What constitutes under-repressented? Is proportionally represented ok?

I mean, I'm one of those "subcultures" and honestly I don't feel the need to be represented in media. I'm ok with it, but I don't see what does it bring to me or to my "subculture". We need investment in infraestructure and political-institutional changes.

I understand it's your country, so your own to decide but I agree with the other user, I really can't understand why so much focus with media representation in the US.

It feels weird, and honestly the logic behind it comes as very superficial and light-minded.

Reminds me of an article a while back complaining that Muslim characters were underrepresented in film despite being 2X proportion, meanwhile Christian characters in film are rarely represented (and secular characters wildly over-represented). When identifiably Muslim and Christian characters are portrayed in film, they are frequently villains (Muslims being terrorists and Christians being bigots, typically) and when they aren't villains they are fundamentally secular but maybe they wear a cross necklace or feature prominently in a corny Christmas special (e.g., Turk from Scrubs). Anyway, this is all a tangent, sorry for the digression, etc.

But here’s the thing you’re missing - if your race is a dominant part of your identity, like it is for many black people in America, it’s certainly normal to look for stories that feature black people and black stories. Stories where the characters experience problems and issues similar to the ones they might face in their lives.

Yeah, maybe, I can perhaps agree with that, but I still fail to see the political proposition.

Maybe I should live in the US to understand it, but honestly when I read about black-americans It seems many of their pressing issues are material ones, and the ones that aren't are probably very related to material ones and I fail to see how a netflix for black people is going to change any of that, except reinforce an ingroup-outgroup dynamic.

There most certainly is an ingroup-outgroup dynamic, but I don't think a Black Netflix intensifies it, it merely caters to that audience, just like Netflix is doing with #blackAF or DisneyPlus is doing with blackish.

If I was in a more predominant subculture, maybe I'd be interested in accurate representation, but expecting a lot of that from entertainment doesn't seem wise.

Accepting entertainment for what it is, and not necessarily representation, feels like a more manageable remove.

Then someone pointed out to me that my favourite super-hero was Spider-Man because Peter Parker is a 20-something loser, just like me.

But there's something authentic about Miles when other characters feel like pandering.

----

Nick Fury Junior is technically a newer character. (The original Nick Fury Senior is white). They just handwaved the difference by sticking a junior in the name without elaboration though.

------

Black Panther from the 70s is definitely pandering lol. But the writers were good at it. (Blatant pandering isn't necessarily a bad thing in the right context)

Now as a parent with a tween and younger kids, my understanding of the current state of the science is that there still is no overwhelming consensus on increased violence related to media, however it seems to be agreed that aggression is linked. 30 years later Mortal Kombat is the number one fighting game franchise of all time, and murder rates are lower and violent crime are relatively unchanged.

Smash Bros and Street Fighter are probably more popular actually.

Mortal Kombat really, really sucked between 3 and 7. MK started to get good again around 8, but really it was "Injustice" (which used Mortal Kombat's engine) that made people start taking MK seriously again.

MK9 is a modern, competitive fighter. But its not as well respected as other games: Street Fighter, Tekken, Smash Bros even. Japan has a real arcade scene (or at least, it did before COVID19 struck), so the games that have proven themselves in the public arcades are more fundamentally competitive than American games like MK9 or Killer Instinct.

I dunno how Smash Bros became so popular though.

----------

Honestly, the extreme violence of Mortal Kombat is a big turnoff to the competitive crowd IMO (much like the extreme "sexiness" of Dead or Alive is also a turnoff). Its good for carving out a niche, but... I don't think people actually like seeing the characters they attach themselves to die.

-----------

There was a study I saw: its not that violent video games cause violence. Its that violent individuals choose violent video games.

In a mainstream setting, you'll just gross people out with a lot of the Mortal Kombat stuff. I think kids like it (because they like seeing their parents get grossed out). Otherwise, when adults get together to play fighting games... "Injustice" seems to be more popular than Mortal Kombat, despite Mortal Kombat being the mainline game and Injustice the DC-superhero "skin".

---------

Now that I'm an adult, here's my viewpoint on the whole thing. Children like breaking taboos. Adults don't like it when Children break taboos (children should listen to Adults). I feel like Adults sometimes make up stories for why children should listen to them, but this only encourages more taboo-breaking behavior from kids. That's why Mortal Kombat is such a draw for me when I was younger (I knew my parents didn't like it, but that was part of the charm).

Similarly, I see my sister freak out about her daughter playing Mortal Kombat (despite me and my sister playing MK back when we were her age) and turn off the game. My sister claims that the improved graphics make it different... but my eyes see the same thing. Her daughter likes breaking taboos and sometimes not listening to her mom, and playing MK is an avenue to do so.

Edit: Mortal Kombat’s major advantage over Smash is that it’s available on every platform. I think Street Fighter’s problem is that Capcom doesn’t bump the version, so it’s non obvious how Super Street Fighter V Arcade Edition is different from Street Fighter V (which also had a bungled release).

Of the three SF would be my preferred franchise, but sales suggest WB is doing something right.

Not that I doubt your stats. But Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom, Tekken and so forth were largely arcade games.

MK2 was an arcade game for sure, but later MK games dropped out of the arcade scene.

Smash never was an arcade game.

I have to imagine that a lot of players paid one quarter at a time to get their Street Fighter skills. But MK players (especially recent ones) are console games. So I'm not sure if copies sold is the best metric.

It's accessible (no crazy button combos), fun (at a party or whatever), and not really "violent" in the same way that Mortal Kombat is bloody as hell. Cartoon violence, not realistic simulated violence. I think that's a major driver.

> It's accessible (no crazy button combos)

Melee is not. You need to consistently wavedash into double-shine combos while foxtrotting to remain competitive. Every landing must be L-canceled (especially during combos). Its a horribly inaccessible game, and was all we had for many years.

