I'm not sure what your point is? That Muslims and Christians should be grateful that the news media talks about them a bit more than the entertainment media? To be clear, I'm not arguing that any particular group should have more representation; I'm criticizing the media for its increasingly propagandist angles.

> It would be refreshing if more mainstream fictional media featured them in realistic, three-dimensional portrayals rather than as faceless stereotypes, wouldn't you agree?

In general, yes, but that doesn't justify misleading or agenda-driven news media. And in any case, every time people try to "fix" the entertainment media, we end up with awful content (e.g., the GhostBusters reboot) and frankly I don't want to sacrifice that much quality for sake of representation. My wife and I were just talking about how many really good pre-2015 films wouldn't be made today because they don't thrust the characters' race, gender, etc into the foreground.

My point is that religious people, whether Christian, Muslim, or whatever, have a serious impact on our lives, and it would benefit everyone if we engaged with them as real people rather than fantasy stereotypes.

Fictional media can help with this by giving us insight in to what people are really like. My contention is that this is more desirable than merely leaving them as faceless talking points in the news.

Otherwise it's like asking for better sources to read about Chinese culture, or like visiting China once a year for vacation. You can't read your way into being culturally competent. You might even move your entire family to China, but it may only be your children who truly begin the road to integration. Anyone who is part of an immigrant community will have a story of the trajectory of cultural competency. It is an optimism which must be fulfilled by your next generation.

You can, however, follow generic protocols of kindness whilst in ignorance.

But I'd rather have there be movies on the Himalayas than not, even when we are aware it's not a perfect substitute for the real thing.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

You smile and nod your way through.

Anyways, the call here is for community integration, not for individual action.

Why go it alone?

Is one's clarity on community affairs the difference between choosing WION and India Times? Or The World Journal?

The solution is better movies on Tokyo, not no movies on Tokyo.

You're in luck, though, because there are plenty of great movies on Tokyo -- movies that even people living in Tokyo find give great insights in to their own society.

Yes and no. First, so much media has fallen down when it comes to character development. Then there's the problem of big companies like Disney that are deliberately secular in their content.

That's the handy thing about essentialism, you don't need an individual character when you have pre-packaged narratives about their race, gender, etc. Rather than a complex character, we get a canned Black character or a canned White character or a canned Female character or a canned Male character. What do you need to know about a person that you can't infer from their immutable characteristics? (:

I'm more interested in them making more of an effort at a good story.

It has skewed perception, but whether that matters is up for debate.

The question I have is what is being preserved by not having a diversity of backgrounds, ethnicities and belief systems in films?

But interesting movies can be made about diverse characters as they can about homogeneous characters.

Only depicting homogeneous societies furthers ignorance and demonization of people who are different.

Showing more diversity, in interesting, authentic, and deep ways is one an important way we have of striving towards a society where we better understand and value one another, and get along.

I think you're arguing against a straw man. It seems pretty clear that no one is arguing for less diversity, but rather against diversity for its own sake or prioritizing it above all other concerns.