Race & Ethnicity On TV

[methodwriter85]

On 1/20/2022 at 11:59 AM, Ms Blue Jay said:

There was controversy surrounding the third episode from this season, “Kimmy Goes to a Play!,” which involved the use of yellow-face and the name of a group of Asian-Americans who were critical of yellow-face. The group is referred to as "Respectful Asian Portrayals in Entertainment", or "R.A.P.E" for short. The Asian-Americans shown protesting against yellow-face in the episode are conveyed as unlikable buffoons.

I remember it was treated as a teachable moment, where the protestors are moved by how good Titus was as an Japanese geisha and how respectful of the Japanese culture he was, making them realize that they were wrong. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by methodwriter85

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 2/1/2022 at 3:09 PM, Luckylyn said:

This conversation is making me think of how the media and some fans assumed that when Coach returned to New Girl then Winston would have to leave as if there was some rule about how many black men were allowed.  

New Girl Cast Recalls Racist Questions About Winston & Coach

Interestingly, New Girl is rumoured to be that show that didn't hire Parminda Nagra because they already had an Indian woman on the show, that being Hannah Simone.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56915260

https://www.unilad.co.uk/film-and-tv/bend-it-like-beckham-star-rejected-from-tv-show-as-they-already-had-an-indian-person/?source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR27B1DW48z7f89MIewP_i4-1wtkhRHbhlTqcXcZQAL9mVT3hJ83jYq71Is

Quote

I remember asking to go for a job because an actress basically left – it was a well-known TV show here. I remember phoning my agent and I went, ‘Do you think maybe you could just suggest me? The character is very non-specific in terms of family and between 35 and 40 [years of age].

And the word that came back was that they’ve already got an Indian person on the cast.

I went, ‘Yeah but I’m completely different to that person’. Is that ever gonna happen when you say that, ‘No we’ve already got a white person on the show’?

The person who left could have been Zooey.  Zooey was pregnant with her child and temporarily left the show, and they hired Megan Fox to replace her.

I have to admit that a lot of the parts fit.

The only iffy thing is that Megan is only turning 35 now, and was 30 when she was on New Girl.  But when do television execs ever have a problem hiring a woman too young for a role?

Edited February 4, 2022 by Ms Blue Jay

[Danny Franks]

Well, there's a reason the one black character in South Park is called Token Black.

If it was New Girl, I guess we should be glad that they didn't consider people of Iranian origin being too similar to Indians, or we wouldn't have had Nasim Pedrad as Winston's partner.

The sad thing is, I think Lamorne and Damon actually look less like each other than Jake Johnson and Max Greenfield do (and they don't look similar).

Speaking of that show, Zooey, Hannah and Lamorne have started a podcast about it, and there are some interesting titbits about the casting. Apparently they wanted to cast Lamorne to begin with, but he took an offer from another show and then Damon became available. But after the pilot, Lamorne's show wasn't picked up and Damon's was.

 

[Ms Blue Jay]

Jake and Max were actually very shocked that they were both hired for the show and tried very hard to look differently from one another.  They talk about this on YouTube, they did some cute friend chats in the beginning days of quarantine.

Brooklyn 99 is a show that obviously didn't care about shit like this.  Two Black men in the main cast, two Latina women in the main cast.  I remember when the show premiered thinking how cool that was.

Damon's show was Happy Endings, obviously.  He also had a cute show after that called Happy Together that only lasted one season.  Another show that I wish lasted longer was Marlon - Marlon Wayans' family sitcom.  A Black show that I thought was very good but only lasted two seasons.

Edited February 5, 2022 by Ms Blue Jay

[Anduin]

So there's a Lord of the Rings TV show on the horizon, and we've entered the promo/hype cycle. Which, sadly, means a lot of people are posting ugly comments about the ethnicities of the actors. On the face of it, if you've read the books and seen the movies once or twice, you may think non-white actors are inappropriate for anything related to LOTR. Coming up, we have Sophia Nomvete and Lenny Henry are black English, Ismael Cruz Córdova is from Puerto Rico, and Nazanin Boniadi is Iranian. That's just some of them. There are more.

