A hopefully non-controversial thought on character diversity in media.

[maninahat]

I like diversity. But not when it's done just to have diversity because at that point it becomes pandering (see every Marvel comic for the last 7 years or so).

"Pandering".

Ever ask yourself why it's only called pandering when it's aimed at someone else?

"Here's a Stock Default hero"
"Very good, carry on.
"Now here's a hero who differs slightly from the default."
"PANDERING!"

Like I said in the OP, if someone out there gets a little buzz out of Ms Marvel being a Muslim kid or whatever, I see no reason to begrudge them that buzz.

[Edited in a futile attempt to try to avoid the usual buzzwords.]

No. The problem is with Marvel these new characters character trait is "THEY'RE BLACK!/MUSLIM/ASIAN/GAY!" And that's really all these new characters amount to. Nothing. I like different heroes, but when they don't seem forced or unnecessary.

Kamala Khan is a great example. Plain character, easy for people to project themselves onto. She's honestly quite boring and just there to be the token Muslim. Now, DC did it right by creating Simon Baz and giving him a good backstory and character arc, and not allowing his religion/race to be his only defining trait.

Kamala Khan's defining trait is that she is a geeky marvel fan girl. Her religion and ethnicity colours her character, such as the fact that she feels the need to hide her outgoing superhero activity from her conservative family, but to say it is her only defining character trait implies you don't even read her comics.

 

[King Billi]

The very first rule of writing: "Write what you know." Assuming you accept that there are any rules at all. If you're in a majority of the population and you know life as that, you will write most of your focal characters that way because it's what you know best and this is the focus of the story and where the most scrutiny will be applied.

And while we're on the subject, what happens when someone who isn't 'insert group here' attempts to 'write for' that group? Attempts to give a voice to that group? Often what happens is backlash from that very group, regardless of how effective the effort was.

This is a good point though for certain instances I don't think it is really that big of a deal.

If certain individuals want to read knowledgeable in depth accounts of people like them there are plenty of renowned literary authors who have written about it, usually autobiographical or true life inspired.

Within the realm of popular entertainment however, Hollywood films or television, video games or superhero comics, which I think this thread is focused on at least most of the posters here are, such a strict focus isn't essential. A LGBQ/minority character doesn't need to champion their "cause" at every opportunity, they're a person like any other, they just need to be there to give their respective audience someone to identify with.

Snip

I will admit that I'm approaching this whole issue with purely popular fiction/genre fiction in mind wherein two dimensional characterisation is largely the norm and characters either do fall into blatant stereotypes or individuals so undefined they could represent anybody.

It isn't very common that a new television show will begin with all its characters personalities and backstory precisely defined from the outset, often they're just defined enough to fill their role in the story and a further fleshed out over time depending on the direction of the story and the influence on various different writers. Of course this approach can lead to characters coming across negatively if a writer doesn't write them well due to a lack of knowledge of a particular characters heritage but is that any excuse not to try? It can also go the other way wherein a talented writer can raise a character up beyond their stereotypical origin and provide a profound commentary on an important issue within society that would likely never have been expected in the beginning. Have you never seen or heard of such a thing before.

Even if a character never really features such a representation in their given medium it doesn't mean they are without worth. Have you ever heard of fan fiction, fans can extrapolate many things from a given character based on the slimmest of justification given in story or change them outright to better reflect their own experiences, all just because they were given someone to identify with in the first place.

I apologise, you seem able to speak much more eloquently on this subject than I can and I feel like I'm rambling, I just hope I'm making some sense of my thoughts.

 

[maninahat]

So what are you asking about?

My entire point was

a) Can we agree that people derive enjoyment from heroes that reflect an aspect of themselves?

and

b) Is there any reason to deny or begrudge that small pleasure to people who get it less often?

Seriously. That was my entire point. As the title says, I was hoping it wouldn't be a contentious one. But alas.

