orientation and *gasp* dogs and cats and fish playing the roles of dogs and cats and fish. There are even some shows I watch and enjoy that have no white people at all! Some aren't even in english! Madness! So what are you trying to get at? Are you attempting to get me to expose myself as a TV viewing white supremacist by answering “No” to your hypothetical situation? Or wait, perhaps this is your way of recruiting for your own cause of milk white male TV exclusivity? 

 

In all seriousness, the real question that could be asked is “How much media diversity is enough to satisfy every group under the sun?” Will diversity requirements (set by some standards body somewhere) only be satisfactorily met when the regular cast of every single show in existence (“literally 100% of TV shows”!) contains at least one person of each gender, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnic group, dwarves as well as people of average height (what constitutes average height is another discussion), and religion (or no religion) on the planet (basically a cast of a hundreds)? (I’m not being hyperbolic, I’m actually curious as to what the society’s mysterious standards body here deems as acceptable “diversity” to satisfy everyone)

Also, is this TV/media diversity requirement applicable only to US media or to the world? Should we inform the Japanese that their TV media looks too japanese, those in latin america that their media is too latino? Or is the diversity requirement only meant to be a representation of the actual statistical numbers that comprise american society? According to the 2010 census, there are approximately 13% African Americans in the US, 5% Asian, and 16% Hispanic. So do we take the entire american TV Show landscape and designate 13% of all TV shows as all black only roles, 5% as only Asians, and 16% as hispanic only? Or say the regular cast has 5 people, and then for an accurate mathematical representation of society we have someone who is .65% black, .25% Asian, and .80% hispanic. To also represent other groups, I suppose we'll need to make the .65% black person a woman who is also an atheist, the .25% asian a woman as well as a dwarf and a protestant, and the .80% hispanic is a jewish woman. If we're still going for statistical accuracy, the other two remaining cast members get to be the white males. Also, according to research briefs from UCLA approximately 3.5% of people in the US identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. So again, to accurately reflect "society", that’s .17% of a character in the cast will have to be gay (which I'm not sure how that works, maybe they're not necessarily gay but they experimented in college?) Now after all that, will the requirements of diversity be met then? After we create a mathematically accurate model of diversity for every single TV show will any of it be enough to satisfy everyone? And the answer to that is in all likelihood still "No", because you can’t please all the people all the time (which is a point I think bears repeating).

 

"Gee, Eddy, media critics say we should work harder to cast more people of colour on our show, but my white supremacist neighbor thinks we shouldn't. I just don't know who to listen to!" Come on now. The idea that the media should feature a more diverse range of people and stories is neither radical nor flash in the pan.

Yes, that's exactly the comparison I was trying to make. I was totally taking into account the thoughts of white supremacists versus articles found in the Washington Post. Nailed it. </sarcasm>

My point is that there could be other issues that are more important to society at large. And before someone makes the giant leap that I must be advocating for literally 100% milk white all hetero male TV shows, let me be clear -- That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that what is important to some may not be as important to others. So what is the empirical evidence and statistical data that proves that the issue everyone in society is concerned about is representation on television? Is it important to every single person out there (literally 100%!) or just a vocal percentage of the entire population? Is it not possible that the predominant issues on their minds relative to TV shows and media are other things like gratuitous violence, violence against women, gun violence, drug abuse, the portayal of domestic violence, body image issues, etc.? No? I guess because the media critics say it's diversity it must be so. Also, since these media critics also seem to think that Regina is innocent and the victim on the show then I guess that must be so as well. I surrender my need for empirical data to the onslaught of incontrovertible evidence provided by some people's "feelings".

 

The media we consume shapes our society.

And the media produced is a reflection of our society. It's a circular argument, but it’s all rather irrelevant because fundamentally it comes down to what makes money for the networks producing the media, as noted by someone else upthread. Whether it’s selling papers, ad clicks, TV shows, or movies, these are all money making ventures and networks produce what sells. They hire folks who they think will produce things people will like and will make them money, and not because they're interested in making the world a happy shiny place.

 

The silver lining is that there are creators being hired that are producing diverse content because that is part of their creative vision (not just because it hits all the diversity checkboxes that someone required them to fill) and it's good. And since it's good and it entertains people (which I think are the bigger deciding factors for people to watch something or not), people watch it and it becomes something that the networks see as money-makers and therefore there's a likelihood that this programming becomes more prevalent.

