Race & Ethnicity On TV

[Sparger Springs]

30 minutes ago, xaxat said:

I like UnReal because it's not just a parody of the dating genre. It's smart commentary on the gender and race issues that accompany those shows.

In the first season, there were two African American and a Hispanic candidate. Each of them was very self aware of how their race would play into the decisions of the bachelor and the producers of the show. The only "stereotype" was the black woman who chose to emphasize those aspects in a cynical, but rational, effort to get more airtime (knowing that she wouldn't win). 

If the second season is as smart as the first, there may be stereotypes, but they will be three dimensional and not caricatures.

I watched the first season too. I thought it was some nonsense and not exactly steeped in reality fake or otherwise. Not expecting much.

[Irlandesa]

7 hours ago, Sparger Springs said:

I watched the first season too. I thought it was some nonsense and not exactly steeped in reality fake or otherwise. Not expecting much.

People who actually worked on The Bachelor seem to think it was quite real.  I had some issues with it but I absolutely bought the producer machinations involved.  And that brings me to the fact that I'm not quite sure I get your original post.  Last season was very explicit in exposing how reality shows...or at least shows like The Bachelor try to pigeon hole racial minorities into stereotypes.  The black women on the show were flat out told by TPTB what roles  they'd have to play to get exposure.  The characters weren't the "characters" they played in the reality show.

[joelene]

I just binged a (what I thought) hilarious UK comedy called Chewing Gum, starring and written by a black woman. It's set on a council estate (I forget where in England, presumed London). The cast is probably 50/50 black and white but there's a wide variety of black characters. As a 32 y/o white gay man I loved it, and the only "stereotype" I'd say is Tracey's (the lead) mother, a highly religious woman, but she's so over the top and it seemed to be by design. I'd love to hear anyone's thought on it. It's silly fun but I laughed out loud a lot throughout the six episodes. Michaela Coel just won a comedy BAFTA for it and I believe it's been commissioned for a second series. 

[Trini]

On 5/4/2016 at 2:01 PM, Neurochick said:

An interesting point about black women in fandom.

I think this piece makes a similar point, but WAY less angry: 'A Witness for Abbie: How Genre TV Systematically Lets Black Women Down'

[Kromm]

So the Larry Wilmore White House Correspondents' Dinner "scandal" has really dug into some interesting issues. I'm 100% of Wilmore's side of this, and think a lot of people (of various races) have made total fools of themselves over this.  There was a first wave of outraged white people finger-wagging at Wilmore, and more recently I've seen a bunch of quotes from black journalists, furious at Wilmore, who's overall reactions seemed to be some kind of fear of what white colleagues will think of them.

 I'm curious how others feel. This is only partly an "on TV" thing, but because Wilmore himself is a TV star, that's where much of it is playing out (including interviews Wilmore has had to give on CNN and MSNBC to explain himself). 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Kromm

[Kromm]

Here's one recent interview. Interesting who its with--someone who really got on Wilmore's case for it:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/larry-wilmore-n-word-no-joke-n570136

[Ohwell]

If you have to 'splain and 'splain and 'splain, then it probably wasn't a good idea to say it or do it in the first place.  Go sit down, Wilmore.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Kromm said:

So the Larry Wilmore White House Correspondents' Dinner "scandal" has really dug into some interesting issues. I'm 100% of Wilmore's side of this, and think a lot of people (of various races) have made total fools of themselves over this.  There was a first wave of outraged white people finger-wagging at Wilmore, and more recently I've seen a bunch of quotes from black journalists, furious at Wilmore, who's overall reactions seemed to be some kind of fear of what white colleagues will think of them.

 I'm curious how others feel. This is only partly an "on TV" thing, but because Wilmore himself is a TV star, that's where much of it is playing out (including interviews Wilmore has had to give on CNN and MSNBC to explain himself). 