It's a simple point I agree with. As a kid growing up, I was basically Milhouse, and I remember having those moments where I'd find a new character to be really relatable, just because they wore glasses as well. That was a nice thing to have. I grew up in a time where glasses normally meant you were a dorky, weak nerd. It's why Clark Kent looks the way he does. But then you had Real Ghostbusters, where one of the guys had glasses and shot ghosts with science. Or you had the Wild Thorn-berries, in which the hero is a ginger girl with glasses, freckles and braces. Why didn't anyone complain about her character being pandering?

 

[Frankster]

"Basically, can we all agree that people generally enjoy seeing fictional heroes that reflect aspects of themselves?"

Sounds agreeable.

Tbh i don't see anything to really disagree about with in your statements.

I'd say what tends to get people's knickers in a twist is how to implement diversity in a natural manner, i'm not quite sure how to explain it without writing a big tldr so gonna use an example, a white male example, but NOT anglo saxon: take Super Dupont, he is the french equivalent of Superman in that he is a french superhero representing the french way of life and ideals.

If it was decided that Super Dupont is now going to be arab and also be given darker skin, to better represent the changing french demographics, oh my the outrage there would be...

It's not so much the french would be opposed to a new french superhero that's muslim and is very devout to his religion, it's that they would rather it not be Super Dupont who was a perfectly fine and functional character just as he was.

Tbh this doesn't quite apply to anglo saxon situation because i have a hard time imagining the french being bitched at for prioritizing white folk, for some reason that seems to be a fault specific to americans and english.
Most countries have their own version of "cis white man", which happens to be the norm for that particular country (aka i'd expect most japanese live action series and shows to have..japanese dudes and chicks as the ones who make up the big majority of those you'd see), but the usa in particular seems to be considered problematic for doing what every other countries does, so i feel there's additional cultural factors at work i'm simply not aware of.

I don't quite disagree. But tell me, if I make a story about a confident, charismatic, unflappable and highly capable male action hero who kills all the baddies and gets all the ladies have I made a boring Mary Sue (or Marty Stu or whatever) or have I made a fun badass?

It depends purely by the person playing that character if a movie, or how they come across in the comic or book or w/e if another type of media.
I think there's a big reason why we let 80s action stars get away with playing characters that are apparently "normal" dudes even though they clearly ain't: charisma. It's not so much about checking the diversity box for massive muscly dudes, but about providing a vehicle for their "acting" (call it quirk or personality, but you know what i mean, basically the reason you would go see an arnold schwraznegger movie for example).

Tbh though unless the aspects people see in those kinda characters are "how i'd like to be if i was super jacked and tough", there's very little in common between these sort of characters and the white mail(box) other then maybe having vaguely similar skin pigment and sexual preference which is apparently a big deal.

I sort of think of it this way, if aliens were trying to figure out what our demographics were like just by our media, they would probably assume women were something like 17% of the population of the world and that the world was mostly made up of white dudes and it's just not.

To be fair the aliens there kinda fucked up by apparently only using comics from america, this is the only way i can get your example to work. Otherwise watch 10 mins of local television and tell me with a straight face women make up just 17% of those you see.
Then if you take world wide media into account, this just collapses completely, and aliens will come to the conclusion that different human tribes like to emphasize what they consider is the most typical/normal examples of that particular tribe: aka go to japan and most people on tv you'll see are japanese, go to india and most people on tv you'll see are indian...

 

[happyninja42]

Tbh this doesn't quite apply to anglo saxon situation because i have a hard time imagining the french being bitched at for prioritizing white folk, for some reason that seems to be a fault specific to americans and english.
Most countries have their own version of "cis white man", which happens to be the norm for that particular country (aka i'd expect most japanese live action series and shows to have..japanese dudes and chicks as the ones who make up the big majority of those you'd see), but the usa in particular seems to be considered problematic for doing what every other countries does, so i feel there's additional cultural factors at work i'm simply not aware of.