 

…*sigh* I now really understand why TWoP banned all the discussions that weren't pertinent to the actual show and boards on boards.

Edited September 17, 2014 by FabulousTater

[myril]

Diversity itself is a great thing, but I wouldn't want them to start adding in characters from every minority or group on the planet just to be politically correct. 

It's not about being political correct, it is about being more imaginative and about being diverse because people are diverse.

 

The significant difference for some people is, that Regina and Emma are lead characters, while Mulan is just a supportive character, and has completely vanished accidently right after they suggested she has feelings for Aurora (they never let her say it out loud, in some ways it was still pretty much "only" subtext). How many queer lead characters can you think of without looking up on a fantasy or sci-fiction show? On any show?

 

I don't want to defend those shippers going aggressively after anyone of the cast and crew or each other, although the term hate is used unfortunately loosely in the fandom. Asking critical questions and pushing for an answer going beyond "keep watching" or "thanks for watching" doesn't qualify in my book as hate, though might not be a productive and smart way to address issues, and even less in just 140 characters. But a few have been going too far and crossed the line to bullying, agree on that.

 

Do the show makers have an obligation to fulfill fan wishes? No. Is it about money? Yes it is. But Disney started to see that aiming just at their usual target audience, girls and young women, might get them only so far, so they focused their marketing for Frozen more on boys' view -  that Olaf played such a role in the movie and advertising had to do something with that (still Frozen was and is mostly a success because of girls and young women). Meanwhile Marvel and others slowly get to notice, that marketing their female heroes (although they are still mostly reduced to be sidekicks at best if not just eye candy) helps to bring more women to watch their movies, not just as sidekick of their geek guys, but because they themselves want to see them - and get eventually interested in merchandise. Slowly, because for The Guardians of the Galaxy they are getting some shitstorm for neglecting Gamora in merchandise. But Samual Jackson as Nick Fury is such a success with a lot of people, that they certainly don't regret to have changed Fury's race (despite some complains online).

 

When I started watching Once I somehow got this silly idea, that this would be a really fresh, new look at fairy tales, which to me meant exactly trying to overcome a number of rather exclusive and one-sided depictions of fairy tale worlds, thus was hoping for more diversity (ethnicity and gender and sexual orientation wise) and less focus on fairy tales as fluffy romantic princess stories. Think I wasn't alone with such ideas, with that hope. Sometime between 2nd and 3rd season I finally buried that hope and even began to see, it was probably silly from the start on. Doesn't stop me though from saying, the show lacks diversity. Guess for some the giving up hope process is a bit more painful and not yet done.

 

The aggressiveness by a few to cast and crew is wrong, but I don't see in general a problem in addressing the producers, aka Adam Horowitz and Eddy Kitsis, and calling the show out for a lack of diversity. Yes, angry customers can feel sometimes like a plague, but at least they tell you, what their problem with your product is, and not silently leave without giving you any chance to learn, how eventually you could do it better for them. If you're going to change your product or think it's not worth it and doesn't do it, is still up to you. As it is up to the customers if they still buy your product or recommend it even to others. (Yes, I still watch the show for research purpose and a bit of entertainment, but without ads if any possible, and certainly are not the least bit interested in merchandise anymore, not even the dvds). 

Edited September 17, 2014 by katusch

[Serena]

I 100% agree on calling A&E out on the lack of queer characters. The problem is, most people attacking them are calling out the lack of Swan Queen. I've seen several people call them out for the lack of queer characters, but they tend to be more levelheaded and less prone to insults. Why? Because theirs is criticism that comes from a desire for representation. The Swan Queen shippers' words, however, comes from fanatical devotion to their ship, and only their ship, something they've built up in their head and have attached a huge significance and emotional investement. That's fanaticism, not criticism.

[FormerMod-a1]

Please watch the tone/language.  Keep on debating and discussing, but don't attack other posters or "bait" arguments.  "I disagree...", "I'm confused...", "I am not sure I see the connection..."  are good ways to discuss, debate and have differing opinions.  "Do you really think...?!?" and it's variations are not.  If you see something you think is out of line, report it and ignore it - do not respond to it.