The part that is the scandal didn't concern me. You could tell that it was said with affection and appreciation of what the world was like when he and Obama were children to Obama being President.  But I admittedly have accepted that there are words that white people can not say, ever, because even if they were acceptable in context (and I can't think of an example of that) then the backlash would be such that no one would ever take it into account.  And that people that are part of that community can work out amongst themselves if the context changes the intent of the word and my life experience does not put me in a position to judge.  Honestly, there are words that have been reclaimed and have become mainstream and I will still not use them because they were hate words when I was young.

I think that the backlash Wilmore is getting is not really about the word.  Its about the speech but the word is more politically correct to complain about.  I read the transcript before knowing the exact nature of the scandal and it depressed me.  But the WHCD has always roasted a large segment of the audience.  The mistake Wilmore made is giving them an opening to hit back that wouldn't be received as being a poor sport and unable to take a joke.

Bringing it back to TV.  Its kind of amusing that an episode of Black-ish, when Jack gets expelled over a no tolerance policy for the same word, is playing out in the media.

[Kromm]

12 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

the WHCD has always roasted a large segment of the audience.  The mistake Wilmore made is giving them an opening to hit back that wouldn't be received as being a poor sport and unable to take a joke.

Do you really think that's how it's played out? To me this has made the Media people involved seem even more humorless and self-important than usual. Hypocritical, even, because most of them reacted with these holier-than-thou attitudes that had no aspect of analysis or pretense of objectivity to them. The white media people, who came out of the gate really fast, sounded like total assholes lecturing a black man about what he could or couldn't say to another black man. The black journalists, some who took a little more time to vent, wound up largely putting a context onto it that made it sound like what they cared most about was how it affected what people (mostly white people) thought of them. In the end while I wouldn't say they came off exactly as poor sports, what they did come off as was having really screwed up priorities. Upset because they don't feel they can stand on their own two feet among white competitors/colleagues if a word exists that they can say that Chuck down the hall can't. Well honestly, if Chuck down the hall was going to judge them for that, then they should probably go tell ol' Chuck to go fuck himself. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kromm said:

Do you really think that's how it's played out? To me this has made the Media people involved seem even more humorless and self-important than usual. Hypocritical, even, because most of them reacted with these holier-than-thou attitudes that had no aspect of analysis or pretense of objectivity to them.

I'll give you humorless self-important, hypocritical, and raise you disingenuous and completely failing in their journalistic duties and any standard they should be held to.  But yes, I do think that some of that is going on.  And this is why:

I read the transcript before seeing what the scandal was and it was completely transparent exactly why Wilmore said what he did at the end.  As I said, the sentiment was clear that Wilmore had affection and appreciation for President Obama's achievements and the word was to underline how far they had come and how many obstacles they had.  When I looked at Wilmore follow up explanations, his stated intent was exactly what I thought it was.

On general principle, I just find it preposterous to believe that the media's reason for outrage is that they felt the word was disrespectful to the President.  They would have no programming if disrespect to the President was an issue they had.  So there has to be a different reason for what they are doing.  It doesn't mean that what they are doing is right.  I just think it makes it more wrong, because they are wrong on the surface and they are wrong deep down in the places they don't talk about at parties.

I think they are responding to the general us vs. them tone of his speech and to the specific accusations about the lack of black journalists on their networks.  They can't win that fight and they know it so they decided not to play it.  But when Wilmore used the word he did, they saw an opening to go on a PC - attack and change the story.

That's all I got on my pop culture psychoanalysis of the news media.  Other than to say that I think the best commentary I've seen on the use of this word lately was an episode of South Park and an episode of Black-ish.  Take that as you will.

Edited May 11, 2016 by ParadoxLost

[DearEvette]

So who actually is responsible for putting on the WHCD?  I know there is a WHCA and they ostensibly host the dinner, but the inclusion of the President would lead me to believe that the WHCA isn't wholly in charge and the White House has some power of veto.  I mean POTUS & FLOTUS could just not attend if the WH didn't agree with something.  They are under no obligation to do.  Hence, I would imagine on some level Larry Wilmore's jokes were vetted by the WH?   I mean, Obama didn't looked shocked or uncomfortable when the camera went to him after Larry was done.