I think it mostly stems from the cultural standard America has set for itself, as being this "melting pot" or whatever term you want to use. We've presented ourself as this multi-cultural, multi-ethnic nation, that doesn't care what your origin is, or color, or creed, etc. So there is an expectation of having a diverse makeup for the american population. Whether that is statistically accurate or not is another issue, but the perception, and cultural mindset if you will, was promoted, for several generations, as being "not just one people", in the context of one race or whatever. So, assuming we believe that (which I think most Americans do to some degree), there is more vocal objection when that form of diversity isn't then reflected in our media.

I have no idea how other countries present themselves, like France in your example. I have no idea if they've made a push, in the cultural dialogue, to promote being multicultural, and all that, but that was definitely a thing for many years here in the US.

So it doesn't surprise me, that this level of discussion might be more centralized to specific countries, ones that made a point to establish one of their virtues being a multicultural nation.

Please note, I'm not saying other countries aren't multicultural, just pointing out that in the "national narrative", the way we package ourselves as a nation, the US has made an effort to highlight that particular trait, perhaps more than other countries have.

Also, I'm talking about how it's been for several decades, not necessarily how the US is presenting itself today. But the people who are now in their 30s and above (myself being in that demographic), grew up with this kind of cultural imprint, so now we are talking about it. And it's still got inertia in the cultural identity, despite a growing vocal group that is directly opposed to that kind of concept in today's culture.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Tbh this doesn't quite apply to anglo saxon situation because i have a hard time imagining the french being bitched at for prioritizing white folk, for some reason that seems to be a fault specific to americans and english.
Most countries have their own version of "cis white man", which happens to be the norm for that particular country (aka i'd expect most japanese live action series and shows to have..japanese dudes and chicks as the ones who make up the big majority of those you'd see), but the usa in particular seems to be considered problematic for doing what every other countries does, so i feel there's additional cultural factors at work i'm simply not aware of.

I don't think the US is being singled out so much as that the people that are talking about the US are more likely to be listened to by a US audience because they are the most relevant. To an extent culturally similar nations. For most English speaking people, the US film industry is more personally relevant than the Japanese one.

Oh, and the national narrative of multi-culturalism as Happyninja42 said.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

I think it mostly stems from the cultural standard America has set for itself, as being this "melting pot" or whatever term you want to use. We've presented ourself as this multi-cultural, multi-ethnic nation, that doesn't care what your origin is, or color, or creed, etc. So there is an expectation of having a diverse makeup for the american population. Whether that is statistically accurate or not is another issue, but the perception, and cultural mindset if you will, was promoted, for several generations, as being "not just one people", in the context of one race or whatever. So, assuming we believe that (which I think most Americans do to some degree), there is more vocal objection when that form of diversity isn't then reflected in our media.

The U.S. also throws a lot of money into the film industry and enjoys a big international stage as far as Hollywood releases go (and to a lesser extent, video games), so there might also be the expectation that if anyone has the pool of actors and resources to have Asian people represent Asian characters, it's the U.S. This also probably makes it particularly disappointing when they whitewash, because it looks like an outright unwillingness to even think about diversity, rather than the studios just using the talent available to them.

 

[visiblenoise]

I absolutely agree. What I can't respect is when people invest so much of themselves into what should be the most shallow element of their identity (race, orientation, etc.) that they ascribe any value whatsoever to the fact that some character is a girl. It's cool to normalize things by having diversity, but to shine a spotlight on it (whether it's by a creator or a fan) already seems to me a failure, a missing-of-the-point.

Having diversity in media isn't a good thing or a bad thing to me, it's just something that ought to happen, considering how connected the world is now.

 

[Frankster]

I think it mostly stems from the cultural standard America has set for itself(...)despite a growing vocal group that is directly opposed to that kind of concept in today's culture.

I don't think the US is being singled out so much as that the people that are talking about the US a(...)

Oh, and the national narrative of multi-culturalism as Happyninja42 said.