 

Also, keep in mind the forum's Ignore feature.  If someone keeps getting under your skin put them on the ignore list.  Click your profile icon and select "Manage Ignore prefs".  Then you'll never see their posts again.

 

You all have mostly been doing a great job with interesting and sometimes "touchy" subjects.  Let's keep that up!  

[Dani-Ellie]

And this is the exact problem I see with hiding "we want our ship" behind representation and diversity rhetoric. Do I have any doubt that some of the Swan Queen fans really would like to see more representation? Of course not. But those who just want Swan Queen and are couching it under "give us Swan Queen or you're homophobic asshats" I don't think really care about diversity and representation in this instance. They just want their ship on screen, and I'm sorry, but I don't see what they're doing as the way to get it.

 

At some point, those particular fans are going to have to accept that the show is just not going to do certain things the way they want, because you know what? That's life. I've certainly had to deal with the fact that this show has completely and totally dropped the ball on the Charming Family (in my opinion). This show is not going to do their story the way I wished they would, which leaves me with two options: suck it up and deal with it by writing fic and discussing woulda coulda shouldas on the boards, or stop watching. Since I'm still here, it's obvious what I've chosen :), but I am not going to harass the writers and actors over it. A well-mannered tweet with "I wish we could have seen Plot Development X" is of course okay, but at a certain point, I had to accept that my vision doesn't match theirs and yeah it sucks for me, but I don't have to stick with if I really don't like it.

[angelwoody]

I've certainly had to deal with the fact that this show has completely and totally dropped the ball on the Charming Family (in my opinion). This show is not going to do their story the way I wished they would, which leaves me with two options: suck it up and deal with it by writing fic and discussing woulda coulda shouldas on the boards, or stop watching. Since I'm still here, it's obvious what I've chosen :), but I am not going to harass the writers and actors over it. A well-mannered tweet with "I wish we could have seen Plot Development X" is of course okay, but at a certain point, I had to accept that my vision doesn't match theirs and yeah it sucks for me, but I don't have to stick with if I really don't like it.

I wish we had gotten more of the missing year, less of scenery-chomping-MUAHAHA-monloguing Zelena, an explanation for Walsh's presence in NYC, better treatment of Lancelot by the writers, more varying body-shapes in the female cast and on and on...

 

Apparently, the only diversity that Once excels at seems to be the ability to disappoint so many different viewers in so many different ways.  :P

[Camera One]

I've certainly had to deal with the fact that this show has completely and totally dropped the ball on the Charming Family (in my opinion). This show is not going to do their story the way I wished they would, which leaves me with two options: suck it up and deal with it by writing fic and discussing woulda coulda shouldas on the boards, or stop watching. Since I'm still here, it's obvious what I've chosen :), but I am not going to harass the writers and actors over it. A well-mannered tweet with "I wish we could have seen Plot Development X" is of course okay,

 

I wish we had gotten more of the missing year, less of scenery-chomping-MUAHAHA-monloguing Zelena, an explanation for Walsh's presence in NYC, better treatment of Lancelot by the writers, more varying body-shapes in the female cast and on and on...

 

All these are legitimate concerns.  Unfortunately, I don't see Adam tweeting #MoreCharacterMoments, #ConsistentWorldbuilding or #EquitableDistributionofScreentime anytime soon.

[FurryFury]

On a lighter note, I've decided to look into Once's fandom on tumblr, and apparently, Swan Queen fans are planning a boycott and are going to stop retweeting the stuff about the show, stop watching it on TV, etc. Weren't they going to do the same back when "Good Form" aired?

I also stumbled on a priceless post that almost made me laugh out loud. The excerpts include "Hook was literally going to rape Mila" (really?) and "Adam confirmed that Regina did not rape Graham because she could only control him when she held his heart in her hand" (so this is their excuse? Daaamn). Although she wasn't 100% sure on the Graham thing, thank god. Oh, and Regina was abused by her husband, apparently.

I guess we're really watching two different shows.

[Dani-Ellie]

I guess we're really watching two different shows.

 

I find myself saying that a lot when I venture into the fandom at large. I much prefer this sane little bubble here. :)

Edited September 17, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[angelwoody]

 "Hook was literally going to rape Mila" 

Huh?  Granted I haven't watched those eps in a while and mileage varies, but I can't think of any instance where this was even remotely implied.