Yes, the White Council are good. Yes, the Dark Lord Sauron is bad. But Saruman the White goes bad. Sauron is not literally dark. Orcs were inspired by the worst Asian stereotypes, but more Mongol invaders than 20th century Asians. The Haradrim are African analogues, but it's said that Sauron had been working to turn them evil for a long time.

However, the deeper you dig, the more you're rewarded. Tolkien was not racist. He was a product of his time and upbringing, and suffered from what I would consider blind spots. If everyone acts like something is right, no one questions it, then how are you to know better? Especially if your natural inclinations don't lean in that direction? He genuinely was interested in the history and mythology of north-west Europe.

I like to think that if he was writing these days, he'd be rather more aware of these kind of things. He showed some awareness of his issues here and there, but never got around to making major strides towards fixing them.

However, he was pretty firm on his views of the Nazis. A corruption of what Germany was about. They needed removing, but he was sad about the anti-German propaganda that circulated. Two summaries of letters on the matter. And furthermore, it's sad that a lot of people online have been looking to Tolkien as justification of their own narrow-minded beliefs. He would have had utter contempt for modern racists.

Part of this was cribbed from the Wikipedia page, and I've seen other things here and there that I can't quite source.

I'm not going to force you to like something, but maybe don't be put off by second or third-hand sources. Especially the more outrage clickbait articles. Try it for yourself.

[xaxat]

I am always fascinated by people who argue "Well actually, we know that Elves are historically white." and "Wow, dragons rule!"

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Anduin said:

However, the deeper you dig, the more you're rewarded. Tolkien was not racist. He was a product of his time and upbringing, and suffered from what I would consider blind spots. If everyone acts like something is right, no one questions it, then how are you to know better? Especially if your natural inclinations don't lean in that direction? He genuinely was interested in the history and mythology of north-west Europe.

At what point does a “product of his time” stop being a defense? Lord of the Rings was published in 1954 and plenty of people weren’t acting like it was right and were questioning race issues. There were ways to know better. The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913. The NAACP was founded in 1909. 

I’m not saying Tolkien was racist. I don’t know enough to have an opinion on that but I feel like the “product of the time” argument ignores the fact that a lot of people were pointing out the problems at the time. It’s rare to find a instance where there weren’t people upset at the time. 

2 hours ago, xaxat said:

I am always fascinated by people who argue "Well actually, we know that Elves are historically white." and "Wow, dragons rule!"

Me, too. It’s like when a bunch of racists were pissed that Ariel was going to be black and tried to argue that scientifically she would be white. It’s an absurd for the whole mythological creature aspect and also wrong scientifically. 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Guest

[Zella]

1 hour ago, xaxat said:

I am always fascinated by people who argue "Well actually, we know that Elves are historically white." and "Wow, dragons rule!"

I've never gotten over how many people wanted to argue over the historical accuracy of Game of Thrones. LOL Like, just because elements of it are based on medieval history doesn't make it actual history.  

[Anduin]

3 hours ago, xaxat said:

I am always fascinated by people who argue "Well actually, we know that Elves are historically white." and "Wow, dragons rule!"

Have no fear. While I'm in the dragons rule category, I'm in favour of any colour elves. :)

3 hours ago, Dani said:

At what point does a “product of his time” stop being a defense? Lord of the Rings was published in 1954 and plenty of people weren’t acting like it was right and were questioning race issues. There were ways to know better. The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913. The NAACP was founded in 1909. 

I’m not saying Tolkien was racist. I don’t know enough to have an opinion on that but I feel like the “product of the time” argument ignores the fact that a lot of people were pointing out the problems at the time. It’s rare to find a instance where there weren’t people upset at the time. 

Me, too. It’s like when a bunch of racists were pissed that Ariel was going to be black and tried to argue that scientifically she would be white. It’s an absurd for the whole mythological creature aspect and also wrong scientifically. 

I see what you mean. I'm not even the best person to make this argument, just the one who wants a happy and non-racist Tolkien community.

Besides, and this may be quite a bad comparison, he was nowhere as bad as HP Lovecraft or Robert E Howard. In fact, I've been reading through some Conan recently, and seriously gritting my teeth in some parts. Though I suspect that de Camp is responsible for at least some of that.