These attitudes certainly do qualify as miscellaneous cultural factors that help explain why USA is so apparently in need of self flagellation for doing what literally everyone else does, and it has to feel super bad for it too! Bad USA! *hits it with a newspaper*

Of the 2 countries i'm personally familiar with, uk and france, uk would probably like to consider itself as a welcoming multi ethnic country and it's certainly true in London where i'm from, but London =/= rest of uk as the recent brexit vote showed.
For France there was a rich tradition of integration stemming from their colonial past where anyone could hope to become a full french citizen if they worked hard enough and most of all ACCEPTED french culture and tenets, but this policy has somewhat failed in the past few decades and i dont think ive ever read in my life any bitching about lack of representation or diversity in french tv.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Short answer to the topic of the thread: yes, we can, and no, there isn't.

Regarding the whole "white dudes are the standard" thing, I think this stems, like so many evils in the world, from marketing. Basically, it is not that the major population cannot identify with fictional characters that differs from them in any way. We see the bland white protagonist that often because some shithead in marketing decided we can't relate to people with a different skin color or sex. Or to be more precise, all the shitheads in all of marketing did. And make no mistake, there are ALOT of shitheads in marketing. Between them and the people who pander to the other extremes, the guys who actually understand the rest of the human race make up approximately 10 % of marketing people.

And the real problem is that these shitheads have a lot of influence they most definitly shouldn't have. In an ideal world, a creator would go to the marketing department and say: "I made that, now market that to the people who it might interest. And if I can call in a personal favour, in a non-shithead way if at all possible."
Sadly, we live in a world the marketing shithead will go to the creator and say: "You made that. Now change it so I can market it to ALL the demographics. All those that pay of course. I would think of a way to market what you actually made, but I am too much of a shithead."

The creator should be able to tell the story he wants in the medium he wants. If you want to tell a story about a bunch of straight, white dudes, do it. I was down on Final Fantasy XV for not having female party members until I heard it was integral to the story and feeling they were going for. Their decision, they should be able to do that if they so choose.

HOWEVER, if you want to tell a story about anything else, you should have the same rights and possibilities. And here the marketing shithead rears his ugly head again. The makers of "Bioshock Infinite" had to fight their marketing department to get the female sidekick of the game even on the cover. The makers of new games that were not Tomb Raider were told that games with female protagonists don't sell. All because a marketing shithead somewhere thinks the 16-35 white male demographic only plays games with Grisly MacHardboiled as the protagonist.

I bet no marketing shithead told the makers of Final Fantasy XV that a game with no female love interest for the main character to win over with his akward charm would sell less (Disclaimer: Haven't played it yet. Couldn't see it fit in with the kind of story they are going for and really hope they don't do it, or they will fuck over this part of my argument pretty badly). And if they did, it appears they were swiftly and rightly backhanded.
Ultimately the world, or at least popular media, would be a better place if more marketing shitheads were immediatly backhanded as soon as they reach for the pie charts.

To sum it up, you people should slap every marketing guy you see, and world peace will surely follow. (We can just write off the presumably decent 10 % as acceptable losses. They work in marketing after all, they must have done something to deserve it.)

 

[Satinavian]

Snip.

I'm just going to agree to disagree there. I just don't buy "this is the way it always worked therefore this is the way it works best".

(Especially with games, which now cost waaaay too much to make so really could do with broadening it's audience).

But still, I realise I've kinda veered off topic from what Zhukov was trying to talk about (identifying with traits in characters which aren't necessarily gender/race/sexuality), so I'll just stop there.

OT: That's also why I enjoy Sailor Jupiter so much. She's a lot like me, personality-wise.

Spoiler: We share so many interests!

Agree.

But for me it was Sailer Mercury because of far more similarities. Surprisingly gender was never an issue for me, and even as a boy i never felt any connection to Mamoru. Also i am feeling old now.


