[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tv/ - Television & Film


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Why is it that modern tv, which is more inclusive, often does a worse job of representing black and gay people. Older tv shows somehow managed to tackle social issues in a way that was more subtle and thoughtful. For example, the character of Data from star trek was not intended to be autistic, yet autistic people feel represented by him and see him as a positive role model, meanwhile shows like the good doctor who have canonically autistic characters and try to be inclusive come off as insulting and infantilizing. It often feels like when modern shows try to include poc and queer people it comes off as disingenuous and ham fisted, like they are lecturing their audience rather than telling a meaningful story. In general modern tv and film writing just comes off as incredibly insincere and lacking any subtlety.
>>
>>216057347
Because if a character is black or gay, their blackness/gayness will be the extent of their characterization. Stuff like that has gone from simple subtext to the only thing about them that matters. In short; shitty, lazy writers.
>>
>cool robot
Hey thats just like
>accurate depiction of what im actually like
Fuck this shit man
>>
>watch video of AI playing limit Hold'em heads/up
>video demonstrates that AI has "solved" poker
>other player's stack goes up or down with each hand
>AI stack auto reloads every time it busts out
>>
Old shows/movies understood that entertainment was more important than *the message*
>>
>>216057347
because /tv/ back then was presenting 'minorities' in a romanticised, sympathetic portrayal. After 2012 they incorrectly thought they didn't need the propaganda anymore and started portraying them as they actually are.
>>
File: 1742606295989943.jpg (85 KB, 308x302)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>216057818
>>
>>216057347
I agree with you wholeheartedly, and it's a big bugbear of mine. I think it boils down to more institutionalised prejudice. If you said "I made an autistic robot character" the money people would say "No, too divisive, not family friendly, we don't want to touch that..." etc. But you say "I made robot character who is trying to learn how to act more human." and there was no association so it flew by. I also think the word "lecture" is important, because no one likes being preached to and modern shows are damn preachy. The best kind of symbolism is where it's not in your face. If Data had looked at a character and said the words
>"My behaviour is what neurospecialists call 'autistic'."

Tolkien had it right. Metaphor sucks, applicability rules. You can watch Odo talk about how being a solid is shit, and draw your own associations. To you he's talking about feeling estranged from his family, to me he's talking about being grown up, to Anon he's talking about being trans, to Anon who calls everyone a faggot he's talking about not being able to express his homosexual desires. Imagine how fucking awful it'd be if he said
>"Being a solid is like being a Native American who is given a smallpox infected blanket."
No one likes being lectured, preached at, or otherwise told what to think.
>>
>>216057347
because writers are all DEI hires who have very little creative skill so they have a hard time being realistic and just slap things together and hoping for the best.
>>
>>216058567
This is exactly what I mean
If Data had looked at a character and said the words
>"My behaviour is what neurospecialists call 'autistic'."
You are right to point this out, if TNG had been written today someone would have wanted to write this into the show and it would have made Data a far less interesting character
>>
>>216059086
Yup, why it is this way, who the fuck knows? Less prejudiced institutions okay stuff without veiling the meaning? An increase in social issue awareness and desire to discuss them is having bad scripts greenlit because social media will give it free marketing? Average writer talent went down? Subtlety fell out of fashion? All of the above? None of the above?

All I know is that DS9 was gay as shit, and when they interfered to make the actors stop being so gay the average episode quality went down. TNG is constantly setting up ethical quandaries and then trying to solve them while drawing parallels to contemporary politics but not equivocating them. Then all the new shit is "climate change bad let's kill all the people who done a climate change". Everything from nutrek and many modern unrelated shows is on the level of TNG Symbiosis except their idea of female empowerment is two ladies shooting each other in the cunt.

The word "classless" comes to my mind as well.
>>
>>216057347
In the 90's we believed in the whole "the colour of your skin doesn't matter" meme. So ethnic characters were just written the same as white ones.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.