Does hollywood try too hard to include lgbt in their movies?

[johnweek1]

I don't think it's a problem. As a matter of fact the opposite, I love it. But I hate when its over the top forced and doesn't feel natural. Like in Avengers End Game with all the women in the final battle at the one scene together, like seriously I loled that was such a corny virtue signal. I don't like virtue signaling for the sake of virtue signaling. And like, I actually want to see better male representation. Not more, better.

I would love for a Disney prince movie to come out. I mean Aladdin is the only one I can even think of in the past what 20 + years and even then Jasmine sometimes overshadows Aladdin as the princess of the story (Aladdin is my favorite Disney movie just to get that out there). I just want "real" male characters that deal with real male issues. Issues of insecurity, how to treat women, how a women should be treating them, friendship among guys, emotional issues being addressed and not swept under the rug. It's ok to cry, it's ok to not value fighting prowess and physical strength and be a peaceful gentle soul. Like more of that, please! This is why I love Doctor Who so much. All of the modern male doctors are such great examples of all of this. The Doctor is such a great male role model. Jodie is also a fine doctor, despite the haters.

Seriously, give me a good Disney prince movie! Check this video out -- the "Frozen" song genderbent/animated with a male character. This could have been a freaking awesome movie if Elza were male. To be clear, the movie was freaking awesome as it was. What I am saying is, just watching this video shows how good (imo) a true, Disney prince story could be. Also, side note, this song hits hard as a closeted bi dude when the song is sung/animated this way. Even his body language resonates.

 

[Angelo123]

Good comment, and I'm totally with you on this, women should have more screentime. I would argue that screentime should represent the percentage in the population to be fair. Minority group should represent the percentage they are in the society in a perfect world or not?

So you would like more leading hero's that represent LGBTQ? I think it's already a trend, "the boy's" have a LGBTQ hero. And Marvel have many actor playing LGBTQ hero's. It's a trend pretty much all tv show have their LGBTQ character. Stranger thing, Marvel, a lot of Disney movies, game of throne, etc.

It's a good thing to have multiethnic character or gender. where I'm concerned it's when it's became a cota Like in "lightyear". The line is slime, but it can open a lot of pressure on hollywood to show minority and adapt story telling just to satisfy politically correct request.

Am I the only one saying this?

Of course I see the positive changes in the last years but I think there is still room for more.

I can understand thst some story lines seem anorganic or forced. I hope this will improve in the next time. Obviously, there is still some kind of learning process in Hollywood.

What I mean is, for example, James Bond. He was played by serveral actors and in each movie Bond had at least 3 girls. I hope there will be a time in close future where Bond (or some other major movie character, not only a side on e.g. The Boys) can be gay or lesbian and it feels organic because the main story is still James Bond. Because if it's no problem when Bond dates 3 girls in 2 hours what's the problem if he dates 3 boys (or she 3 girls)?

I can't say anything about the specific movie you mentioned because I haven't seen it.

 

[englad]

Maybe your right, I'm blind to your situation. How old are you?
Do you think the young lgbt, live in the shadows?

I'm sure everyone need a positive portrayals of themselves on TV. So every Tv show should have 1 black, 1 lesbian, 1 trans, 1 Italian, 1 French, 1 Russian, 1 handicap, 1 nerd, 1 robot....

You get the point, So, where Hollywood stops?
Does it need to be on every show for no reason?
Maybe someday we will have cota for men with LPSG on every ty show.

I understand that visibility it's a big part to a community, lgbt need support and understanding and I salute movies and tv show that want to bring that on TV.

We are at a point where it's for no reason, Just plug a lgbt in the story.

Mate, not a fan of the tack of a straight person implicitly telling me "everything's fine, now. Equality's been reached." You may not have directly said that, but that's what it sounds like with the direction of your questioning. If equality had been reached, the gay apps and websites wouldn't be 30%+ faceless profiles, straight male actors wouldn't be praised for their "bravery" for playing a gay character, you wouldn't hear about hate crimes, you wouldn't see a lesbian couple getting their kid removed from school because the teachers don't want to explain their relationship, or the amount of shit trans people are getting from the media, or the way monkeypox is being reported.