Anyway, I like Tolkien but not racism, and have been doing my best to rationalise those two points ever since I became aware of them. Some days, when the worst people are out in force, it's hard. Please don't judge all Tolkien fans by the worst examples.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Anduin said:

Have no fear. While I'm in the dragons rule category, I'm in favour of any colour elves. :)

I see what you mean. I'm not even the best person to make this argument, just the one who wants a happy and non-racist Tolkien community.

Besides, and this may be quite a bad comparison, he was nowhere as bad as HP Lovecraft or Robert E Howard. In fact, I've been reading through some Conan recently, and seriously gritting my teeth in some parts. Though I suspect that de Camp is responsible for at least some of that.

Anyway, I like Tolkien but not racism, and have been doing my best to rationalise those two points ever since I became aware of them. Some days, when the worst people are out in force, it's hard. Please don't judge all Tolkien fans by the worst examples.

I completely understand and have the same issue with many of the books, tv shows and movies I love. Personally I try and acknowledge that everyone has biases that are racially based but that alone doesn’t make someone racist. So it is possible for Tolkien to not be a racist based on the circumstances he lived in and still have implicit biases which influenced his work in a way that was, and still is, hurtful to many. 

It sounds like if Tolkien was to write Lord of the Rings today it would be more diverse and that the “fans” who are angry missed the point of the story and are in no way representative of Tolkien. To me that’s often the key to if I can still love something after my eyes are opened to the problematic undercurrents. 

[arc]

The Hollywood Reporter has a round table of actors who are “blackfamous”: famous within the Black community but often much less so to non-Black audiences. 

Quote

Loretta Devine, Sheryl Lee Ralph, Wendy Raquel Robinson, Larenz Tate and Lynn Whitfield open up about the power and privilege of being legends among Black fans and how the new Hollywood landscape is making entertainment both less segmented and less intimate: "I want the whole world."

 

[Anduin]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

I completely understand and have the same issue with many of the books, tv shows and movies I love. Personally I try and acknowledge that everyone has biases that are racially based but that alone doesn’t make someone racist. So it is possible for Tolkien to not be a racist based on the circumstances he lived in and still have implicit biases which influenced his work in a way that was, and still is, hurtful to many. 

It sounds like if Tolkien was to write Lord of the Rings today it would be more diverse and that the “fans” who are angry missed the point of the story and are in no way representative of Tolkien. To me that’s often the key to if I can still love something after my eyes are opened to the problematic undercurrents. 

100% to both paragraphs! Thank you for making my point but shorter and more eloquently than I managed!

[Bastet]

10 hours ago, arc said:

The Hollywood Reporter has a round table of actors who are “blackfamous”: famous within the Black community but often much less so to non-Black audiences.

That was a great conversation, and it was nice to see how much fun they had sharing it together. 

I've enjoyed all those actors in many things, particularly Lynn Whitfield; I first saw her in a guest role on Cagney & Lacey, where she played the mother of a missing child, and they explored the fact he'd get more attention from police and media if he was white.  She was great, and then once I watched her in Heartbeat (a short-lived late '80s show I really wish had gone longer; it was about a group of female doctors who opened a healthcare center for women and also starred Kate Mulgrew and Gail Strickland), that was it - fan for life.

[Lugal]

On 2/11/2022 at 2:48 AM, Anduin said:

Yes, the White Council are good. Yes, the Dark Lord Sauron is bad. But Saruman the White goes bad. Sauron is not literally dark. Orcs were inspired by the worst Asian stereotypes, but more Mongol invaders than 20th century Asians. The Haradrim are African analogues, but it's said that Sauron had been working to turn them evil for a long time.

However, the deeper you dig, the more you're rewarded. Tolkien was not racist. He was a product of his time and upbringing, and suffered from what I would consider blind spots. If everyone acts like something is right, no one questions it, then how are you to know better? Especially if your natural inclinations don't lean in that direction? He genuinely was interested in the history and mythology of north-west Europe.

I like to think that if he was writing these days, he'd be rather more aware of these kind of things. He showed some awareness of his issues here and there, but never got around to making major strides towards fixing them

I remember reading somewhere that due to his religion, Tolkien did not like the idea that whole races/cultures were beyond redemption, leaving open the idea of not just good Haradrim but even good orcs.