I guess what I am getting at is... maybe LW's remark was said with Obamas blessing and he understood completely what Larry meant by it?

Last year Obama brought out Keegan Michael-Key in character as Luther, Obama's anger translator.  The very existence of a character like Luther is a comic take on a serious underlying issue with what is means to be a black man in power and taking on a role that white men have always viewed proprietarily as their own.  Folks, black folks especially, absolutely get why a character like Luther is both funny and a sharp commentary on racial politics.  And of course it was black comedians who get why a character like Luther would resonate.  Obama has had to tread a very fine line throughout his presidency.  Even in a such a position of power he could not give into displays of anger or emotion  because it would play into certain narratives.  Just like Jackie Robinson was specifically chosen to be the person to integrate baseball and knew how to react to the shit that came his way, Obama had to remain even keeled all the time. 

Obama bringing out Luther last year felt very pointed to me.  A way of Obama using it to bite right back in the only way he could.  Especially in a room where some of those journalists (and even some of the politicians) have spent the last eight years selling him to the American public as an unqualified "other" stopping short of calling him the N-word.  Luther is funny, and sharp and satiric.  And Obama is a politician after all and Luther was a very politic way for Obama to say "Yeah, I see y'all".  So to me Larry, his speech and his final remark is like a continuation of that Luther thing but with the veneer of a fictional character removed a little who got to call him that one thing, albeit affectionately, they couldn't.

Just a thought...

[Princess Sparkle]

On 5/11/2016 at 7:34 AM, DearEvette said:

So who actually is responsible for putting on the WHCD?  I know there is a WHCA and they ostensibly host the dinner, but the inclusion of the President would lead me to believe that the WHCA isn't wholly in charge and the White House has some power of veto.  I mean POTUS & FLOTUS could just not attend if the WH didn't agree with something.  They are under no obligation to do.  Hence, I would imagine on some level Larry Wilmore's jokes were vetted by the WH?   I mean, Obama didn't looked shocked or uncomfortable when the camera went to him after Larry was done.

 

This may have changed since Stephen Colbert did it, but when he performed, the President of the WHCA hired him (without knowing much about him), and from what it sounded like, the President didn't vet the speech before he went on stage.  I picked Colbert as the example, because that's the last time I remember this much "controversy" surrounding the speech.  However, to your point, I would guess Obama is a whole lot more tuned in pop culture and the types of jokes Larry Wilmore would do; I can't say the same for Bush.

 

On 5/10/2016 at 5:28 PM, Ohwell said:

If you have to 'splain and 'splain and 'splain, then it probably wasn't a good idea to say it or do it in the first place.  Go sit down, Wilmore.

But Larry Wilmore isn't the one rehashing it over and over; he briefly addressed it on his show the day after, and as far as I can tell, hasn't spoken about it since.  

Edited May 12, 2016 by Princess Sparkle

[xaxat]

The press corp may have been aghast at Wilmore's comment. But I doubt the President was. He said this (a reference to De Blasio and Clinton's CPT "joke") in his speech, "I do apologize. I know I was a little late tonight. I was running on CPT, which stands for jokes that white people should not make. "

He gets it.

[Kromm]

1 hour ago, Princess Sparkle said:

But Larry Wilmore isn't the one rehashing it over and over; he briefly addressed it on his show the day after, and as far as I can tell, hasn't spoken about it since.  

I agree with you that Wilmore is in the right here, but that's actually not true. He's done at least two interviews (including the one with Al Sharpton I linked to) which were after what he said on his show and which were specifically him talking about this. 

That said, I don't understand OHWELL's point of view that Larry isn't allowed to explain himself. Is the idea that he's just supposed to turn down interview requests and deflect questions about this?