I'm 35. As for what the situation is like for young LGBTs, yes, you can talk about broader trends that more will be out than in the past, and the coming out age is lowering over time, and being explicitly homophobic is less socially acceptable than it used to be. But in some parts of the west, you also have creeping homophobic and transphobic legislation (don't say gay bill in Florida as one example). The suicide rate is still considerably higher for them and so is the homelessness rate. There are far too many variables to the individual involved as to whether it is safe for them to be out and in the open, here are a few:

What are their friends like?
Are they in a co-ed school or a same gender school?
What is the general atmosphere at the school like?
What are their parents' political and social views like?
What are their parents' social circles like?
What are their siblings like?
Are they from a religious household? If so, what type of religious household?
Are any others out at their school?
Do they live in a rural area or an urban area?
What is their ethnic background?
What socioeconomic background do they come from?
How much pressure do they personally face to conform to heteronormative/patriarchal/cisnormative standards?

What can be said with 100% certainty is it was harder to grow up LGBT in the past than not being LGBT at the time, and it is still harder to grow up LGBT than it is to not be LGBT in the present, even with progress in the last few decades.

I think it's also likely that you're so used to seeing characters who are like you that you notice it more than people who aren't as used to being represented. Thinking about it as a quota system is not the right way, it's more a case of there need to be more POC in leading roles, more disabled people in leading roles, more women in leading roles, more LGBTs in leading roles etc. It's not a case of every single film/series needs some representation for every marginalised group out there. So this is why terms like "quota" and "politically correct" sound like a bit of a red flag to me.

I suspect when it comes to Disney and Pixar, when they do shove in one LGBT character, it's normally because they've had such a long period of being "family-friendly" (AKA a homophobic dog whistle) that they're trying to show they're learning, but of course, they'll only do this for very minor characters usually.

It's also worth remembering the positive portrayals that don't fall into a number of tropes have only really started to be more common in the last decade or so. Plenty of films end up with LGBT characters being killed or committing suicide, suffering serious problems surrounding their sexuality and loneliness/isolation. There's also been quite a few films where LGBT themes have been significantly toned down, one example of that was Alexander (about Alexander the Great).

Also regarding the stats, plenty of people are still very closeted and not in a position to come out, so the stats don't give you anything close to the full picture. But that's already been said.

Trying to be informative here.

 

[huguest]

I can assure you at no time was my efforts or intention here to criticize; quite the contrary. If you read my first post, you'll see I was taken aback by your Thread/Opening Post. Your reply to that, quite frankly, gave me more cause for pause. I'm glad that we now appear able to move past that.

I am happy to have a discussion with anyone here pretty much about anything IF that discussion is truly open to various opinions and when expressed, supported by facts. Facts matter. I'm aware that one can find pretty much any source on the intraweb that will support whatever position one wishes to take. I'm not one to accept "stats" when I know they are not truly accurate or representative of what it is being discussed.

As a gay man, I've had my share of being made to feel lesser than. For no other reason that my sexuality. And that's exactly how your Opening Post in this thread, presented as it was, made me feel. While it may not have been your intention, it struck me as more "how dare non-straight white people" be portrayed in TV and movies. That's why I challenged it and you. Because quite frankly, it's about damn time that TV and movies reflect the reality in which I live.

It's why you see more content that feature inter-racial couples. Same-sex couples. Inter-racial same-sex couples. And on and on. Because that's a reflection of what's going on in society. And, never forget that content creators know which demographics have the most spending power, or disposable income, if you will. Marketing is always happening. And savvy marketers adjust as society adjusts. Because the bottom line is always: how can I maximize my bottom line monetarily. Making money.

Today, there are a lot more than 1-6% who ID as non-hetereo. Important to remember that not every person has been or will be canvassed for how they choose to identify. That's why when I read stats, I consider the fact that it's a sampling. Of very few people in the big scheme of how many humans there are on this planet. And sadly, many people are simply afraid to identify when asked other than straight. Just about the only "class" of folks not looked down upon by mainstream society IMO.

I've learned through my 10 years at LPSG a lot about a lot that I had no idea even was a thing. I had no clue that so many men who identify as Straight will have sex with another man, yet they still ID as straight. I can't wrap my brain around that, though I do say I have tried. Or that if that same "straight" married man is fooling around with another man sexually, it's not cheating. That somehow it's only cheating when it's with another woman. WTF?

And while you or I don't have to necessarily understand all the different classifications and identities that exist now, it's important to accept that many people no longer choose to identify as gay, straight or bi. As has been the norm until recent times. I don't profess to know all the different identities that people use to describe themselves now, but it's a hell of a lot more than those three. Much more specific to each person. I love that.

