What TV SHOWS are you watching?

Maybe it’s just me and where I live, but seeing different races, or ethnicities, religious beliefs, sexualities, gender identities, etc. is just regular, everyday life. This stuff in movies and shows doesn’t strike me as pandering, it’s normal. It’s what I’ve always known, it’s what I’m surrounded by, it’s what I prefer.

The White Lotus season 2 concluded and I enjoyed it much more than the first season. I felt the smaller scope and cast was a better fit.

I enjoyed White Lotus as well. And I think you're right, season 2 was better due to it being more tight. I liked the hotel manager in season 1 more than the one in season 2.

Sagrilarus wrote:

mtagge wrote: but the argument that studios are using [diversity] to preemptively deflect from legitimate criticism of poor writing is starting to gain serious ground with me.

Where the fuck does that theory come from?

The example that brought it to my attention was Rings of Power. They led the marketing with the diversity of the cast. The showrunners went on several interviews within 24 hours of the first episode dropping every time the interviewer mentioned reviews that were critical of the show they accused those critics of being racist and that being the sole motivation for all negative reviews.

This was also done with She-Hulk and the technique was pioneered with the Star Wars sequels. They discovered that there will always be a small number of actual (and vocal) racist/misogynist/whatever, focus on those to paint everyone critical as a racist piece of human garbage. If you know your content will be sub-par, how else can a studio/director juice their reputation. As a bonus there is a certain segment of the market who will like it more for the diversity and be more predisposed to liking it (which is counter-productive in my mind because there will also be a, perhaps smaller, segment that dislikes it for being "woke").

Don't know why I'm responding though. Your opening with an expletive signals that you aren't open to considering that a showrunner might not just use unnecessary diversity as a preemptive shield for poor writing and directing, but front load a show (or promo material) with diversity to stifle discussion of quality. You must live in a different world than I if you won't consider that people from anywhere on the political spectrum would take advantage of a political situation for personal benefit.

n815e wrote: Maybe it’s just me and where I live, but seeing different races, or ethnicities, religious beliefs, sexualities, gender identities, etc. is just regular, everyday life. This stuff in movies and shows doesn’t strike me as pandering, it’s normal. It’s what I’ve always known, it’s what I’m surrounded by, it’s what I prefer.

Is that in response to my comment? I never said diversity was bad, I suggested that the showrunners front loaded a kids show with an overtly strong lesbian character as a way to head off criticism of sub-par writing. Kid appropriate shows don't lead with sexual content as a general rule.

I have no comment regarding the diversity/sexuality issues. I will say that Ep. 3 had a LOT of problems: continuity, character, logic, and just plain common sense.

I was kinda rooting for the show as a low-stakes, underdog rival to the two bigger fantasy shows released this year. Now I feel like the show runners are aggressively insulting my intelligence for caring. A show can be aimed at kids (and I'm not sure if this is) and still be intelligently written and directed (which I'm sure this isn't).

mtagge wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote:

mtagge wrote: but the argument that studios are using [diversity] to preemptively deflect from legitimate criticism of poor writing is starting to gain serious ground with me.

Where the fuck does that theory come from?

The example that brought it to my attention was Rings of Power. They led the marketing with the diversity of the cast. The showrunners went on several interviews within 24 hours of the first episode dropping every time the interviewer mentioned reviews that were critical of the show they accused those critics of being racist and that being the sole motivation for all negative reviews.

I would be more receptive to the conspiracy theory of "Woke Hollywood hates good writing!" if the chorus of predictable alt-right types hadn't started their bigoted bleating well before anyone had actually viewed a single episode. The typical rightwing Critical Drinker YT hate crowd just saw a black elf and proceeded to fill in all of the blanks on their own from there. And it's amusing how complaints of "bad writing" so often end with "and why do they need so many black lesbians?!??!?" (not going after you in particular, mtagge.)

It's a lesson I had to learn at one point: Not all media is for me. Not all stories are written to satisfy me. And that's okay. It doesn't signal some grand conspiracy involving Fauci and "the elites" and "wokeness" and pronouns and drinking the blood of aborted babies to fuel Hunter Biden's laptop. Sometimes it's just entertainment that isn't written for me. That's all.

I just can't imagine anyone in a Hollywood meeting room saying, "gee, our writing kinda sucks, let's put a black person in the show to protect ourselves." That's Cheetos logic.