And considering that he died a half century ago, I think it's unfair to hold Tolkien to our modern standards.  I think we have to keep in mind the standards of his time, not the best or the worst, just the average ideas of the community he was part of: a "cultured gentleman" of early 20th century England.  I think of the Dwarves-as-Jews example: he consciously flipped a lot of the "evil Jew" stereotypes of the day, which at the time was considered progressive, but today we can see there are still some troubling anti-Semitic stereotypes lurking underneath.

He had his blind spots, but I agree if he was writing today, I'm sure the stories would be different and he would be more aware of these things.

16 hours ago, Anduin said:

Anyway, I like Tolkien but not racism, and have been doing my best to rationalise those two points ever since I became aware of them. Some days, when the worst people are out in force, it's hard. Please don't judge all Tolkien fans by the worst examples.

There's a lot of writers and shows I love, but I'm hard-pressed to find anything from before the 90's without some troubling elements.  And unfortunately, fandom always has those worst examples (I've encountered racist Star Trek fans of all things!)

[Anduin]

25 minutes ago, Lugal said:

I remember reading somewhere that due to his religion, Tolkien did not like the idea that whole races/cultures were beyond redemption, leaving open the idea of not just good Haradrim but even good orcs.

And considering that he died a half century ago, I think it's unfair to hold Tolkien to our modern standards.  I think we have to keep in mind the standards of his time, not the best or the worst, just the average ideas of the community he was part of: a "cultured gentleman" of early 20th century England.  I think of the Dwarves-as-Jews example: he consciously flipped a lot of the "evil Jew" stereotypes of the day, which at the time was considered progressive, but today we can see there are still some troubling anti-Semitic stereotypes lurking underneath.

He had his blind spots, but I agree if he was writing today, I'm sure the stories would be different and he would be more aware of these things.

There's a lot of writers and shows I love, but I'm hard-pressed to find anything from before the 90's without some troubling elements.  And unfortunately, fandom always has those worst examples (I've encountered racist Star Trek fans of all things!)

Another post that make my point, but better than I managed! At this rate, I should outsource all my stuff to you and @Dani. It's not rewarding and the pay is terrible. Interested?

Bur racist Star Trek fans? Just what the complete and utter holy fuck? I mean, I can almost see where the Tolkien people are coming from, but Trek was consciously presenting a better and more harmonious world since the start.

[Lugal]

6 minutes ago, Anduin said:

Bur racist Star Trek fans? Just what the complete and utter holy fuck? I mean, I can almost see where the Tolkien people are coming from, but Trek was consciously presenting a better and more harmonious world since the start.

It was weird.  They insisted that the diversity was something Berman added in the 80s and not Roddenberry's vision.  Then people point out Uhura and Sulu were in the original, but they say that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were the only ones in the opening credits but they get real silent when everyone points out that Spock was an alien (and mixed-race, no less).

11 minutes ago, Anduin said:

It's not rewarding and the pay is terrible.

Sorry, if I wanted that, I'll just go back to working retail.

[Anduin]

5 minutes ago, Lugal said:

It was weird.  They insisted that the diversity was something Berman added in the 80s and not Roddenberry's vision.  Then people point out Uhura and Sulu were in the original, but they say that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were the only ones in the opening credits but they get real silent when everyone points out that Spock was an alien (and mixed-race, no less).

Sometimes people only see what they want to see. I suppose we're all guilty of selective blindness sometimes. But in the case of Trek, the sheer amount of blindness you need is amazing. I can't imagine I'll ever understand that mindset. Not that I even want to try, of course.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Anduin said:

Sometimes people only see what they want to see. I suppose we're all guilty of selective blindness sometimes. But in the case of Trek, the sheer amount of blindness you need is amazing. I can't imagine I'll ever understand that mindset. Not that I even want to try, of course.

True. I think it also speaks to the fact that what was diverse and progressive 50-60 years ago now resembles what racists view as the realistic ideal. Where BIPOC exist but know their proper place. Where white people are still in positions of power. They hold those worlds up as a static ideal and truly can’t see that the very creators the revere were on the forefront of change then and probably would be today. I see the same thing in the Marvel fandom. 