Who am I to tell any other person how they should choose to identify? Because I don't want anyone to tell me how to identify. That's my personal choice. And if I wish to have my personal choice respected, we should do the same of others, no?

Society is too quick in trying to pigeonhole people into those categories or assign labels to those who are different from them. Rather than engage and learn about that which they don't know. I've always been a huge believer that ignorance can be overcome, stupid not so much.

Now, to the subject of your thread.

No, I don't care about how many characters on TV or in movies are gay, straight, bi, pansexual, demisexual, whatever. I don't care if a straight person is hired to play a gay role or a gay person is hired to play a straight role. Or any other identification. I get that Hollywood often casts (miscasts at times!) actors because of their box office pull. Or other popularity.

What I care about is that type of character's role and/or portrayal is not stereotypical or promote such. Or gratuitous. That it contributes to the story. I think that's what most viewers want. A time to escape their reality and be entertained. And maybe even find out they learned something without realizing they did!

Let me finish by saying I firmly believe every human being is flawed. Regardless of how we choose to identify or how society chooses to label us. Being whatever doesn't make anyone a better person because of that; it's their character and how they choose to treat and understand their fellow man. And if someone is a good person with an open heart, sit them next to me!

At the end of the day, humans are much more alike than different. I find it funny that we raise young people to be unique. Be yourself. And when being themselves means identifying as something other than cis-gendered white straight, that's when the issues begin to surface.

I apologize for the long-windedness with this post. Your thread struck a nerve. I hope we can all have a viable and open discussion in which we all may learn a thing or two or three.

Thanks MisterB for your time and explanation.

Now I understand more what you mean by stats. I'm sorry my stats didn't reflect the reality of LGBTQ.
But it's irrelevant if Hollywood work with stereotype.

I'm on the same page with you, people are a mix of everything and are not categorized.
But let just say we will not see this in a Disney movie. Tv/movie need to put a tag on a character, it's a story.

Your right, it's a business and movie do what people want. But it's not only that, you got political, morality, religious, etc. that do put pressure on how, who, it should be presented.

I'm on the same page as well, I do view movie/tv to relax and be entertained. I don't care who's play who if at the end the story make sense, if the use of a stereotype LGBTQ make sense in the story.

But I do see sometime a choice that don't make sense, it's as if that choice was pressure by a political choice. I see a trend where I see more and more of those let's say error of casting.

Do you see them? or your just too happy to have LGBTQ present on screen?

I find that your more on the level of "it's been century of darkness", and I'm on the level of hey they changed something in the last few months. I see political movement there.

Thanks again for your input.

 

[huguest]

Of course I see the positive changes in the last years but I think there is still room for more.

I can understand thst some story lines seem anorganic or forced. I hope this will improve in the next time. Obviously, there is still some kind of learning process in Hollywood.

What I mean is, for example, James Bond. He was played by serveral actors and in each movie Bond had at least 3 girls. I hope there will be a time in close future where Bond (or some other major movie character, not only a side on e.g. The Boys) can be gay or lesbian and it feels organic because the main story is still James Bond. Because if it's no problem when Bond dates 3 girls in 2 hours what's the problem if he dates 3 boys (or she 3 girls)?

I can't say anything about the specific movie you mentioned because I haven't seen it.

good point, did you know, that in the last James bond, they included a 007 women to replace James.
Do you know that they plan to cast a black James bond in the future movies! (not official)

Hmmm, is hollywood is trying to hard?

 

[huguest]

I don't think it's a problem. As a matter of fact the opposite, I love it. But I hate when its over the top forced and doesn't feel natural. Like in Avengers End Game with all the women in the final battle at the one scene together, like seriously I loled that was such a corny virtue signal. I don't like virtue signaling for the sake of virtue signaling. And like, I actually want to see better male representation. Not more, better.

I would love for a Disney prince movie to come out. I mean Aladdin is the only one I can even think of in the past what 20 + years and even then Jasmine sometimes overshadows Aladdin as the princess of the story (Aladdin is my favorite Disney movie just to get that out there). I just want "real" male characters that deal with real male issues. Issues of insecurity, how to treat women, how a women should be treating them, friendship among guys, emotional issues being addressed and not swept under the rug. It's ok to cry, it's ok to not value fighting prowess and physical strength and be a peaceful gentle soul. Like more of that, please! This is why I love Doctor Who so much. All of the modern male doctors are such great examples of all of this. The Doctor is such a great male role model. Jodie is also a fine doctor, despite the haters.