Overall, diversity is fine. Bland characters are boring. But there are only a few character concepts i really seriously dislike. Most prominent among them the kind of dumb, loud, arrogant, wellmeaning, reckless, young protagonist who never gives up and manages to be successful by willpower.
I know where it comes from, but i really hate it.

 

[Phasmal]

Agree.

But for me it was Sailer Mercury because of far more similarities. Surprisingly gender was never an issue for me, and even as a boy i never felt any connection to Mamoru. Also i am feeling old now.


Overall, diversity is fine. Bland characters are boring. But there are only a few character concepts i really seriously dislike. Most prominent among them the kind of dumb, loud, arrogant, wellmeaning, reckless, young protagonist who never gives up and manages to be successful by willpower.
I know where it comes from, but i really hate it.

I think a lot of dudes have less issue with identifying in general because they have a bit more variety. Even as a kid I was not thrilled with the Smurfette Principle. I identified with a lot of dude characters, too, but I wanted to see some girl characters who had a personality more than "THE GIRL". Sailor Moon was so awesome for that <3

More diversity means (to me at least) more character choice. I want more games where I can play as more things. I wanna know what happened to all the non-human protagonists in games, too. I'm always happy when I see something that's new in an interesting way.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Sometimes, it's usually the writers who write the characters as white because they are white.

Well yes, the lack of diverse creators is another reason. Doesn't negate my point, most topics have more than one single reason for their existence.

On another note, is it "sometimes" or "usually" because the creators are white? Those two kinda negate each other.

 

[Pseudonym]

One way or the other, when talking about black people, women, LGBT people, etc in media I don't think the issue is just having somebody to identify with to make it more fun, as much as it is about acknowledging they exist. Star Trek would probably not be much different as a show if all the charactars where white men (or if all of them where black women, for that matter), but since it plays in a hypothetical future where discrimination issues are supposed to have been solved somehow, it is nice to see that reflected by a varied cast.

Hey? A homogeneous cast (and guests stars) would have totally undermined the premise. You can't really have a show about humanity should welcome all groups and then exclude them all...you can have X-Men movies that do that, but they aren't going to have the same cultural relevance as Star Trek did a couple of decades later.

Yeah, I seem to have forgotten what point I was making halfway through those sentences. You are right, it would totally undermine the premise. I meant the problem wouldn't be that some people couldn't identify with the cast members but rather the implicit assumption that 'there were no black people in the future' that some other sifi shows seem to roll with.

It's this whole 'it is good for the audience to identify with the cast' thing that I think is not quite right. Both because being straight/gay, white/black/asian, etc, like the audience is not a reason nor a requirement to identify with anyone (and I'd prefer not to cater to the audience for whom it is) and because identification with the cast isn't all that important imo. Even if there are reasons for the casts of shows to be diverse (there are) I think making it easier for minorities to identify with the cast members is by far one of the weaker ones.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

"Basically, can we all agree that people generally enjoy seeing fictional heroes that reflect aspects of themselves?"

Sounds agreeable.

Tbh i don't see anything to really disagree about with in your statements.

I'd say what tends to get people's knickers in a twist is how to implement diversity in a natural manner, i'm not quite sure how to explain it without writing a big tldr so gonna use an example, a white male example, but NOT anglo saxon: take Super Dupont, he is the french equivalent of Superman in that he is a french superhero representing the french way of life and ideals.

If it was decided that Super Dupont is now going to be arab and also be given darker skin, to better represent the changing french demographics, oh my the outrage there would be...

It's been ages since I read Superdupont, but why would they change SD's ethnicity? Isn't Superdupont supposed to be a satirical look at the closet ethno-nationalism of many French people? Hence why the anti-French as basically a mishmash of cultural stereotypes of France's neighbours? A stirical look at France's desire to be seen as an artistic and civilized bastion in Europe even while holding the duality of aggressive nationalism that had historically plagued them and continues to do so even now.

Changing SD's ethnicity would be counter-intuitive to the message the creators wanted to express. As if justifying visually the elements of French society that the comic directly parodies. So yeah ... I imagine there would be a few angry people .... in the same way there'd be a few angry people that rail against badly ported, misunderstood works being swallowed up by Hollywood.