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Lugal said:

And considering that he died a half century ago, I think it's unfair to hold Tolkien to our modern standards.  I think we have to keep in mind the standards of his time, not the best or the worst, just the average ideas of the community he was part of: a "cultured gentleman" of early 20th century England.  I think of the Dwarves-as-Jews example: he consciously flipped a lot of the "evil Jew" stereotypes of the day, which at the time was considered progressive, but today we can see there are still some troubling anti-Semitic stereotypes lurking underneath.

He had his blind spots, but I agree if he was writing today, I'm sure the stories would be different and he would be more aware of these things.

As an extension of this I think it is also important to keep in mind that creators are not only influenced by the time period but are also constrained by it. It is very unlikely that we are seeing his ideal version. We are seeing the version that the publisher approved. Tolkien’s first book was published the year after Gone With the Wind which gives an idea of the system he was working within. Realistically, I am going to assume anything that is progressive at the time is still the watered down version of the creators vision. 

[Zella]

20 minutes ago, Dani said:

As an extension of this I think it is also important to keep in mind that creators are not only influenced by the time period but are also constrained by it. It is very unlikely that we are seeing his ideal version. We are seeing the version that the publisher approved. Tolkien’s first book was published the year after Gone With the Wind which gives an idea of the system he was working within. Realistically, I am going to assume anything that is progressive at the time is still the watered down version of the creators vision. 

As someone who has worked for a publisher, I'd just like to note that cuts both ways. Sometimes the publisher can dramatically reduce the crazy and obnoxious. Not saying that happened with Tolkien, but a publisher can do wonders for making an author look a lot less like an asshole than they are. Sometimes reining in their original vision is no loss to humanity is all I'm saying. LOL

Edited February 13, 2022 by Zella

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Zella said:

As someone who has worked for a publisher, I'd just like to note that cuts both ways. Sometimes the publisher can dramatically reduce the crazy and obnoxious. Not saying that happened with Tolkien, but a publisher can do wonders for making an author look a lot less like an asshole than they are. Sometimes reining in their original vision is no loss to humanity is all I'm saying. LOL

Sure but I’m just pointing out that in the time Tolkien was writing a book that met today’s standards on race would have looked crazy. Rarely are we seeing a 100% true representation of the authors beliefs. 

Just like if Gene Roddenberry had wanted a black man to play Captain Kirk it would have been a crazy idea. It order for something to make it to the point of mass consumption it has to adhere to societal norms somewhat.

[Danny Franks]

On 2/11/2022 at 9:48 AM, Anduin said:

So there's a Lord of the Rings TV show on the horizon, and we've entered the promo/hype cycle. Which, sadly, means a lot of people are posting ugly comments about the ethnicities of the actors. On the face of it, if you've read the books and seen the movies once or twice, you may think non-white actors are inappropriate for anything related to LOTR. Coming up, we have Sophia Nomvete and Lenny Henry are black English, Ismael Cruz Córdova is from Puerto Rico, and Nazanin Boniadi is Iranian. That's just some of them. There are more.

Some of the most racist things I've seen outside of subreddits that collate right wing 'humour' have been about the LOTR show. It shouldn't have shocked me, but it actually did. The Wheel of Time fandom has some dregs who pop up once in a while, but even that has paled in comparison to some of the stuff posted about the LOTR show.

As a fan of the fantasy genre, it makes me so sad that I have to share it with bigoted chuds who think the mere presence of a non-white person is offensive.

[Lugal]

On 2/13/2022 at 11:31 AM, Dani said:

As an extension of this I think it is also important to keep in mind that creators are not only influenced by the time period but are also constrained by it. It is very unlikely that we are seeing his ideal version. We are seeing the version that the publisher approved. Tolkien’s first book was published the year after Gone With the Wind which gives an idea of the system he was working within. Realistically, I am going to assume anything that is progressive at the time is still the watered down version of the creators vision.

I would agree, the time period is very influential on creators.  Tolkien's idea's crystalized in the early 1900s, when he wrote the first parts of what would become the Silmarillion.  And not only is much of his writing filtered through the publishers, but through his son Christopher, who'd published much of his material after his death.

Tolkien was a medievalist (having seen the worst of industrial civilization in WWI, I can't blame him) and he would have studied Victorian medieval scholarship of a lily-white Europe where no one moved around.  It wasn't until the late 20th century that the Victorian views were challenged and scholars discovered that Medieval Europe was much more diverse than previously thought.  It would be fun to see what the Middle Earth legendarium would have been like if Tolkien knew there had been Africans in Medieval England, and Native Americans in Iceland.