Seriously, give me a good Disney prince movie! Check this video out -- the "Frozen" song genderbent/animated with a male character. This could have been a freaking awesome movie if Elza were male. To be clear, the movie was freaking awesome as it was. What I am saying is, just watching this video shows how good (imo) a true, Disney prince story could be. Also, side note, this song hits hard as a closeted bi dude when the song is sung/animated this way. Even his body language resonates.

I would love this ! Your right, we totally need more prince movies.

 

[Blastolene]

The film industry has gone far too woke. They are going to put themselves out of business.

They feel the need to have any super hero be a mixed race female, probably trans or lesbian... They will be 5'0" and will order 6' tall guys around like children... while being able to knock them out with a single punch. It's so ridiculous, it makes the films unwatchable.

I like to see some plausibility of the characters within the confines of the film... and when they go FULL WOKE and Politically Correct... just for the sake of doing so, it kills the movie. Can't stand to watch today's stuff. Top Gun and Yellowstone have made billions... for a reason... while the concocted woke stuff has tanked. They even canceled Batgirl after some trial openings because peoplenhared it so much.

 

[huguest]

Mate, not a fan of the tack of a straight person implicitly telling me "everything's fine, now. Equality's been reached." You may not have directly said that, but that's what it sounds like with the direction of your questioning. If equality had been reached, the gay apps and websites wouldn't be 30%+ faceless profiles, straight male actors wouldn't be praised for their "bravery" for playing a gay character, you wouldn't hear about hate crimes, you wouldn't see a lesbian couple getting their kid removed from school because the teachers don't want to explain their relationship, or the amount of shit trans people are getting from the media, or the way monkeypox is being reported.

I'm 35. As for what the situation is like for young LGBTs, yes, you can talk about broader trends that more will be out than in the past, and the coming out age is lowering over time, and being explicitly homophobic is less socially acceptable than it used to be. But in some parts of the west, you also have creeping homophobic and transphobic legislation (don't say gay bill in Florida as one example). The suicide rate is still considerably higher for them and so is the homelessness rate. There are far too many variables to the individual involved as to whether it is safe for them to be out and in the open, here are a few:

What are their friends like?
Are they in a co-ed school or a same gender school?
What is the general atmosphere at the school like?
What are their parents' political and social views like?
What are their parents' social circles like?
What are their siblings like?
Are they from a religious household? If so, what type of religious household?
Are any others out at their school?
Do they live in a rural area or an urban area?
What is their ethnic background?
What socioeconomic background do they come from?
How much pressure do they personally face to conform to heteronormative/patriarchal/cisnormative standards?

What can be said with 100% certainty is it was harder to grow up LGBT in the past than not being LGBT at the time, and it is still harder to grow up LGBT than it is to not be LGBT in the present, even with progress in the last few decades.

I think it's also likely that you're so used to seeing characters who are like you that you notice it more than people who aren't as used to being represented. Thinking about it as a quota system is not the right way, it's more a case of there need to be more POC in leading roles, more disabled people in leading roles, more women in leading roles, more LGBTs in leading roles etc. It's not a case of every single film/series needs some representation for every marginalised group out there. So this is why terms like "quota" and "politically correct" sound like a bit of a red flag to me.

I suspect when it comes to Disney and Pixar, when they do shove in one LGBT character, it's normally because they've had such a long period of being "family-friendly" (AKA a homophobic dog whistle) that they're trying to show they're learning, but of course, they'll only do this for very minor characters usually.

It's also worth remembering the positive portrayals that don't fall into a number of tropes have only really started to be more common in the last decade or so. Plenty of films end up with LGBT characters being killed or committing suicide, suffering serious problems surrounding their sexuality and loneliness/isolation. There's also been quite a few films where LGBT themes have been significantly toned down, one example of that was Alexander (about Alexander the Great).

Also regarding the stats, plenty of people are still very closeted and not in a position to come out, so the stats don't give you anything close to the full picture. But that's already been said.

Trying to be informative here.

Thanks for your insight, loll I just realise I been using cota instead of quota. Thanks for the flag.

I wont say I understand your situation. And I think you got great arguments. You make me realise that casting have been tone down or badly cast in many way's.

I'm right behind you, on society should be more represented in tv, more women, more disabled people in leading role. But for me it's still need to tell a story. If it's about a disabled person, the movie should talk about that, the story, what happen how the person live with it, etc.

