if we are talking the future of humanity and alien societies, shouldn't other forms of thinking be present They should be. And hey, theoretically, they are, what with the whole 51st century thing, where everybody apparently sleeps with everyone. It is significant, though, that Moffat never actually set an episode in the 51st century. He uses characters from that time in present-time episodes, to excuse making a spectacle of their sexuality and otherness. Or, well, he did with Jack. With River, he had a couple of throwaway funny lines about her fancying other women in the Library episodes, but once she became a recurring character, that completely went out the window. She's supposed to be bi- or omnisexual, but there wasn't a single non-hetero reference to her sexuality in season 5. (While there were a lot of hetero references, of course.)
but certainly it's okay to have throw away characters or throw away lines that elude to the gay, the bisexual, the asexual, the transgendered and all sorts of orientations and sexualities Yes. Especially considering that there were a ton of references to heterosexual sexuality in season 5. Non-hetero and hetero references don't have to be equal in number, but it'd be nice if the non-hetero part were present at all.
I think overall Hollywood thinks people are a lot more homophobic, racist and sexist then we really are. I think Hollywood is playing it safe. Because if you put a queer reference in your movie, people might not react with open hostility--but they might subconsciously decide that hey, that movie had all those modern, newfangled ideas, and might end up have a small sting of ambiguity about it. It's not so much about openly gay characters, I think--if a character is established as gay, then people can prepare themselves. Okay, this one's gay, this one's not like me. But if you put queer references into a movie without warning, you startle people out of their heterosexual comfort zone, and Hollywood doesn't like not being predictable. (All of this of course goes for actually strong female characters as well.)
I do think, though, that more diversity in the media would be greeted positively. You can see it with Doctor Who. RTD's New Who had tons of textual queer references, and it's become the most-watched show in the UK and has finally managed to breach the American market on a scale that Doctor Who has never before achieved. But you have to have courage to write differently than the norm, and really, courage, especially to do new things, isn't exactly something that's welcome in Hollywood, or generally the media business.
no subject
They should be. And hey, theoretically, they are, what with the whole 51st century thing, where everybody apparently sleeps with everyone. It is significant, though, that Moffat never actually set an episode in the 51st century. He uses characters from that time in present-time episodes, to excuse making a spectacle of their sexuality and otherness. Or, well, he did with Jack. With River, he had a couple of throwaway funny lines about her fancying other women in the Library episodes, but once she became a recurring character, that completely went out the window. She's supposed to be bi- or omnisexual, but there wasn't a single non-hetero reference to her sexuality in season 5. (While there were a lot of hetero references, of course.)
but certainly it's okay to have throw away characters or throw away lines that elude to the gay, the bisexual, the asexual, the transgendered and all sorts of orientations and sexualities
Yes. Especially considering that there were a ton of references to heterosexual sexuality in season 5. Non-hetero and hetero references don't have to be equal in number, but it'd be nice if the non-hetero part were present at all.
I think overall Hollywood thinks people are a lot more homophobic, racist and sexist then we really are.
I think Hollywood is playing it safe. Because if you put a queer reference in your movie, people might not react with open hostility--but they might subconsciously decide that hey, that movie had all those modern, newfangled ideas, and might end up have a small sting of ambiguity about it. It's not so much about openly gay characters, I think--if a character is established as gay, then people can prepare themselves. Okay, this one's gay, this one's not like me. But if you put queer references into a movie without warning, you startle people out of their heterosexual comfort zone, and Hollywood doesn't like not being predictable. (All of this of course goes for actually strong female characters as well.)
I do think, though, that more diversity in the media would be greeted positively. You can see it with Doctor Who. RTD's New Who had tons of textual queer references, and it's become the most-watched show in the UK and has finally managed to breach the American market on a scale that Doctor Who has never before achieved. But you have to have courage to write differently than the norm, and really, courage, especially to do new things, isn't exactly something that's welcome in Hollywood, or generally the media business.