Wednesday, April 15, 2015

This was written by a friend of mine


  1. I think this article brings up a really interesting question: why is it that TV is more willing to portray LGBTQ characters—notably trans characters—than Hollywood films (even though both are doing poorly)? I think the conjecture at the end about the international box office doesn't really take it far enough, though... and the article seems to even answer that question itself with the example of the Imitation Game. It also kind of seems to shift all of the transphobia convenient, right?

    I wonder how much of it has to do with the stakes of the process of making a TV show vs. a film... or the stakes of a TV show failing versus a movie failing. In the Eaklor reading (which I definitely skimmed over...sry), it seemed like the most significant GLBTQ roles in the early 90s (I'm looking at you, "The Gay 90s" chapter...) were in TV rather than in film... so it seems like this has been a trend for quite a while. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts!

    1. It seems like Hollywood is terrible in general with diversity, on any axis. (I don't have anything to directly use to support this, but a quick search for "top hollywood films" is pretty telling.)

      I'm sure there are a variety of reasons why this is the case. There was an interesting leaked Sony email I saw (which I can't and probably shouldn't share) which claimed superhero films starring women weren't worthwhile because they don't sell well. One of there examples was Catwoman (2004), which I understand to be a terrible film. Make of that what you will.

      To get back to the point, maybe the reason TV is doing better with LGBTQ characters is that TV is moving forward faster than Hollywood? Hollywood certainly isn't moving quickly on better representation for anyone, so any difference in TV portrayal would look much better by comparison.