I have the impression there are quota when let's say they put a disabled person in the race in fast and furious. It doesn't bring anything to the story except visibility. And I don't know for you, but me if I go see a racing car movie, I'm not there to see a disabled person.

In "lightyear" the sequence is very short and doesn't bring nothing to the story. It's literally there to give visibility, a quota if you prefer. It's fine if you like it.

I'm worried because it's a trend that may take root and go too far. Like I said to Angelo123, they plan to put a black as a James Bond in the next movie, some would be happy with that. but since Hollywood only want to provoke and surprise I wonder how far and who will capitalize on this trend.

I would guest religion would push on the spotlight. How do you feel about it?

 

[Potatoships]

I feel they try and make a spectacle of it so that people are aware how “woke” they are. I feel the Unbrella Academy did it well where the actor transitioned between seasons and they wrote it into the script but it wasnt focused on. They werent relying on it to tell a good story

 

[dante33]

Personally I think they do.
Over the years you can clearly see how LGBT representation has moved from a one-off joke in a movie to "coded" to open portrayal. In the last few years, however, it feels more like box-checking.
What felt like progress now sounds like virtue signaling, where it is more important the abundance and diversity than its actual contribution to any given story.

The thing about LGBT representation is that it HAS to be stated for it to be clear. To me it becomes problematic when to show that a character is LGBT, they have to resource to either obvious stereotypes or to focus exclusively on that in detriment to the story.

Another gripe I have with it is the argument of "we've been in the dark for 100 years, we deserve over-representation now". True, but at the same time you are effectively demanding that 95% of the population is sidelined in favor of you, and that is kinda hypocritical. Representation should not be forced under a swing argument or you risk alienating everyone else. I'd rather have a long climb of little-by-little representation over 30 years than risking massive backlash (as we are already seeing) from overexposure.

 

[Angelo123]

Personally I think they do.
Over the years you can clearly see how LGBT representation has moved from a one-off joke in a movie to "coded" to open portrayal. In the last few years, however, it feels more like box-checking.
What felt like progress now sounds like virtue signaling, where it is more important the abundance and diversity than its actual contribution to any given story.

The thing about LGBT representation is that it HAS to be stated for it to be clear. To me it becomes problematic when to show that a character is LGBT, they have to resource to either obvious stereotypes or to focus exclusively on that in detriment to the story.

Another gripe I have with it is the argument of "we've been in the dark for 100 years, we deserve over-representation now". True, but at the same time you are effectively demanding that 95% of the population is sidelined in favor of you, and that is kinda hypocritical. Representation should not be forced under a swing argument or you risk alienating everyone else. I'd rather have a long climb of little-by-little representation over 30 years than risking massive backlash (as we are already seeing) from overexposure.

No LGBTQ member demands 95% of the population to be sidelined. This wouldn't be the case if some of the lead actors were gay. I really do not worry about the underrepresentation of straight white people.

 

[huguest]

No LGBTQ member demands 95% of the population to be sidelined. This wouldn't be the case if some of the lead actors were gay. I really do not worry about the underrepresentation of straight white people.

I not worry too, it would make no sense. But you do bring your vision in the "open question".
I'm mostly talking about what I think is a reality, hollywood now have quota. The quota is to show minority on tv.

It's a other subject, but here in Canada, we have politic government that force a ration of women/men. So in some case, we end up employ a less competent women vs a better suited men for the job. And it's ok, it's a movement and it's not without downside.

Quota with Hollywood, it's something else, it's witch minority we put in the balance to level the ration. It's timescreen and in an action movies there is not much timescreen without changing the story telling just to include quota.

So right now it's LGBTQ that have the spotlight and it's great! I wonder minority for minority religion could easily take the spotlight for the same arguments.

It is a thing with religion in the government of Israel, Hollywood is not THAT big, political pressure from outside could easily force quota on hollywood. IF hollywood do take Quota.

 

[MisterB]

I keep seeing this mention of Hollywood having a quota. I'm not aware of that; do you have any references to cite to support that?

Hollywood, as I've said prior, is no different from any business entity. The goal is to make money. The most you can. Squeeze the most out of your product.

Hollywood, like any big business, has lobbyists. Many of them are marketeers. Selling/promoting the product.

Movies are routinely licensed to allow related products and likenesses to be produced. That makes money.

