A miniseries about the Indonesian tsunamis starring... Brits?

College Confidential Community
1

<p>Source: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/reviews/2006-12-07-tsunami_x.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/reviews/2006-12-07-tsunami_x.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In 2004, a catastrophic natural disaster occurred in Southeastern Asia, killing hundreds of thousands of people. The magnitude and tragedy were so immense that it sparked an enormous outpour of sympathy and generosity from the rest of the world. Two years later, HBO is making a two-part movie about the event. But revolving around an event that has made the biggest impact on Southeast Asians, the movie chooses to overlook the 200 000 or so victims and instead focus on the grand story of British tourists.</p>

<p>To be somewhat fair, one of the British couples are of African descent, so this is not a case of typical Hollywood white-washing of other cultures (The Last Samurai, I'm glaring at you).</p>

<p><em>*? I mean, *</em>? Are dark-skinned poor people just not enough of interest to the average American viewer? Then I deride you all as callous self-centered bastards, deluding yourselves on being harbingers of civilization when you cannot even look past somebody's social status or superficial appearance. You're no more fit to govern the world than is the most uncivilized tribe in the heart of the Amazonian rainforest.</p>

<p>Why does there always have to be a white surrogate hero? Why can't a movie about Idi Amin just be about Idi Amin? Or about samurai that are just about samurai? Or better yet, if Hollywood insists on having white heroes for white audiences, just stay the hell out of Japan, Uganda, or wherever else you feel like smugly posing as some kind of god. A country has 2000 years of rich history to tell stories from, and Hollywood chooses to idolize the one white freak who assimilated and spend 200 million dollars on a movie about him. And lo and behold, what it takes the natives a lifetime to achieve takes the white man one year to become a master at. So sick of this ********.</p>

<p>The typical argument against me would be, "Well, if you hate mainstream American media so much, then stop viewing it!" Okay, I will, as soon as American media stops posing as some kind of world standard. As soon as lists of "Greatest ever" or "Most beautiful ever" stop revolving around Americana. No, I don't think Jennifer Aniston or Angelina Jolie is the world's most beautiful woman. Stop calling her that! Call her the most beautiful American; you'll hardly see any other countries publishing articles with the audacious goal of being a comprehensive worldview and only stuff it with domestic products/people. If an artist can become a superstar in Europe, South America, or Asia, maybe that's damn good enough. Who needs America? If somebody can make it big in Asia, that's over half the world; who needs the approval of 300 million dimwits in America to become a real star?</p>

2

<p>i totally agree with you, why does America do this?</p>

3

<p>
[quote]
The typical argument against me would be, "Well, if you hate mainstream American media so much, then stop viewing it!" Okay, I will, as soon as American media stops posing as some kind of world standard.

[/quote]
Wait, that doesn't even make sense...you will stop watching American media once they stop trying to act as the world standard? So you will only watch the American media when they act as the world standard? Right...</p>

<p>
[quote]
As soon as lists of "Greatest ever" or "Most beautiful ever" stop revolving around Americana. No, I don't think Jennifer Aniston or Angelina Jolie is the world's most beautiful woman. Stop calling her that! Call her the most beautiful American; you'll hardly see any other countries publishing articles with the audacious goal of being a comprehensive worldview and only stuff it with domestic products/people.

[/quote]
Umm, it's a print magazine, they can basically say whatever they want. And it's not only Americans.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If an artist can become a superstar in Europe, South America, or Asia, maybe that's damn good enough. Who needs America? If somebody can make it big in Asia, that's over half the world; who needs the approval of 300 million dimwits in America to become a real star?

[/quote]
Because America is the worlds richest, fairly homogenous, market. Not like the patchwork EU, or racist Japan, Korea or China.</p>

<p>Besides, many artists make it big in Asia and do very well for themselves. Who is saying that they don't?</p>

4

<p>
[quote]
Wait, that doesn't even make sense...you will stop watching American media once they stop trying to act as the world standard? So you will only watch the American media when they act as the world standard? Right...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I meant was that I'll stop caring if Edward Zwick wants to make Khan: The Mongol Empire starring Matt Damon once Hollywood admits that the audience they cater to is just as insular and "ethnic" as UPN is to black Americans. Please, no more token black or Asian stereotypes in an attempt to keep up the facade of universal entertainment. You know what audience you're catering to: whites (not just any whites, but dumb whites) who need to see blacks, Asians, or Europeans put in their place anytime France becomes annoying, or China becomes an economic competitor.</p>

5

<p>I'm confused, you're angry that Tom Cruise was in The Last Samurai, even though he was playing a white character? Or are you angry when white actors play non-white roles?</p>

6

<p>does it matter? as long as the movies are good, I don't care who acts in them.</p>

7

<p>Don't be surprised if the inevitable TV movie about James Kim (RIP) stars Keanu Reeves. Or better yet, why not just reverse the racial roles so they can cast Josh Duhamel and Lucy Liu?</p>

8

<p>So, do you have a problem with blacks being overrepresented in entertainment? Hell, one can hardly even find an Asian doctor on TV - yet, the outnumber blacks substantially in practice.</p>

9

<p>Blacks are over-represented? BET and UPN doesn't count, since they're "ethnic networks".</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
Because America is the worlds richest, fairly homogenous, market. Not like the patchwork EU, or racist Japan, Korea or China.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not exactly true.</p>

<p>While things have improved with regard to racial diversity and non-stereotypical portrayals of minorities in US media - problems still persist.</p>

<p>For instance, the Asian-American male portrayals tend to be sterotypical and Asian-Am females are always partnered with non-Asian-Am males (not saying portraying IR relationships are a bad thing, but when there aren't ANY portrayals of Asian-Am couples - it's problematic; we won't even discuss the lack of portrayals of AAM/WF couples, since, after all, baby steps firsts).</p>