[Shanna Marie]

Granted I haven't watched those eps in a while and mileage varies, but I can't think of any instance where this was even remotely implied.

Yeah, didn't Milah talk about being in love with him even before she ran away with Hook? She was certainly enough in love with him when Rumple found them later to beg for Hook's life and for her last words to be to tell him she loved him, which doesn't sound like someone who was kidnapped and raped. The kidnapping and implied rape thing was their cover story for her running away (which I think is a little cowardly on her part, as it threw Hook under the bus and meant she didn't own her own actions, but I can see where she might have thought it would be easier on her husband and son if they didn't know she chose to leave them) and Hook's attempt to goad Rumple into seeing if he'd fight for his wife.

 

I generally refer to the rather drastic revisions of what happened on screen to suit a particular agenda as "special edition" viewers, where they apparently got a different version of the show than everyone else did where entirely different things happened.

 

As for Graham, Regina ripped his heart out of his body and ordered him sent to her bedchamber. It's kind of hard to put a positive spin on that.

[Serena]

And this is the exact problem I see with hiding "we want our ship" behind representation and diversity rhetoric. Do I have any doubt that some of the Swan Queen fans really would like to see more representation? Of course not. But those who just want Swan Queen and are couching it under "give us Swan Queen or you're homophobic asshats" I don't think really care about diversity and representation in this instance. They just want their ship on screen, and I'm sorry, but I don't see what they're doing as the way to get it.

Exactly. The writers have said 50 times that they are not gonna do SQ. Someone with a true desire for queer characters on Once would give up on that (I don't mean give up on shipping it, ship Emma and Grumpy if it makes you happy), because literally the only answer they are ever gonna get is "we love all our fans but we are not doing SQ". But there are many other things the writers haven't ruled out. If there were as much outcry for bringing back Mulan and giving her a love interest (Aurora or another female) as there is for SQ, I have no doubt that A&E would have already brought her back. I mean, they made Belle a series regular because of fan reaction, and it's fairly clear it was not in their original plan, so if those people clamoring for representation would give up insisting on canon SQ and give some attention to actual queer character Mulan, I'm pretty sure we'd have her back already.

 

Huh?  Granted I haven't watched those eps in a while and mileage varies, but I can't think of any instance where this was even remotely implied.

Hook implied he and his crew were gonna rape Milah in 204. I mean, he said they needed her for "companionship" and Rumple was under the impression she was there unwillingly, so he was pretty much telling Rumple they were gonna take advantage of Milah. IMO, to get Rumple to fight for her and stop being a coward. YMMV on his reasons for doing it, but it's also obviously a lie and Milah was there willingly and treated as basically a co-captain. So I guess if you only watched the first 25 minutes of "The Crocodile" and no other Once episode ever, you could get the impression that Hook raped Milah.

[shipperx]

As a fandom dinosaur, I find both nostalgia (oh, sweet summer children... fandom was dark and full of terrors) and horror in the concept that there was any way short of actual physical violence being done that the toxicity of the Buffy fandom could've been any worse than it actually was ( or in certain quasi-hidden calcified niches still is).   The only thing I can think of in fandom that has ever seemed substantially worse than the culture of name calling, ostracization, accusations, threats, hissyfits, and the writers' room ugly deliberate online fandom sh!t stirring (hey, David Fury!  And Stephen DeKnight's pants earn at least a "kitten jihad" shout-out) that were constant and ongoing in the Buffyverse fandom has been the possessiveness over Supernatural actors' personal lives by a subset of that show's fandom (with Fandom_wank tracking a number of occasions where that went so far over the line as to be creepy and disturbing).

 

I don't even try to locate Once's twitter or tmblr 'fandoms'.  After a couple of seasons, most online fandoms seem to go at least a little off their rockers (while others disassemble said rocker and start piecing together makeshift rocket launchers).  Fandom rarely seems to exist except to be a state of squee or seething hotbeds of raging disatisfaction.

