Part of the problem is not being in charge of the telling of one's own story. For a long time Hollywood, and perhaps other places that have dealt in entertainment, thought that treating a queer character decently would be death to the financials. Oh, maybe male fantasy "lesbians" with a wink and a nudge would be o.k. But anything else had to be a dreadful stereotype done for the laughs, a tragedy, or both. And a story about someone who was queer was always a story of the other, since everyone in Hollywood was closeted.
And now? Well, I think in some ways change in Hollywood may be slower than other places. They're still marketing to their idea of small town middle America. They ask themselves "How will this affect the box office in Minnesota? How will this affect the box office in the Bible Belt?" Because, for all of the 'glamor', it's a business. (In fact, the 'glamor' is a part of the business, marketing.) Meanwhile, for all people fume about it, marriage equality is the law in Iowa, the heart of the corn belt.
Cable can experiment with shows that have groups of positive LBGTQ characters. Cable can experiment with shows that have groups of meth heads as characters. The expectations and scope of the target markets are different.
But we have more out LBGTQ actors now, and a few more positive LBGTQ characters in mainstream movies and even broadcast shows (I remember my surprise in 1989 when the TV show Doctor Doctor had a gay male character and didn't do anything more horrible to him than they did to the rest of the characters. Groundbreaking at the time.)
Um, yeah, I don't have issues on this topic at all....
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2012-06-30 03:39 am (UTC)And now? Well, I think in some ways change in Hollywood may be slower than other places. They're still marketing to their idea of small town middle America. They ask themselves "How will this affect the box office in Minnesota? How will this affect the box office in the Bible Belt?" Because, for all of the 'glamor', it's a business. (In fact, the 'glamor' is a part of the business, marketing.) Meanwhile, for all people fume about it, marriage equality is the law in Iowa, the heart of the corn belt.
Cable can experiment with shows that have groups of positive LBGTQ characters. Cable can experiment with shows that have groups of meth heads as characters. The expectations and scope of the target markets are different.
But we have more out LBGTQ actors now, and a few more positive LBGTQ characters in mainstream movies and even broadcast shows (I remember my surprise in 1989 when the TV show Doctor Doctor had a gay male character and didn't do anything more horrible to him than they did to the rest of the characters. Groundbreaking at the time.)
Um, yeah, I don't have issues on this topic at all....