Do the best shows deliberately set out to check off every box, or do they just let their shows happen?
Bryan Fuller: Diversity is key
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
- Status
It is bad!
And "the lead is a female" is no excuse for being so unequal among the supporting cast. When the lead is a male, they still cast all the time more male characters in supporting roles than female characters, but when the lead is a female, it should suddenly be a reason for casting few supporting female characters? Just no.
I agree, that not all characters will be on screen all the time. Some will be recurring. Some will be just relative minor characters. But I think among those characters will be also 2-3 of the female characters and not just a bunch of the male characters. So the gender ratio likely will still be bad among the characters, which get a lot of focus.
Last edited:
No show can ever just be "let happen". They're entirely fictional constructions in which every single aspect is the result of a specific decision.
I agree that trying to tick absolutely every box in terms of gender, sexuality, ethicity, disability, etc can get in the way of creativity (although I would draw your attention to sense8), but diversity should always be a factor in the decsions that are being made.
No fiction "just happens."
No television series "just evolves."
These things are the result of myriad deliberate decisions to do or not do particular things or go in certain directions.
Now, if you eliminate the "just" from the sentence your observation is not as preposterous - just as trite and irrelevant, yeah, but not complete nonsense.
This is just to start. Chekov didn't get introduced until season 2, Seven of Nine until Season 4.
But Seven was replacing Kes, a woman, leading to no net changes in male/female ratios, and Chekov took a job that could have been filled by any number of new characters every episode from multiple demographic groups. For instance, the role he played in one episode (such as the "one landing party who did not succumb to the aging disease" in "The Deadly Years") could have easily been a woman or somebody from another minority.
But Seven was replacing Kes, a woman, leading to no net changes in male/female ratios, and Chekov took a job that could have been filled by any number of new characters every episode from multiple demographic groups. For instance, the role he played in one episode (such as the "one landing party who did not succumb to the aging disease" in "The Deadly Years") could have easily been a woman or somebody from another minority.
@MadeIndescribable , @Serveaux , I meant are the best shows sometimes a result of people having ideas later, as opposed to when they begin to work on it.
Like if they only decide in season 4, "you know these two characters? they should start falling in love" when that was never the plan in seasons 1-3 - in fact, they mostly co-existed in the same workspace but never really noticed each other.
Versus somebody saying, "okay, in four seasons these characters who don't start out interested in each other will wind up together. Now let's make sure that happens slowly and plant seeds this season, then next, then third, and finally work it out in the 4th."
Like if they only decide in season 4, "you know these two characters? they should start falling in love" when that was never the plan in seasons 1-3 - in fact, they mostly co-existed in the same workspace but never really noticed each other.
Versus somebody saying, "okay, in four seasons these characters who don't start out interested in each other will wind up together. Now let's make sure that happens slowly and plant seeds this season, then next, then third, and finally work it out in the 4th."
They would have women in their lives and interact with them.
Didn't say it was an excuse, just an observation. Also, Fuller is believed to be little more than an advisor to the show considering his work on American Gods is taking most of his time.
I wonder how many more slots are set to be cast in DIS?
I agree the raw numbers are not looking great right now. However, I like to make the point that we still don't really know anything about the structure of the show or the relative prominence of these various roles, beyond that Sonequa Martin-Green is the lead.
If everyone else is co-equal in terms of airtime, I'll be complaining about the gender breakdown.
But I think it's definitely possible that in the finished show, we'll only think of 6, 7, 8 of these people as our core characters, and everyone else might be small parts or 2 episode recurs at the margins. I want to know who the proper regulars are first before rendering any verdicts.
Women are not a tiny minority, where that box thinking might make sense.
Everyone's going to have a different opinion on what are "the best shows", but I get your point, and there are examples of choices being made in later seasons based on how earlier seasons ended up and were received by the audience etc.
But using your example, I don't see how character arcs and interactions are really the same argument as creating a diverse cast for a series from the beginning?
I mean the box of having a certain number, all the groups, all the types, etc...
People liked books movies and TV just fine before we started analyzing it.
People liked books movies and TV just fine before we started analyzing it.
I was trying to think of something fast. Got a better one? (No, really. I mean it.)
The difference is I guess that we now have people recognizing and asking for this by name. When some future marginalized/under-repped/small that later becomes larger/more vocal group stands up in the years to come, we'll deal with that when we come to it.
Can't say that I do. There are so many people involved in the process - writers, casting, execs, the actors who try out themselves - and the limitations of certain scripts/show place and time settings....
The one that imediately springs to mind is Spike in Buffy. Originally he was just meant to be the villain for season two, but came back as a regular because fans loved him so much (although Joss Whedon was also well known for planning ahead, he always knew
Buffy's mum would die in season 5.)
Buffy was also specifically designed to be about female empowerment from the start, and the amount of female characters was also a very conscious choice right from the beginning. So in that regard, the addition of a male character was actually equaling out the mostly women ratio.
Buffy did suck when it came to race though...
Some are made like this, some aren't. We love some and hate others. We love some for what they do/don't include/exclude and hate others for what they do/don't. And some in spite of this. Always has been, always will be.
Speaking personally, (and going back to my earlier examples) Band of Brothers aside, I can't think of any other un-diverse show I enjoy/wtch. On the flip side of this, part of the reason I love Sense8 is that is has such a broad range of diversity.
Also, I should probably admit my opinions are coming from the benefit of having two Film & TV degrees which has given me a greater apprecation as much as a more critical view of how these things are constructed.
Good Times? What's Happening? I didn't watch either of those shows so I can't say. The only thing I know about both is that they're about black families.
The Great Escape is a good example of there being no women. I think there's some in the background when they do escape, but thats it. Not that women would be cast in that particular film, but it's a fascinating one when looking at the era it was made in and success it gained.
- Status