[Anduin]

In further Tolkien news, you know that quote that's floating around twitter, the one that's used to justify why the LOTR show will be terrible? "Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made.” Turns out, he never said that. It's a paraphrase.

As pointed out by Dr Sara Brown,

Quote

So I have noted with a mix of bemusement & amusement that responses to the @LOTRonPrime teaser trailer are getting bombed with the following quote: “Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made.” 1/

This is usually sent by people who claim to be ‘purists’ defending Tolkien from the ‘woke’. Unfortunately, the quote above is NOT actually from Tolkien at all. It comes from a website called TVTropes: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilIsSterile

So, not Tolkien at all. It seems to be a paraphrasing of something Frodo says in RotK: “The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own.”  My advice - if you are going to yell at people like me and tell us we are out to mess with Tolkien 3/

Then you might want to consider at least getting your own quotes correct. Perhaps read some Tolkien? Just a suggestion. End/

Imagine that! They're guilty of the very thing they're railing against! Can you believe it? Are you stunned? Kidding, of course. Of course you can, and of course you're not.

There's certainly room to have qualms about the series. I do. They aren't relevant here, they certainly aren't race related. But really, it's amazing how wrong some people get these things in order to justify their own narrow worldview.

[Trini]

At THR: 'How UPN Ushered in a Golden Decade of Black TV — and Then Was Merged Out of Existence'

Quote

UPN’s Monday night lineup for more than half a decade was “a golden era as it relates to Black presence on TV,” Farquhar says. “When we were shooting Moesha, you used to see all these Black kids who were starring in TV shows come over and hang on the set when they weren’t shooting, and those of us who were older would just remark that they didn’t know how special this was. That this had never happened before in the history of TV, period.”

 

[Spartan Girl]

In light of Ray Fisher’s accusations of how Joss Whedon screwed him over in Justice League, it’s hard not to side-eye the writing for Gunn in season four and five of Angel.

I loved Gunn. I always felt like he deserved better, and I especially feel that way knowing what we now know about Whedon and how he treats characters of color. The whole Gunn/Fred/Wesley triangle was obviously an allegory for Whedon’s “Nice Guy Nerd wins the Girl from the Jock Muscle” fantasy—not to mention how that storyline unfairly turned Gunn into the Angry Black Man Trope. He had the right to be mad at Wesley creeping on Fred! But oh no, they had to muddy the water by having Gunn accidentally hit Fred while rightfully giving Wesley the beat down he had coming. Ugh. 

That was bad enough. But what came in season 5 was worse.

Making Gunn an indirect cause of Fred’s death by Illyria was just wrong. It felt like it was punishing Gunn for enjoying his legal mind upgrade and wanting to be more than just the muscle. And to top it all off, it was implied he was the one character among the survivors that probably was going to die. (Yeah, I know what happens in the comics afterward, but I really don’t want to talk about it.)

Again, Gunn deserved better. I would have loved it if he went off with Faith, they had a great rapport together.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Hiyo]

Death by Illyria is my new band name.

[Mabinogia]

22 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

It felt like it was punishing Gunn

I'm starting to think that about 90% of Joss Whedon's output is his "punishing" the cool kids who wouldn't hang out with him in high school, the Jocks, the Pretty Girls, the Popular Kids all bow down before the almighty geeky Joss stand-ins. 

22 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Again, Gunn deserved better. I would have loved it if he went off with Faith, they had a great rapport together.

I would have watched that. I liked Gunn and while I didn't always like Faith, when she was paired with the right person she was good and yeah, her and Gunn worked well together. The could have done a cool supernatural crime fighting duo noirish thing. 

[Spartan Girl]

I actually thought Gunn and Fred were cute together until Whedon decided to ruin them for the sake of the Fred/Wesley endgame. He could have just left well enough alone, but noooooo…

He also could have left well enough alone when Wesley and Fred finally hooked up and Gunn by that point was over it. But dragging Gunn into the whole Illyria mess for drama’s sake was just pointless and a further insult to injury.