Edited September 17, 2014 by shipperx

[ShadowFacts]

I think A&E have a bit of contrariness in their make-up, either individually or as a team.  They like to stir up a fuss.  They don't want to necessarily play by all the rules.  They know how to diversify a cast and a story, they worked on Lost.  That show had people from diverse countries and ethnicities, and it was not tokenism.  The characters had stories in flashback and the present which sometimes focused on their origins and mostly didn't.  It was organic and well-done in my opinion.  So they know how to do it, they just aren't doing it.  It was a little easier on Lost because the international flight with multi-racial/ethnic passengers was baked into the premise.  But with the fairytale world, they could have done it from the get-go and it would have worked, there are plenty of different kingdoms/realms they could pull in.

[FurryFury]

They were simple staff writers on Lost. Such things as origins/ethnicity of major characters wasn't up to them.

[ShadowFacts]

I think one or both of them were also producers, but regardless, they know how to do it, they just aren't. They know how an Iraqi soldier/torturer was taught the trade by the American military, how a Nigerian drug lord redeemed himself, how a Korean woman broke out of subservience to father and husband.  Likewise how an African-American father was just a struggling parent, a Hispanic guy from L.A. was loved by everybody, etc. etc.

[YaddaYadda]

Is this where the whole Hook is a rapist thing comes from? 

[FurryFury]

Is this where the whole Hook is a rapist thing comes from?

 

Not sure where it comes from originally, but shippers vilifying a character standing between their OTP is hardly new.

 

I think one or both of them were also producers, but regardless, they know how to do it, they just aren't. 

 

Maybe they know about it, but don't know how to write this in a fairytale setting? I mean, it's possible, but maybe that's just not what they considered the most important. Everyone has their priorities. I don't think forcing the writers to include diversity is the way to go (otherwise we may get Rapunzel and Tamara and Lancelot and Mulan...), it must come on its own. And if it doesn't, well, there are shows that are actually diverse, and probably more of them every year.

[Rumsy4]

They were simple staff writers on Lost. Such things as origins/ethnicity of major characters wasn't up to them.

 

I agree. LOST was the original vision of JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof. Carlton Cuse joined Damon soon after Abrams left, which was pretty early. While Adam and Eddy were part of the LOST team, I wouldn't give them credit for the overall vision or progress. IIRC, they wrote for Hurley a lot, and maybe for Sawyer as well? Being a producer doesn't mean much. Damon and Carlton were the showrunners.

 

While Adam and Eddy seem to have borrowed certain things from LOST (like the narrative structure), they had their own vision for the show (which was, were would the evil queen be able to get her Happy Ending). I bet things like diversity were not exactly in their radar. I mean, Grimm's Fairy Tales are very Euro-centric, after all. They probably were going for a primarily white cast. I feel that they did not even think through the long-term implications of stuff like Graham's rape, or coming across as anti-adoption, casting a latina as the Evil Queen, etc.. I feel like part of their scrambling to make Regina the goodest good ever is them trying to backpedal on some of these things. For example, having Henry tell Regina that he should never have brought Emma to Storybrooke, and that Regina always loved him was such horseshit, but they were trying to prove they were not anti-adoption (at least, IMO). 

 

That's not to say they can't add more diversity to future casting of guest and secondary characters, but as far as the core characters go, it's pretty locked-in at this point. We're in Season 4, after all. 

[Camera One]

Given the evidence of the first three seasons, it is not ability, but priority and lack of interest.  As Shadowfacts mentioned, the fairy tale premise of "Once" is perfect if showrunners were interested in exploring fairy tales, myths and stories from different cultures and settings.  It doesn't even necessarily have anything to do with culture.  Even with Oz, the writers had little interest in delving into the rich mythology and I'm not sure they went beyond rewatching the Judy Garland movie, if even that.  Have they even re-read Grimm's Fairy Tales?  I have my doubts.  Their interest is in crafting a plot-based story using action movie tropes with lots of twists and turns.  

 

In regards to "Lost", they were lowly writers, but it is interesting to see what they chose *not* to take with them.  In Season 1-4 of "Lost", Adam and Eddy would have been a part of the brainstorming sessions, where it was clear the intention was to give EVERYBODY in the cast story arcs, even supporting characters.  That would have been akin to providing Granny/Red, Gepetto, Grumpy, Blue and Archie with centrics into the third season.  "Lost" continued to provide character moments in the first couple of seasons, so it would have been inconceivable for major protagonists like Snow and Charming to be pushed to the background like they have been in "Once".  