That's just not how film or TV production works. Suggesting that an entire production decided before they've even cast anyone that the script isn't good enough so they'll have to come up with a more diverse cast to cover for it is absurd. Almost every writers room or director or producer I've ever encountered thinks that whatever they're working on at the moment is a sure-fire hit. That's part of why they're working on it. If they don't think it's something everyone will love, then they try to change it to make it so (and they're often wrong.) The fact that you dismissed Sag's response with the phrase "unnecessary diversity" says pretty much all I need to know about that opinion. FCM's point is also salient.

mtagge wrote:

n815e wrote: Maybe it’s just me and where I live, but seeing different races, or ethnicities, religious beliefs, sexualities, gender identities, etc. is just regular, everyday life. This stuff in movies and shows doesn’t strike me as pandering, it’s normal. It’s what I’ve always known, it’s what I’m surrounded by, it’s what I prefer.

Is that in response to my comment? I never said diversity was bad, I suggested that the showrunners front loaded a kids show with an overtly strong lesbian character as a way to head off criticism of sub-par writing. Kid appropriate shows don't lead with sexual content as a general rule.

Kids show? It’s rated TV14 and is revisiting a story that few people outside of middle age are going to know.

Your complaint was that you were coming around to the idea that diversity’s purpose is to cut off criticism? Diversity’s purpose in movies or television is to give everyone in this society a chance to see themselves represented and have positive characters to identify with, to normalize in the minds of viewers that white, male is not all that we are as a society. It’s purpose is to make money because companies that target diverse demographics are more successful.

Strong lesbian character? So what? You think that women are meant to be weak instead of warriors? Or that lesbian women are meant to be weak?
It’s not some graphic sexual scene, it’s a kiss. I doubt you’d complain if the same scene was between different genders. But the sexuality is not the problem for you, just who expresses it.

Your kids are watching Eureka instead? The sci-fi show that is also TV14 and has a lot more sexual content than Willow, or some other show?

When someone dedicates a post to “pandering to diversity” and then at the end starts off a sentence with “I’m totally for diversity but…” guess what’s coming next? A clear declaration of their lack of support for diversity and a lifting of the veil.

I feel like you all are reading mtagge's comment in the narrowest of terms. Expecting every show to be a hit sounds a lot like expecting every batter to hit a home run; maybe the creative team can afford to be that hopelessly naive but the content folks financing production have targets and their target for each show is not "make a smash hit like Stranger Things" otherwise a lot of folks would be regularly missing their targets. Content teams are involved very early in the creative process, know if they have a dog on their hands and are still responsible for the positioning of the show including what to feature in trailers, marketing collateral and post launch comms strategy, all in service of hitting their viewership targets. As mentioned by Jackwraith, expecting them to lean on the creative team to make changes to make shows more marketable in line with their positioning doesn't seem far fetched; in fact it sounds like their job. I don't work in the industry but do have second hand visibility of the production process at a major streaming network; none of this seems out of step with my limited knowledge.

It seems like everyone is taking umbrage with the fact that progressive ideals can (theoretically) be used for cynical means in addition to idealistic ones? Or maybe you think forecasting that certain creative choices will generate controversy is the bad bit? In any case, the idea that a show would lean into controversy as a means to raise its profile or shield itself from criticism really doesn't seem like a crazy one.

I learned FCM's point about not all media being for me with the Twilight series. Nerds everywhere were upset with the portrayal of vampires and while I don't really enjoy subversions of established canon I recognise that I wasn't the target audience and moved on with my life. I still find it odd that someone thought Anne Rice vampires weren't sexy enough.

You guys are all proving my point much better that I ever could, thanks.

I suggested that diversity has been used cynically to preemptively deflect criticism about the quality of a show (Willow) and then I get several responses suggestive that I may be a racist bigot (which certainly could be an overreaction on my part but certainly makes me feel like I am being called a bigot).

As for Willow, this series SHOULD be exactly in our wheelhouse. Loved the movie, love the setting, it's a fantasy adventure about going on an epic journey with a cast of disparate character to save someone, etc.

However the series opens with 15 minutes of "wokeness" (I hate to use that word because it typically invokes tribalism and in this case backlash from what I consider my tribe, but I can't think of a better word to get at the point) and when it gets to the story it is terrible. I tried to mention that I've noticed a trend correlating how prominent "wokeness" is and how terrible the stories are on these highly marketed shows. Mea culpa, but if you wanted to refute the point you guys did literally the opposite. Makes me feel like "no true Scotsman" and punished for not thinking in line with the hive-mind.

mtagge wrote: However the series opens with 15 minutes of "wokeness"

I see this word used a lot. Can you define it for me?

There is no conspiracy to use diversity as a cover for shitty writing. Just internet bullshit that as usual falls apart when applied to reality. There is however a high probability that critics who bring up race in their reviews of television/movies are in fact racists.

hotseatgames wrote: I enjoyed White Lotus as well. And I think you're right, season 2 was better due to it being more tight. I liked the hotel manager in season 1 more than the one in season 2.

Funny, given the amount of women screaming in my house I think they had the opposite reaction.

I've never seen the show though.