I would have thought the stylized logo on his suit should give that away. Beware certain European impulses ...

 

[Avnger]

Short answer to the topic of the thread: yes, we can, and no, there isn't.

Regarding the whole "white dudes are the standard" thing, I think this stems, like so many evils in the world, from marketing. Basically, it is not that the major population cannot identify with fictional characters that differs from them in any way. We see the bland white protagonist that often because some shithead in marketing decided we can't relate to people with a different skin color or sex. Or to be more precise, all the shitheads in all of marketing did. And make no mistake, there are ALOT of shitheads in marketing. Between them and the people who pander to the other extremes, the guys who actually understand the rest of the human race make up approximately 10 % of marketing people.

And the real problem is that these shitheads have a lot of influence they most definitly shouldn't have. In an ideal world, a creator would go to the marketing department and say: "I made that, now market that to the people who it might interest. And if I can call in a personal favour, in a non-shithead way if at all possible."
Sadly, we live in a world the marketing shithead will go to the creator and say: "You made that. Now change it so I can market it to ALL the demographics. All those that pay of course. I would think of a way to market what you actually made, but I am too much of a shithead."

The creator should be able to tell the story he wants in the medium he wants. If you want to tell a story about a bunch of straight, white dudes, do it. I was down on Final Fantasy XV for not having female party members until I heard it was integral to the story and feeling they were going for. Their decision, they should be able to do that if they so choose.

HOWEVER, if you want to tell a story about anything else, you should have the same rights and possibilities. And here the marketing shithead rears his ugly head again. The makers of "Bioshock Infinite" had to fight their marketing department to get the female sidekick of the game even on the cover. The makers of new games that were not Tomb Raider were told that games with female protagonists don't sell. All because a marketing shithead somewhere thinks the 16-35 white male demographic only plays games with Grisly MacHardboiled as the protagonist.

I bet no marketing shithead told the makers of Final Fantasy XV that a game with no female love interest for the main character to win over with his akward charm would sell less (Disclaimer: Haven't played it yet. Couldn't see it fit in with the kind of story they are going for and really hope they don't do it, or they will fuck over this part of my argument pretty badly). And if they did, it appears they were swiftly and rightly backhanded.
Ultimately the world, or at least popular media, would be a better place if more marketing shitheads were immediatly backhanded as soon as they reach for the pie charts.

To sum it up, you people should slap every marketing guy you see, and world peace will surely follow. (We can just write off the presumably decent 10 % as acceptable losses. They work in marketing after all, they must have done something to deserve it.)

What if (just thinking out loud here) we get every business school in the country to implement a trap-door to a dungeon that opens under every grad receiving a marketing degree at their degree presentation? Let the psych students use them for experiments or something.

 

[crimsonspear4D]

Looking at all the tv shows and games that have come out this year alone, makes me realize not only how far we've come, but how much we need to go. Even if they are pandering (the argument of which still refuses to make logical sense) I still like that they'd be even attempting to try, you got burn a batches of cookies before you make the right one.

I mean, it's practically 2017 and not only having a black guy as the main character of a mafia game was seen as some sort of anti-white conspiracy, but him gunning down the fucking KKK sets off some firestorm of racial allegations against the devs and publishers. You can't even have gay or trans characters be given any amount of dignity or respect, let alone EXIST, in games with some sub-section of the gaming community crying "SJW politics" "They are ruining my games".

For all the bad attempts at including different protagonists in games I at least appreciate the effort, I just wish all of them weren't tied to mediocre games as much. I mean, is it me or does it seem that decently portrayed female characters, for instance are mostly attached to boring or just plain bad games. AC: Unity and Syndicate, CoD: BO 3, Recore, Remember Me, Bombshell, FF XII 1-3, P.N.O 3, just to name the one's I remember playing.