Edited September 17, 2014 by Camera One

[ShadowFacts]

 

I don't think forcing the writers to include diversity is the way to go (otherwise we may get Rapunzel and Tamara and Lancelot and Mulan...), it must come on its own. And if it doesn't, well, there are shows that are actually diverse, and probably more of them every year.

 

Exactly, forcing isn't the way to go, tokens don't do much for the story (though I don't know if that's what all 4 of them were) it has to be done deftly, which they are choosing not to do.  For reasons known only to them I guess. 

[stealinghome]

So what are you trying to get at? Are you attempting to get me to expose myself as a TV viewing white supremacist by answering “No” to your hypothetical situation? Or wait, perhaps this is your way of recruiting for your own cause of milk white male TV exclusivity?

I think your response to my post makes the point I was trying to make: it would not be okay for TV to be 110% all white heterosexual guys between 25-35. Is that an extreme example? Absolutely. But just because a certain segment of the population--even a majority--might not care about having a TV landscape more diverse than that one extremely homogenous group of people doesn't mean that it doesn't behoove showrunners to aim to do better. I'll out myself here: I do, actually, believe that the media has a social responsibility to society at large (one that it all so often fails at--and here I count the Fourth Estate as well as "entertainment TV" in that failure, because I agree that journalistic standards have, let's say, fallen from where they used to be). I do think it's socially irresponsible for Adam and Eddie, for example, to say that Regina didn't rape Graham, because it reinforces very harmful cultural conceptions that "men can't be raped." I'm afraid that a preteen boy who watches 'Once' and read Adam saying Regina didn't rape Graham just got a very dangerous, harmful idea planted or reinforced in his head. I do think it's irresponsible for Adam and Eddie to sweep everything Regina has done to Snow under the rug of "they're family," because what that tells abuse victims watching this show is that they have to put up with the abuse if the abuser is a family member. And conversely, I do think it's socially irresponsible for shows to pretend that all that exist are straight white people. I fully admit I'm idealistic, and I understand that TV is driven by ad money and "target audiences" and focus groups and wtfever suits dream up. But I choose to hold the media to a higher standard because I do, fundamentally, think they wield a lot of cultural power and ought to do good with that cultural power. I don't, actually, think it would be that hard for many of them to do more good than they currently do.

 

And the answer to that is in all likelihood still "No", because you can’t please all the people all the time (which is a point I think bears repeating).

Sure, but I also don't think it removes from them to responsibility to incorporate at least some diversity. I'm not saying showrunners have to please everyone all the time, nor am I advocating for tokenism. I am saying I think they have a responsibility to think outside the very, very narrow boxes they often think in.

 

Is it important to every single person out there (literally 100%!) or just a vocal percentage of the entire population?

Yes, it is important to 100% of viewers. But not because they are conscious of this. Representation in media matters because it shapes our culture. It shapes the narratives we tell ourselves; it shapes how we interact with others. It shapes how others approach us. It shapes us as individuals and our relationships. I hate Twilight because I think it glorifies and casts as "romantic" stalker-y, abusive behaviors. And that matters to every single person in the US (if not the broader world) because Twilight, whether or not someone has ever read or seen it, writes a cultural narrative that says that stalker-y and abusive behaviors are romantic. It contributes to this country's huge domestic violence problem; it shapes and plants and reinforces harmful narratives in the minds of even people who are mostly unaware of it. It's teaching a subset of young adults that very dangerous and hurtful and warning sign behaviors are okay. That affects every person in this country! (Now, do I think in ten years a young domestic violence victim will say "But when Edward did it, it was so romantic!"? No. The correlation is never that one-to-one. The influence is far more subtle, and perhaps the more dangerous for it.) And that is why media matters to everyone, imo, even when they think it doesn't. Because even if it doesn't matter to me individually, it's going to shape the minds of the people I interact with throughout my life. It's going to write dominant narratives and set cultural norms that affect me whether or not I want it to or am cognizant of it. Which is why I hold the media to a higher standard.* (Not to get too off-topic, but another great example is the recent "If they gunned me down, what picture would they use?" meme. That's a great, great example of how media affects everyone whether they're conscious of it or not.)

 

*=and yes, I agree that media is as much reflective of our values as it is transformative of them. Twilight reveals, imo, several problematic things about our culture's domestic violence issue. But there's the rub, right: are you (the general amorphous "you") going to write something that says "stalking is romantic," or are you going to write something that says "stalking is not okay"?