And any notion that it should be self-evident, or don't bother explaining, is insulting on other levels as well. The whole reason behind the comment WAS so people would talk about it. The "problem" being addressed here is the idea that anything is automatically so verboten that you just squash it reflexively, totally ignorant of the context, and march out that wagging finger. I'm not quite sure if Larry realized how totally this would expose what fools a lot of people are (including, unfortunately some black journalists), or if he just thought it might launch a think piece or two, but the first situation is what he got. And that demands discussing it rather than just allowing the finger wagging to be the default conversation on this.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Kromm

[Ms Blue Jay]

I thought Larry Wilmore did a great job.  It was funny seeing everyone's stunned reactions.  I admire him a lot, but I admit I've never gotten into his show.  I should try again.  It's the same thing with John Oliver, I'm absolutely head over heels for the guy but never got into his show.  

I *LOVE* UnReal.  I am EXTREMELY excited for Season 2 and the black Bachelor who will be played by B.J. Britt.  We have to remember that in 19 seasons of the "REAL" Bachelor, they have NEVER had a black Bachelor.  This is a big deal even though the show is fictional.  It is groundbreaking and it is yet another instance of UnReal completely showing up the real "Bachelor" franchise.  Now - UnReal isn't perfect, but it's extremely addictive, soapy in the best way, and some of the acting (by Shiri Appleby, for example) is amazing.  Master of None, Jessica Jones, and UnReal were my favourite shows last year.  I'm very pumped.

I don't know the racial makeup of the writers' room, but like other posters have pointed out, they are well aware of the racial stereotypes that may play out on these reality shows and how women and people of colour (and single mothers, and people with mental health issues and eating disorders, etc. etc. etc.) are exploited for ratings.  The people IN CHARGE who perpetrate these stereotypes for ratings are portrayed as soulless - in my opinion it's a fair commentary.  One of the exciting elements of the show is how it pulls the curtain back on reality television in general - showing how the people who are on these 'reality' shows are used and abused, like objects, to further the franchise's goals.  

(edited to clarify, the people in charge)

Edited May 11, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Epeolatrix]

I really don't understand why this is a thing. Yes, it was a daring thing to say, but there has always been in-group word usage. You'd think people who made their livings with words would have a sense of nuance when it comes to language.

[joelene]

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2016/may/01/michaela-cole-interview-bafta-tv-people-think-i-am-fearless

Nice article from Michaela Coel of Chewing Gum about black people on television, writing her own show and more.

[AimingforYoko]

Kurt Sutter has rare moment of self-awareness.

The money quote:

Quote

“I wanted to find a strong, unique Latino voice,” New Jersey-born Sutter said. “Because I didn’t think a white guy from Jersey should be writing about Latin culture and traditions. Elgin is that voice.”

Hey Hollywood, if Kurt Sutter gets it....

[Betelnut]

There is a new show about vets on Nat Geo Wild (or Animal Planet?) starring two AA animal doctors, called The Vet Life.

[Bastet]

Quote

There is a new show about vets on Nat Geo Wild (or Animal Planet?) starring two AA animal doctors, called The Vet Life.

Animal Planet.  I was watching Dr. Jeff and My Cat From Hell last night and saw numerous promos for it.  It premieres Saturday June 4th.  And they talk about race; in one clip, one of them comments on how many people (including his wife, when he met her) have said to him, "Oh, wow, I've never met a black veterinarian."

[xaxat]

I like time travel stories. I like diversity on TV. I like that this promo for NBC's upcoming time travel show Timeless addresses the fact that combining the two might not be the smoothest thing. 

*Crosses fingers hoping the show is actually good.*

[Rick Kitchen]

Wow, that looks interesting.

[xaxat]

I agree with you about the jail scene. If that's going to be the way the show goes I won't be on board for long. But I do like the earlier acknowledgement that romanticization of the past is primarily for white (male) individuals.

[topanga]

8 hours ago, nosleepforme said:

 

I thought the race issue in the trailer was addressed in the most hokey, cringe-worthy way. Maybe it plays out better in the actual episode.

Yes, some of the writing isn't great. But I'll still give it a shot. I loved the quote, "I am black. There's is literally no place in American History that is awesome for me."