 

[votemarvel]

In regard to gender or race flipping of an established character, I honestly don't think people give the race of a person as much importance as it deserves.

James Bond. Idris Elba is a damn fine actor but you could not cast him as Bond and have the story be the same as if Daniel Craig was still in the role.

Bond is a product of the establishment and has had a pretty privileged upbringing. The problem is that the British Establishment is still considered to be highly racist, so while a black Bond would indeed still be a product of that establishment he would not have received the same treatment and upbringing as a white Bond. It would actually be very interesting to see how Bond would be changed by making him black.

The same holds true of Johnny Storm. I'm willing to bet that black Johnny gets pulled over a lot more by the police in his sports cars than white Johnny does. To say that wouldn't have an effect on the type of person he is, well it simply wouldn't ring true.

As to diversity in general for the media. It's a difficult one to be sure. When the bulk of your domestic market is white hetrosexuals, well it's easy to cater for as your main consumer base is seeing themselves represented and so you keep catering for them.

Part of this is the fantasy. The fantasy of imagining yourself up on that screen. That's easy to do when you see a more handsome or beautiful version of yourself in that role, but it does become much harder when the character deviates even a little.

One of my favourite characters in the Doctor Who universe is Captain Jack Harkness, but while I've imagined myself in the role of the Doctor many times, I've never done that for Captain Jack and I confess the reason for that is his sexuality. I just don't see myself ever being attracted to men in the way that Jack is.

What is strange is that when it comes to games, a far more interactive medium, I am the complete opposite. If given the choice I tend to play as the female character. If I play as the male I tend to make the choices I would make, but when playing as a women I find myself stopping to ask not what I would do but what the character would do. Pretty much the only reason I pushed myself through ME3 as the male Shepard was in order to romance Cortez.

Anyway I think I've speared way off topic here, so good night my fellow posters.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

In regard to gender or race flipping of an established character, I honestly don't think people give the race of a person as much importance as it deserves.

James Bond. Idris Elba is a damn fine actor but you could not cast him as Bond and have the story be the same as if Daniel Craig was still in the role.

Bond is a product of the establishment and has had a pretty privileged upbringing. The problem is that the British Establishment is still considered to be highly racist, so while a black Bond would indeed still be a product of that establishment he would not have received the same treatment and upbringing as a white Bond. It would actually be very interesting to see how Bond would be changed by making him black.

The same holds true of Johnny Storm. I'm willing to bet that black Johnny gets pulled over a lot more by the police in his sports cars than white Johnny does. To say that wouldn't have an effect on the type of person he is, well it simply wouldn't ring true.

As to diversity in general for the media. It's a difficult one to be sure. When the bulk of your domestic market is white hetrosexuals, well it's easy to cater for as your main consumer base is seeing themselves represented and so you keep catering for them.

Part of this is the fantasy. The fantasy of imagining yourself up on that screen. That's easy to do when you see a more handsome or beautiful version of yourself in that role, but it does become much harder when the character deviates even a little.

One of my favourite characters in the Doctor Who universe is Captain Jack Harkness, but while I've imagined myself in the role of the Doctor many times, I've never done that for Captain Jack and I confess the reason for that is his sexuality. I just don't see myself ever being attracted to men in the way that Jack is.

What is strange is that when it comes to games, a far more interactive medium, I am the complete opposite. If given the choice I tend to play as the female character. If I play as the male I tend to make the choices I would make, but when playing as a women I find myself stopping to ask not what I would do but what the character would do. Pretty much the only reason I pushed myself through ME3 as the male Shepard was in order to romance Cortez.

Anyway I think I've speared way off topic here, so good night my fellow posters.

The problem is the assumption of a protagonist to begin with, Orange is the New Black for example. Most shows do not have this dynamic of fixation on one person for 90% of the time, and ultimately those shows tend to be B movie quality for that reason. They can be quality B movie esque experiences, charming (Doctor Who, the Mighty Boosh, etc) ... but it's not exactly Agatha Christie. Depending on the vehicle that might be for the better, but there is obviously a gulf in quality.