Edited September 17, 2014 by stealinghome

[angelwoody]

I think your response to my post makes the point I was trying to make: it would not be okay for TV to be 110% all white heterosexual guys between 25-35. Is that an extreme example? Absolutely. But just because a certain segment of the population--even a majority--might not care about having a TV landscape more diverse than that one extremely homogenous group of people doesn't mean that it doesn't behoove showrunners to aim to do better. I'll out myself here: I do, actually, believe that the media has a social responsibility to society at large (one that it all so often fails at--and here I count the Fourth Estate as well as "entertainment TV" in that failure, because I agree that journalistic standards have, let's say, fallen from where they used to be). I do think it's socially irresponsible for Adam and Eddie, for example, to say that Regina didn't rape Graham, because it reinforces very harmful cultural conceptions that "men can't be raped." I'm afraid that a preteen boy who watches 'Once' and read Adam saying Regina didn't rape Graham just got a very dangerous, harmful idea planted or reinforced in his head. I do think it's irresponsible for Adam and Eddie to sweep everything Regina has done to Snow under the rug of "they're family," because what that tells abuse victims watching this show is that they have to put up with the abuse if the abuser is a family member. And conversely, I do think it's socially irresponsible for shows to pretend that all that exist are straight white people. I fully admit I'm idealistic, and I understand that TV is driven by ad money and "target audiences" and focus groups and wtfever suits dream up. But I choose to hold the media to a higher standard because I do, fundamentally, think they wield a lot of cultural power and ought to do good with that cultural power. I don't, actually, think it would be that hard for many of them to do more good than they currently do.

 

Sure, but I also don't think it removes from them to responsibility to incorporate at least some diversity. I'm not saying showrunners have to please everyone all the time, nor am I advocating for tokenism. I am saying I think they have a responsibility to think outside the very, very narrow boxes they often think in.

 

Yes, it is important to 100% of viewers. But not because they are conscious of this. Representation in media matters because it shapes our culture. It shapes the narratives we tell ourselves; it shapes how we interact with others. It shapes how others approach us. It shapes us as individuals and our relationships. I hate Twilight because I think it glorifies and casts as "romantic" stalker-y, abusive behaviors. And that matters to every single person in the US (if not the broader world) because Twilight, whether or not someone has ever read or seen it, writes a cultural narrative that says that stalker-y and abusive behaviors are romantic. It contributes to this country's huge domestic violence problem; it shapes and plants and reinforces harmful narratives in the minds of even people who are mostly unaware of it. It's teaching a subset of young adults that very dangerous and hurtful and warning sign behaviors are okay. That affects every person in this country! (Now, do I think in ten years a young domestic violence victim will say "But when Edward did it, it was so romantic!"? No. The correlation is never that one-to-one. The influence is far more subtle, and perhaps the more dangerous for it.) And that is why media matters to everyone, imo, even when they think it doesn't. Because even if it doesn't matter to me individually, it's going to shape the minds of the people I interact with throughout my life. It's going to write dominant narratives and set cultural norms that affect me whether or not I want it to or am cognizant of it. Which is why I hold the media to a higher standard.* (Not to get too off-topic, but another great example is the recent "If they gunned me down, what picture would they use?" meme. That's a great, great example of how media affects everyone whether they're conscious of it or not.)

 

*=and yes, I agree that media is as much reflective of our values as it is transformative of them. Twilight reveals, imo, several problematic things about our culture's domestic violence issue. But there's the rub, right: are you (the general amorphous "you") going to write something that says "stalking is romantic," or are you going to write something that says "stalking is not okay"?

But isn't that taking what should be diverse stories/ characters/ points of view/ etc., and just homogenizing them in a different way?  Everything has to be presented one certain way or it's failing at being "representative"?  

 

I don't turn my TV on to be preached to or even educated (all the time) and I don't know that I'm comfortable with the idea of some unelected, unappointed group of people trying to shape me when I'm just looking for (in the case of Once) mindless escapism.  

 

I'm not against diversity - I think it enriches stories to have lots of different points of view and ways to enter the world of a show.  I just don't necessarily see how every show can or should be mandated to be all things to all people all of the time.