I wonder, though, if the Hindenburg will be the season-long story arc? How will they maintain viewers' interest over several episodes. 

[Kromm]

9 minutes ago, topanga said:

Yes, some of the writing isn't great. But I'll still give it a shot. I loved the quote, "I am black. There's is literally no place in American History that is awesome for me."

I wonder, though, if the Hindenburg will be the season-long story arc? How will they maintain viewers' interest over several episodes. 

That's not hard to do with a Time Travel show. You literally have a new situation leading to a new story each week, then back it with an uber-plot that's a serialized one. I actually think the Hindenburg is likely just the story of the week for the pilot episode. It's not a large enough event to be absolutely crucial to history, short of someone having inside knowledge perhaps that someone who died might have had a major impact on the world if they'd lived. 

I do worry that the number of plots for the black character are as limited as he himself predicts. There are a few variations, but basically it's always going to be him being perceived as uppity, causing a dangerous situation, and them getting him out of it.

This is not to blame the writers. I mean what would we think if the cast ducked diversity totally? But actual history puts the character in a box that's hard to escape.

[Kromm]

I'm sure already we're going to get that one super-cliched "Harlem in the 1920s" plotline too (aka "The Harlem Renaissance" aka "The New Negro Movement"... and yes that last one was what it was actually called for a long time) . It's the inevitable place to try and give the character something else to do, albeit one we've seen a million times already elsewhere. 

Of course we're also going to get at least one, possibly multiple, slavery episodes, and I'm also calling a Jim Crow/Civil Rights Era episode too.  It's going to be potentially cringe-worthy mostly in that it's so easy to predict how the show is going to play the guy's modern sensibilities vs. those times. And they're trapped too, the writers, because you can't play him passive either. The only thing I can hope is that they have a way to channel the character's outrage, his distress, and his actions, in a way that's a little off-kilter, a little unexpected. 

You know what I'd try if I was writing it? I'd have him be presumptive, and wrong, about something in the past. Not about a white character in the past, though, but a black one. Someone he thinks, and acts, like is a passive pushover who shows some unexpected strength. The lesson being about judging people in the past with a bit of modern arrogance.  

Edited May 16, 2016 by Kromm

[Neurochick]

The problem with that show idea is that it's been done before.  Why not go AHEAD in time, now that would be interesting.  There was a show in the 1990's called Time Trax, and it took place in the twenty second century, which was interesting because white people were the minority and everybody called them "blancos" or something like that. 

[Kromm]

2 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

The problem with that show idea is that it's been done before.  Why not go AHEAD in time, now that would be interesting.  There was a show in the 1990's called Time Trax, and it took place in the twenty second century, which was interesting because white people were the minority and everybody called them "blancos" or something like that. 

Legends of Tomorrow has done the future. Continuum I believe has to some degree. Arguably The Sarah Connor Chronicles, although both that and Continuum spend most of their time in the present.  True none of them have really centered a story around race, so I guess there's still an opportunity there. We actually don't even know if Timeless only will operate in the past. Most shows do and build some rule that they can't go past their origination point. But we don't know for sure yet. All we know for sure is that they start out going to 1937, and not much more.

[Kromm]

You know really the more I think about it the more the Hindenburg kind of sucks as a plot point. I mean do you guys know how many people died? Only 36--and that includes ground crew. More people die in normal building fires, or train derailments, or something really mundane like that. We see that big explosion in archive footage and the panicked voiceover and react emotionally, but 2/3rd of the people survived. 

[xaxat]

I get the impression that their job with the Hindenburg is to make sure the event happens. To prevent unwanted downstream changes.

Like the classic Trek episode The City on the Edge of Forever.

It looks like this is going to be another role where Matt Frewer 

Spoiler

plays a visionary scientist who meets an unfortunate end. Along with Orphan Black and The Knick

[cynic]

3 hours ago, topanga said:

Yes, some of the writing isn't great. But I'll still give it a shot. I loved the quote, "I am black. There's is literally no place in American History that is awesome for me."