As much as I love Doctor Who... I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

Visibility is strength. It humanizes people who otherwise are slaves to ignorant presumption. Which is the good thing of diversity in media... decent portrayals are celebrated, bad ones condemned ... and producers pick up on that.

Broaching difficult topics is a basic element of honing an artform... not treading water. And this isn't a case of 'picking on artists' ... Whiteley and others would agree that art should be thrown in the trash if it cannot adequately reflect the 'contemporeality' of existence. Treading familiar ground, or skirting obvious flaws or missing hidden beauty merely expediates just how worthless one may find the experience in staring into its Night, that which suspended in the author's eyes.

This is why certain authors get immortalized, and why even more popular authors of their day left to ignorance by a changing world.

If you produce something worthwhile... take solace someone someday might get it. If you don't and choose not to, then where are your priorities and can you still look yourself in the eye in a mirror and call yourself an artist? (Yes, fuck you Andy Warhol ... you morally, intellectually, culturally bankrupt little shit...)

(Edit)True artists are like William Hogarth. Panned by critics and who spend a good chunk of their lives perfecting a singular portrait that even when technically unfinished ... their loving wife invited his critics and displayed it; "They said he could not paint flesh!" I'm surprised they haven't made a movie about him and his wife.

Anyways, The Shrimp Girl is probably the most celebrated British masterpiece in the visual arts and it's precisely about finding beauty in the common person. A pauper girl, at the fishmongers, flogging her wares. Likely reeking of the mundanities of her life. An unlikelier portrait subject as ever was one... Unfinished perfection and stands the test of time regardless because it shows us a glimpse into an artist's eye that found beauty, and ugliness, everywhere. In this case, true beauty. A message of transcendent loveliness in the everyday person, comprised of motion and joy, and the tireless nature of the human spirit to persevere in the face of common hardship.

Hogarth was nearly always a well-off engraver, print-maker, social satirist, painter, philosopher (he was kind of a polymath of aesthetics and political commentary) ... who managed to perfectly encapsulate and raise high a symbol of a commoner's life and make her shine. There is no question that The Shrimp Girl is a noble, decent representation of the hard-working, perpetual poor of Billingsgate streets. Her sunburnt nose and cheeks from likely helping to work the waterways when collecting produce from ships, her natural grace born from years of managing scales and direct trade of crab with customers (as symbolized by the measuring pot), her practiced smile of attracting buyers and responding to clientele.

Someone who those others in his social class or higher would most likely sneer at for noisily hawking goods at them (or himself for that matter). Someone who those others in his socioeconomic class or higher may have missed entirely because their servants or assistants may have done such shopping errands in the area for them. Hogarth didn't ... and he made the world richer for not having done so by showing us the overlooked beauty of London's working class in the era that he lived in.

There's not a retail person that would look at her and not see a piece of themselves immortalized. Respected and honoured, and found worthy of respect and honour by the artist.

If you don't or can't bother to find beauty in all elements of humanity that you observe ... or you pretend artists shouldn't even bother to try ... Then you shouldn't be talking as if you know art or artists. You're marketing. Which isn't bad on its ownsome, just don't pretend you know the answer to the next William Hogarth.

And yeah, before you ask ... this is probaby my favourite portrait of all. Not going to lie. I don't really consider myself an 'artsy' kind of girl, but Hogarth stuff I universally love.

(Edit of an edit) Not directing this comment at you, just that to reaffirm some things you wrote, but question some other bits, and provide direct representation of the argument. And particularly those people who pretend that you should only attempt to replicate or re-envision people within your usual demographics or the one you belong to. Corporate shills. I know, I am one. I know what they look like. The difference is I don't pretend to defend myself or my actions. I own my conceits and values and I don't pretend to be riding a white horse in shining barding with a lance of intellectual bankruptcy economic prudence.