[Trini]

Just want to give a shoutout to Kung Fu (CW) and The Cleaning Lady (Fox), two dramas lead by Asian/Asian-American women, with majority minority casts. The shows are very different from each other, but both deal with themes of family and the minority experience. Also both have showrunners who are Asian-American women.

The Cleaning Lady finished its short first season already, but seems to have a good chance at getting renewed.

Kung Fu started their second season a few weeks ago, and has already been renewed for a third season. Season 2 is fairly easy to get into even if you haven't watched Season 1, if anyone wants to start watching.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Trini

[xaxat]

37 minutes ago, Trini said:

Just want to give a shoutout to Kung Fu (CW) and The Cleaning Lady (Fox), two dramas lead by Asian/Asian-American women, with majority minority casts.

Thank you for this info. I have to admit that I was quick to dismiss both shows. Kung Fu because I remember the original where a white guy was the lead and The Cleaning Lady because I jumped to a conclusion about the show based solely on the title.

[Trini]

34 minutes ago, xaxat said:

Thank you for this info. I have to admit that I was quick to dismiss both shows. Kung Fu because I remember the original where a white guy was the lead and The Cleaning Lady because I jumped to a conclusion about the show based solely on the title.

I can see why people would have certain expectations for Kung Fu since it is a remake of the original show (but only in some aspects); however, it really is its own thing, especially in Season 2.

As for The Cleaning Lady, whether for good or ill, there's so much going on outside of the title character's day job.

[possibilities]

The main character on The Cleaning Lady is a surgeon who works as a cleaner in the USA solely because of her immigration status. It's a messy show but it does highlight issues faced by undocumented people.

Kung Fu is way different than the original show. FOr one thing, the main character stays in one place and her family is a big part of her life. Also, they don't do as many "case of the week" stories, in favor of an overall arc. I kind of wish they did less of the arc and more COTW, to be honest. I find the villains on the show to be really annoying and I wish they'd do away with them and all the intrigue surrounding them, to be honest. But I really like other aspects of the show.

[xaxat]

I've only watched the first episode, but Ms. Marvel on Disney+ seems to be a delightful dramedy about a Pakistani American family. One of whom just happens to have super powers. 

[Hiyo]

‘Thank you BET. Zero nominations again’: Lil Nas X says he’s too queer for Black awards show.

[Cinnabon]

2 hours ago, Hiyo said:

‘Thank you BET. Zero nominations again’: Lil Nas X says he’s too queer for Black awards show.

I love him.

[andromeda331]

2 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

I love him.

Me too.

[Danny Franks]

On 6/9/2022 at 3:05 AM, xaxat said:

I've only watched the first episode, but Ms. Marvel on Disney+ seems to be a delightful dramedy about a Pakistani American family. One of whom just happens to have super powers. 

The comic book was pretty delightful. I haven't watched the first episode of the show yet, but Iman Vellani's behind the scenes and publicity stuff has been charming as hell.

Hasn't stopped the review bombs from sad little boys who can't stand protagonists who aren't white, straight males.

[Scarlett45]

On 1/10/2022 at 5:26 PM, Trini said:

A few in-development projects that might be of interest to this thread:

'‘Kindred’ Pilot Based On Octavia E. Butler Novel Picked Up To Series By FX'

-----

NAACP-CBS Venture Sets Slate

More info on the projects and quotes at the link.

I love Octavia Butler, but I really have to be in the right head space to read her stuff. It took me an entire summer to get through the Dawn, Adulthood Rites, and Imago.

I always thought those would make an excellent TV movie event. Like Lifetime does with their VC Andrews movies (one a week for a month). 

[akg]

On 6/8/2022 at 10:05 PM, xaxat said:

I've only watched the first episode, but Ms. Marvel on Disney+ seems to be a delightful dramedy about a Pakistani American family. One of whom just happens to have super powers. 

I loved this so much. I've really enjoyed the comics and getting to learn more about Kamala's family and their culture so seeing it on screen was very fun. I thought they did a great job of just showing her life without making a huge deal of FIRST MUSLIM PAKISTANI SUPERHERO which could easily have happened considering how well Hollywood handles anything "different".

This interview of Ms. Marvel by Trevor Noah is one of the cutest things I've ever seen. She's adorable.