TV shows are hyped to promote ads to be sold at the highest prices. That makes money.

Let's face it; the entertainment business is all about the bottom line: Money!

 

[halcyondays]

Saying you know you're 100% straight without having been laboratory tested is like saying you know what your blood pressure is without ever having had it tested.

Yes, human sexual physiological response can be measured. Has been for over 30 years.

Based on those population studies there's a 90% chance you'll have some sexual physiological response to at least someone of both sexes based on visual stimulation only.

LGBTQI+ are not 1-6% of the population as you say. Hollywood reflects this. It's not about quotas.

The heteronormative prince/princess myth may be your preference but it does not reflect reality. Same goes for hero myths. There's a reason they're called myths.

You have a bias. You say "it clearly brings nothing to the story" to have adult LGBT characters represented in the film. Yet you do not say the same about heteronormative characters in the Toy Story franchise.

The human population is not just heteronormative. It's homo-normative, bi-normative, trans-normative, queer-normative. Even spellcheck is heteronormative because it doesn't recognize any of these other normalities which is why I had to add a dash in their spelling!

I was born late in the Boomer cohort. I grew up in the 60s and 70s. Any/all non-straight sexuality was considered mental illness at best. At worst it was criminal. Prison awaits.

My, my how the world has begun to change. It continues to change.

It becomes more honest.

 

[huguest]

I keep seeing this mention of Hollywood having a quota. I'm not aware of that; do you have any references to cite to support that?

Hollywood, as I've said prior, is no different from any business entity. The goal is to make money. The most you can. Squeeze the most out of your product.

Hollywood, like any big business, has lobbyists. Many of them are marketeers. Selling/promoting the product.

Movies are routinely licensed to allow related products and likenesses to be produced. That makes money.

TV shows are hyped to promote ads to be sold at the highest prices. That makes money.

Let's face it; the entertainment business is all about the bottom line: Money!

Well, I'll be honest, it's something I noticed over the last few months, it's not something I read about. In the end I may wanted to just discuss and share my observation.

Like you point out in a previous post, you can find anything to support your point on the internet.

This is a news that explain my observation.
Hollywood and LGBT character quotas

And you're right, it's all about money. But still, politic, cultural, media have all some power over hollywood.

Like I said, it's a fine line, I'm starting to feel like I'm writing by myself for myself. It's may not be that important.

Anyway cheer.

 

[halcyondays]

Ah. A conservative christian political bias. What a surprise.

 

[aaronxp]

I dont like it when it feels forced, and if it feels forced it probably is... look what they did to SATC or and just like that it was simply atrocious and the og show was pretty inclusive already... anyway all this forced inclusion is backfiring, it should be done well (not with a remake of x movie with poc or switching genders).

 

[SpartanDystopia]

Yep, not only Hollywood but all the media.
Suddenly they're all woke and there doesn't seem to be a drama comedy or whatever that doesn't feature some group of oppressed people who, five years ago would turn up just inside the radar.
I just think it would be better if the media were truthful instead of changing the sex and race of a character just so the event could be hailed as representative/innovative. It's not, its untruthful

Lol. Like 20 years ago Boston Legal was spun off of The Practice and showrunner David E Kelley decided episode #1 would be BLACK LITTLE ORPHAN ANNIE. All Sharpton was even in the episode. (if you do not know this series it had william shatner, candice bergen and james spader)

the writers foresaw all the silliness of people over-reacting to this stuff 2 decades ago, yet y'all persist in getting triggered by it. why on earth does the race/sex of a character matter so much. its fiction. In shakespeare days all the actors were men. guess thats what you want? lol

david e kelley was also the first person to put an internet Meme in a tv show, in 1998, so he is BASED.

 

[SpartanDystopia]

So you would like more leading hero's that represent LGBTQ?

I want to see James Bond played as a gay guy and the gay villains from the old books turned into christian nationalists. That would be a riot.

 

[SpartanDystopia]

Take for example, "Ms. marvel", it's talk about Muslim community. It was nicely done, they even explain why one of the second character use veil. They could do the same for all religion.

I see a lot of mentions of Hollywood. But Netflix, Disney, Amazon... These are global companies and their revenue has increasingly came from global sources. Not just US.

Why would they limit their films/shows to ideas from, the glory days of hollywood or Murican comic books. That is absurd, and just bad business.

Also, in US, majority of kids born today are nonwhite. So why would disney cartoons not feature more diverse characters? Its their market.