"interracial couples" wow.. Perhaps this really speaks to our difference in perspectives based on where we live. I live in Vancouver, and find the increased representation of gay, queer, nonbinary, interracial people very true to my lived experience. Of course, lots of film and television is filmed here so maybe it's not that surprising.

I live in (a nice area of) Australia and it's rare enough here that you would definitely catch some glares and giggles if you were out in public. So yes, perspective matters.

I don't mind so much when the scene is set in a city like Vancouver. But when the show is set in a remote European village or outback Aussie town, yet they still force the usual Hollywood levels of diversity, it becomes an absurd juxtaposition that is impossible to look past.

It does seem like a bit much, but it's definitely better than the former state where none of that stuff existed, as far as Hollywood was concerned. I imagine it'll equilibrate over the next few decades.

Movies cannot be true to a single held vision like they once were now they are designed by committee and it shows.

Casablanca is just one example of a very great movie that actually was designed by a committee and motivated more by a political message (supporting the US entry into WW2) than artistic consideration. Contrast with an atrocity like "Heaven's Gate", referenced in TFA, which finally convinced 1970s Hollywood that giving some wunderkind-auteur free reign to follow every artistic whim does not necessarily end well.

I get what you’re saying, but think what it was like for non-white and non-straight people who saw practically nobody like themselves on screen in a “normal” role for decades.

I realized this yesterday: Representation is worthless in terms of peoples feelings, but it gives certain cultures examples of appropriate behaviour and people to look up to, so that they're not only influenced by their single parents and local culture.

This can be done in a natural way though. Take the movie Million Dollar Baby. The movie portrays a woman with strong physical characteristics but does so within the context of a good story that tackles a complex social issue. At no point in the movie does the main character’s physical abilities seem un-natural or forced. There are many other examples where socially desirable characteristics are portrayed by minority groups within the context of a good story without being forced or out of place.

Movies, nor any other story-telling, is really about representing statistical averages.

Anyway, there are plenty of gay people and interracial families out there, so these aren't exactly bizarre.

>Anyway, there are plenty of gay people and interracial families out there, so these aren't exactly bizarre.

That's true! But it seems like there's a new Hayes code where every single new show must have x, y, z "identities"[0] and they have to be represented in particular and empowering ways. Frequently also that the fact of their 'identity' has lent them a special advantageous approach to the situation at hand. Feels like all good ideas need to be edited by the HR department before they get on screen these days.

[0] this is, IMO, a really shallow way of understanding individuals' identities.

I think the greatest beneficiaries of the "representation" push seem to be diplomat's kids. They usually tick multiple (or mystery) racial boxes, have exotic accents, and are of the class where the people who greenlight movies socialize.

Are you saying that the Vikings weren't actually led by empowered African women? /s

Personally, I am not bothered by seeing gay and interracial couples in films.

As a member of an interracial gay couple, I get plenty of that at home.

The post you’re replying to is very easy to comprehend, maybe even a bit blunt. Why are you replying to something that they clearly didn’t mean to say?

Go ahead and downvote me; sorry my existence ruins your immersion.