I wonder, though, if the Hindenburg will be the season-long story arc? How will they maintain viewers' interest over several episodes. 

I love that line too. The jail scene, not so much. I'm in though, hokey or not. I love time travel stories and I appreciate that this one does have diversity and isn't skirting it, albeit imperfectly. Plus, Lem! I miss Better Off Ted so much.

[paulvdb]

Speaking of black people time travelling to the past, there is also one in the new Fox midseason comedy Making History. In that series they travel to the American Revolution.

And a while ago there was also some discussion here about black women on tv. Kylie Bunbury plays the main character in the new Fox midseason series Pitch about the first female pitcher in Major League baseball.

[LydiaMoon1]

Speaking of Pitch, the trailer hooked me as soon as I saw the scene of two black women having a deep conversation and sharing their feelings, signaling that they are close friends.  I'm SO glad that I've lived long enough to see multiple shows on TV where black people actually get to have black friends (sometimes without white people even being in the room)!  I'm astonished.

[jhlipton]

On 5/16/2016 at 11:07 AM, Kromm said:

You know really the more I think about it the more the Hindenburg kind of sucks as a plot point. I mean do you guys know how many people died? Only 36--and that includes ground crew. More people die in normal building fires, or train derailments, or something really mundane like that. We see that big explosion in archive footage and the panicked voiceover and react emotionally, but 2/3rd of the people survived. 

The destruction of the Hindenburg killed travel by dirigible as a plausible option.  No matter that it was the paint on the outside that caused the disaster more than the hydrogen inside, the price of helium blimps did in the classic steampunk scene.

[xaxat]

This is by no means a comprehensive list, but here are some trailers for fall broadcast network shows featuring POC. First up, Fox.

24:Legacy. The new "Jack Bauer" is black.

Lethal Weapon with Damon Wayans in the Danny Glover role. Pass.

Star, from Lee Daniels

Shots Fired

And the previously mentioned Pitch.

[xaxat]

ABC.

Shondaland does Elizabethan England. I like the looks of this one.

Maggie Q and Kal Penn in Designated Survivor.

This one is a bit strange.

[xaxat]

NBC has the previously mentioned Timeless and Emerald City, an Oz inspired tale with a Hispanic woman as Dorothy.

CBS inverts the racial premise of the movie Training Day. Katrina Law is also on the cast.

[jhlipton]

Shots Fired, Time After Time and Training Day all sound like they should be limited (13 episodes max) series.  Time After Time in particular -- how many times can Welles fail to catch Jack?

I'll definitely watch Still Star-Crossed, Star and Pitch and give the other a look-see.  The shows with female black leads will have more going for them than those without.

[cynic]

CBS says shows are 'more diverse' despite criticism

Sure, okay.

[paulvdb]

I haven't really checked out the new CBS shows because they tend to not make shows that I'm interested in, especially their dramas. I currently watch three of their sitcoms (Big Bang Theory, Mom and Life in Pieces) and of the top of my head Raj on TBBT is the only regular POC character on those shows. So it wouldn't take much for them to become more diverse.

[paulvdb]

I just realized that I forgot that Supergirl was also on CBS (but is moving to the CW). With James and Hank they had more POC regulars than the three sitcoms combined.

[Demented Daisy]

The Odd Couple has Yvette Nicole Brown and Wendell Pierce.

Two Broke Girls has Garrett Morris and Matthew Moy.

[proserpina65]

4 hours ago, paulvdb said:

I haven't really checked out the new CBS shows because they tend to not make shows that I'm interested in, especially their dramas. I currently watch three of their sitcoms (Big Bang Theory, Mom and Life in Pieces) and of the top of my head Raj on TBBT is the only regular POC character on those shows. So it wouldn't take much for them to become more diverse.

Mom did have Octavia Spencer, but I guess she was more of a recurring guest star for the first couple of seasons rather than a regular.

[xaxat]

CBS reminds me of the Republican party. They have a very reliable, older, white base of viewers they are going to work like hell to keep no matter how the demographics of the country are changing.