Following Melee was Brawl: where "tripping" was invented to randomize the game and piss off competitive players. The most popular "Brawl" was the version people __hacked__ to rebalance the game (taking advantage of the Epona glitch from Twilight Princess to install the Homebrew channel: you can remove tripping and arbitrarily rebalance the Brawl game entirely). It wasn't until Smash4 (WiiU, 2014) that players got an actually competitive game.

Smash Ultimate is finally a very, very good game. But it makes no sense to me why the Smash community stuck with it through the Melee and Brawl years.

> Cartoon violence, not realistic simulated violence. I think that's a major driver.

I think that's a good point. The Smash series (and Marvel vs Capcom series) was timid on violence and sexiness... focusing mostly at the "cartoon" level that was mainstream and acceptable.

The other fighting games leaned into violence (Mortal Kombat) and/or sexiness (Soul Calibur's Ivy, Street Fighter's Cammy, KOF Mai) to try to get some appeal, but I think that lowered the chances of the wide mainstream acceptance.

Smash was always a "Kids" game, and therefore safe for kids to play. No reasonable adult would turn off the game or otherwise be worried that their kids were playing that game. Marvel vs Capcom was at a similar level.

To the broader point, I think what Uzo is talking about is "representation."

Which doesn't just mean "some type of person on the screen." It means the full diversity of experiences and aspirations of that type of person... on the screen.

Living Single isn't Friends with African Americans.

It's African Americans put in the situation of Friends, and then living their own similar-but-unique story in that situation, informed by cultural differences. (IMHO, it's also a helluva lot better of a show)

The 90s had a lot of shows about middle class, successful African American families.

That kind of... stopped. Once TV got homogenized and distributors realized that African American viewers would watch shows about white people, but white people weren't as happy watching shows about African Americans.

And the lack of aspirational and affirmational media that speaks to every person is absolutely a problem.

Living Single was a good show because, unlike Friends, it was actually funny.

> That kind of... stopped. Once TV got homogenized and distributors realized that African American viewers would watch shows about white people, but white people weren't as happy watching shows about African Americans.

But let's be nuanced about this - I don't think that skin color is the real case. Everyone watched Cosby (and for the sake of discussion let's ignore the current situation with him). My (white) heavily bigoted/borderline racist grandmother watched Cosby. He was America's dad and loved by everyone. I think the real problem was that black characters weren't put into shows that represented widely popular, aspirational American ideals or lifestyles, which Cosby had (nuclear family with professional parents and kids dealing with kid stuff). If you want to say that really doesn't represent the majority of the black American experience you wouldn't be wrong, but it also doesn't represent the majority of the white/Hispanic/Asian American experience either. It was something to aspire to.

Those sorts of mass-appeal western values-type shows, IMHO, will be some of the best bridges to build in regards to race relations.

I'll watch a movie set in Scotland just because I think Scottish culture is super interesting, regardless of whether that movie aims to make Scotland seem charming or "well integrated" with my own culture.

But the thing is, nobody (at least in America) expects a show about Scottish people to shoulder the burden of holding up a bridge between Scotland and the world. But there is a sense (at least in America) that the cultural success of Black stories is to be benchmarked against the Cosby Show. Which is weird, when you think about it.

Implies that America thinks this way. Again, nuance is needed.

> the mission of making Black people seem cheerful and unthreatening to America

_seem cheerful and unthreatening_ is in particular what I take umbrage with. That implies that America finds black folks threatening which is why there better be some deep clarification in that statement. But on it's face who really thinks this way? Only ignorant people and true racists have this perception. As far as I can tell that percentage is low.

As far as the business goes I think there's more opportunity in casting that wider net like Cosby or more recently The Neighborhood and creating more appeal for a larger audience. The model of "Netflix for black people" immediately excludes about 86% of the population. Some non-black folks will subscribe, and giving a very liberal 16% of that share they are still excluding 70% of the potential population. This doesn't mean that they won't be successful though - Tyler Perry basically does the same thing (though not overtly so) and he does pretty well for himself. If I were an investor I'd have to examine this under a microscope before jumping into any investments. But who knows? Hopefully they will do well.

You are certainly welcome to subscribe no matter who you are, and you might well do that if you're interested in stories told in a Black context --- for the same reason you might have been super interested in watching Babylon Berlin even if you don't even speak German. Or you might not. That's one of the cool things about pluralism.

EDIT: short of a Tyler Perry or Oprah Winfrey jumping on board (someone that has significant momentum), the only other way this survives is with an acquisition. Netflix would be primed to pick this up as the start of a black-interest channel within Netflix itself. If this is a real market Netflix will either buy them or start their own.

And just a note here - I care nothing about the racial aspects of it but do like it when companies and people win and thrive. I want to see that here too but I think they're lopping off too many potential customers.

Implies that Living Single came after Friends, but it debuted the year before.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/white-ripoff

Eth bro dot co at gmail

Where do you draw the line in your definition of "subcultures"? Is it Black/White/Brown? I always feel weird that I'm pigeon-holed into "white", as if I have anything in common with those of Italian or Jewish ancestry.

>The country has a deep history of racism and black people being literal slaves

The USA is astoundingly multi-cultural. Why do you think so many people from around the globe try to get there?

Agree. I could imagine Netflix-for-Turks streaming in Europe for overseas Turks!

Most well educated gypsies are being frowned down by their own relatives as if they became "non-Gypsy traitors" and they often run away from their own ghettos to never, ever come back.

That never happened in the US with Black people, even in the worst racist laws in the 50's. They even tried to live with the same rights as the White people.

Gypsy people in Europe, at least the tribalistic ones want to secede from the society, as a reverse MLK and live by their own rules, having those priority over state laws.