[Cinnabon]

5 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

The comic book was pretty delightful. I haven't watched the first episode of the show yet, but Iman Vellani's behind the scenes and publicity stuff has been charming as hell.

Hasn't stopped the review bombs from sad little boys who can't stand protagonists who aren't white, straight males.

It’s so much fun to see them triggered, though. 🤣

[arc]

On 6/8/2022 at 7:05 PM, xaxat said:

I've only watched the first episode, but Ms. Marvel on Disney+ seems to be a delightful dramedy about a Pakistani American family. One of whom just happens to have super powers. 

Marvel really did the right thing hiring a Pakistani British woman as the head writer and Muslims and South Asians to direct all six episodes. Shows without authentic lived experience behind the camera can fail for so many easily avoidable reasons.

[Luckylyn]

Rider Strong: Boy Meets World Was 'Naive' to Avoid Addressing Interracial Relationship

They never addressed race as an issue but they did acknowledge it a couple of times in a casual way.  I remember Angela making a joke where no one laughed and her saying she needed more black friends in response.  There was a white history joke Angela made.  But otherwise race was treated as a non issue.  I do remember that Angela was almost removed from the show because angry racist letters but the cast fought to keep her.  I do also remembered that the actress playing Angela said that there was some mistreatment behind the scenes from her costars.

 Being iced out': Trina McGee opens up about racism she experienced on 'Boy Meets World'

Edited July 3, 2022 by Luckylyn

[Trini]

Speaking of Black actors speaking out about their on-set experiences; Candice Patton and Elliot Knight discuss their experiences dealing with microaggressions and lack of support in the entertainment industry in this new podcast: https://www.theopenuppodcast.com/podcast/episode/402d5221/candice-patton-on-quiet-abuse-in-tv-and-film-or-i-could-get-eaten-alive-out-here

There's a lot to comment on, but one thing that gets me is that things could be better for everyone, if everyone was treated better/equally.

[Trini]

'6 Black Women Showrunners On Sisterhood and Getting a Show on the Air'

Quote

... To combat these disparities, Black creators are building their own talent pipeline. Waithe and fellow showrunners Nkechi Okoro Carroll and Erika L. Johnson started a Black female television writers group in 2016 called Black Women Who Brunch. ...

Quote

TODAY interviewed Carroll and Waithe, plus Robin Thede, Leigh Davenport, Janine Sherman Barrois and Tracy Oliver, in separate Zoom interviews regarding how their sisterhood has become the most reliable option when looking to advance their careers and what aspects of their equity work Hollywood can start doing on its own.

[xaxat]

I am watching the show Industry, which is about Black American woman who is trying to navigate her way in the world of high end London finance. The main character is played by Myha'la Herrold and what I find really interesting is how her hair is part of her character.

In the first season, she is essentially a entry level apprentice straight our of college. She wears her hair in braids. Not unusual for a Black woman, but unusual for the world of finance. In the second season, she switches to a slicked back bun at work but wears her hair naturally off hours. And, at one point, her photo is featured in a corporate pitch deck and she is photoshopped as having a straightened hairstyle that makes her look 50,

It's not an explicit story, but it makes sense if you know about Black hair.

[Hiyo]

I thought it was an ensemble show focusing on various people working at a company in London?

[xaxat]

Large cast, but the character of Harper is central to the show.

If you like show like Succession and Billions, I recommend it.

Edited August 16, 2022 by xaxat

[DearEvette]

Awww... ABC aired a reunion special of the cast of the Brandy/Whitney Houston Cinderella.  It was a great look at the making and casting (and the importance of Brandy being cast) of the show.  Brandy, Paolo Montabaln, Victor Garber, Bernadette Peters, Whoopi Goldberg, Jason Alexander and the producers and other crew are talking heads.  There were also some clips of Whitney talking about it at the time.

It was a lovely look BTS and hearing what they all thought about it and how much affection they all still have for each other and of the filming of it.

This tweet also cracked me up:

[Trini]

From 2017, but relevant: 'It's Possible: An Oral History of 1997's "Cinderella"'

----

I mean, at first glance you might question the casting; but then you have Brandy, Whoopi, Whitney, and Bernadette Peters all in the same film looking fabulous, so you just go with it!