[DearEvette]

Even when they are "diverse" it is still overwhelmingly men. I think when they do a diversity pie chart, that teensy sliver that represents WOC is basically Lucy Liu.  LOL.

[Rick Kitchen]

Rocky Carroll, who is the boss on NCIS, is African American.

LL Cool J is on NCIS: Los Angeles. Daniela Ruah is Sephardic Jewish Portuguese. Miguel Ferrer is half Puerto Rican.

CCH Pounder is a regular on NCIS: New Orleans

[Kromm]

7 minutes ago, Rick Kitchen said:

Rocky Carroll, who is the boss on NCIS, is African American.

LL Cool J is on NCIS: Los Angeles. Daniela Ruah is Sephardic Jewish Portuguese. Miguel Ferrer is half Puerto Rican.

CCH Pounder is a regular on NCIS: New Orleans

I think the problem is that while there are indeed POC on CBS, they're not the lead characters (to my recollection, although I've only watched the show like once, not even LL Cool J,right?). Even ensemble shows (a lot of the CBS shows are that) have characters that are white males generally as the main POV. I mean take Hawaii Five-O. A mostly Asian cast, but the main character is white. A necessity based on the source material (it's predecessor show), admittedly, but it's just one example of many. 

And what all of the networks love to do (not just CBS) is Tokenize the boss characters on their procedurals. Almost any given law enforcement agency is apparently most likely to hire a slightly older African-American as the boss, and the problem with that is subtle, so it escapes the wrath of most people.. It gives a surface impression of the show being diverse, but those characters almost always act precisely like each other, and tend to follow the same beats and arcs. 

I suppose they do feel burnt a bit when they do try and break that mold and it fails though. I could see some suit at CBS looking at the total failure of their Rush Hour reboot and mis-attributing it to who and what the lead was rather than the fact that it was a crappy, badly done unnecessary reboot. And that may well happen again with Training Day. I mean again, look where they went with their attempt at a diverse lead... into another old property nobody may have any interest in seeing redone in a (likely) inferior form.

I almost think they need some star power. Maybe the day will come when lets say... Denzel Washington may be tired of doing movies and want to do TV. Cast him in the lead of a decently considered original drama, it stands a reasonable chance of good ratings. One problem could be that most of the crop of the best black actors (the men at least) are too old now to play leads. The others (lets say Jamie Foxx, Don Cheadle, Washington, Will Smith, Idris Elba, Omar Epps) are all busy doing other things--network TV won't be on their radar (Cheadle has his cable show though, and Elba is on TV in the UK, which isn't as fucked up with these issues as the US is). I don't think what exists in the US for black actors is what definitely exists for white ones--a whole class of "TV stars" who operate somewhat separately from the movie stars. If you're a black actor you tend to either be totally unknown (which includes supporting roles on TV) or you make the jump to movies. Oddly enough I do think this only applies to male actors--to me the situation seems to have developed (at least in recent years) a bit differently with black female actors. Like with white female actors, the relief for getting a bit too old for getting cast in movies seems to be TV. So you get Halle Berry, Viola Davis, Regina King... ladies like that (although you can attribute at least some of that to Shonda Rhimes). I guess Empire, of Fox, is the big exception to all of this though.

I actually wonder why Empire hasn't spawned more clones. You'd think the other networks would have taken a shot at cloning it. I guess there was that Power show even before that, but that was on Starz, not network TV.

[Rick Kitchen]

Actually, LL Cool J is pretty much a co-equal lead.

[proserpina65]

Quote

I think the problem is that while there are indeed POC on CBS, they're not the lead characters (to my recollection, although I've only watched the show like once, not even LL Cool J,right?).

LL Cool J is co-lead on NCIS: Los Angeles.  The rest do seem to be more supporting characters.

[paulvdb]

I mentioned Fox's new midseason series Pitch earlier in this thread. Apparently it was well received it the upfronts and Fox wanted to air this series about baseball during the baseball season. So they moved it from the spring to the fall schedule.