<p>As for the media in Asia - yes, due to poor understanding of racism, Asian media often do portray blacks in a sterotypical manner (but this is changing), however, this type of stereotyping had been largely learned from Hollywood.</p>

<p>Note also, that a white person in Japan (or any other Asian country) will be treated better than an Asian person from a different Asian country.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Blacks are over-represented? BET and UPN doesn't count, since they're "ethnic networks".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, black are over-represented on TV (not that it's necessarily a bad thing). Pretty much every drama on TV has at least one major black character - CSI, Law&Order, 24, Grey's Anatomy, CSI-Miami, Law&Order SVU, Friday Night Lights, etc. </p>

<p>And take ER, for example - there have been 6-7 black doctors (6 of them BM) on the show. There has yet to be a single AM doctor, despite the fact that there are about 4x the no. of AM physicians.</p>

<p>In addition, portrayals of BM/WF couples have been fairly common.</p>

<p>Basically, BFs and AMs have gotten the shaft in Hollywood with AMs getting it the worst.</p>

11

<p>I wanted to write a nice, long post refuting all the weird **** you just posted, but really - it comes down to opinion. These movies sell, those magazines sell, and the owners can and do claim whatever they want as far as casting and script writing goes. Tough ****, welcome to reality.</p>

<p>
[quote]
<em>*? I mean, *</em>? Are dark-skinned poor people just not enough of interest to the average American viewer? Then I deride you all as callous self-centered bastards, deluding yourselves on being harbingers of civilization when you cannot even look past somebody's social status or superficial appearance. You're no more fit to govern the world than is the most uncivilized tribe in the heart of the Amazonian rainforest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not sure what to make of this outburst. What exactly is there that's so intriguing about poor, 'dark-skinned' people, that you feel that a Western audience would react more favorably toward such a cast than one that struck closer to the target demographic? I mean, that seems obvious to me. </p>

<p>What exactly do most people look at if not social status and appearance when making a value judgement, chief? Put away your irrational anger for western civilization for a second and read what you're writing. Guess what? Us evil white people aren't the only ones who judge others on their appearance and place in the social hierachy, I promise you. </p>

<p>The last part of that quote is either blatant trolling or you not understanding what exactly you're talking about, but good try at being a firebrand. </p>

<p>Maybe someday western civilization won't be the dominant cultural force this side of the moon, and all those poor Amazonian tribes and emasculated asian men can have a big celebratory bonfire.</p>

12

<p>I already watched the miniseries (it was on tv in Namibia). A few things to consider: first, the main protagonists in the show are British, but are blacks, not whites (the husband, wife, and daughter); second, the miniseries focuses on Phuket, Thailand-- a tourist hotbed. The writers for the show aren't injecting characters into a setting where they don't belong, they are using them to prove that against the backdrop of extreme local devastation (which the movie shows quite often), the tsunami affected a global community.</p>

<p>I'm all for progressive thinking but the absolute boo-hooery of American youth is getting tiresome.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
What exactly is there that's so intriguing about poor, 'dark-skinned' people, that you feel that a Western audience would react more favorably toward such a cast than one that struck closer to the target demographic? I mean, that seems obvious to me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>200 000 Indonesians died and they're asking us to sympathize with some rich British (albeit black) tourists?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Maybe someday western civilization won't be the dominant cultural force this side of the moon, and all those poor Amazonian tribes and emasculated asian men can have a big celebratory bonfire.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wow, Western civilization will collapse upon itself before it stops making racist caricatures? You're not making an optimist out of me here.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The writers for the show aren't injecting characters into a setting where they don't belong, they are using them to prove that against the backdrop of extreme local devastation

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, but still they're selectively choosing where to tell their stories. What if the only movie about the Holocaust was about some English Christian who accidentally got mistaken for a Jew, and the whole story was about how hard it was for him? How much right to you think the Jews have got to feel totally shafted? But no, it's okay isn't it, because it's not as if the writers aren't injecting characters into a setting where they don't belong.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
Blacks are over-represented? BET and UPN doesn't count, since they're "ethnic networks".

[/quote]
Blacks make up 10% of the US population. That means one a show with a core cast of 4-5 people, chances are there will not be a black person.</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
Blacks make up 10% of the US population. That means one a show with a core cast of 4-5 people, chances are there will not be a black person.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some of TV's highest rated shows like Seinfeld, Friends, Frasier, and Everybody Loves Raymond are pretty much black-free (though I can understand Seinfeld and Raymond, since they are ethnic comedies IMHO). </p>

<p>Also, you have to think of where these shows are located in. Nationally, the black population may be 10%, but in cities like NYC and LA, where a lot of shows take place, the black (and Asian) populations are much higher. I guess if ER was set in Wisconsin, your point would be valid.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
Also, you have to think of where these shows are located in. Nationally, the black population may be 10%, but in cities like NYC and LA, where a lot of shows take place, the black (and Asian) populations are much higher. I guess if ER was set in Wisconsin, your point would be valid.

[/quote]
You do know Fraiser is in Seattle, right?</p>

<p>And Friends? Clearly the viewers didn't have a problem with that show.</p>

<p>Blacks are overrepresented in media, as per the national demographics. That's why I don't understand your tirade at all.</p>

17

<p>Black populations by city:</p>

<p>NYC: 27%
Chicago: 37%
Miami: 22%
Detroit: 82%
Boston: 25%
Philadelphia: 43%
Atlanta: 61%</p>

<p>By now, even an idiot can understand the point I'm making: there are a whole lotta blacks in urban areas. And where do most TV shows take place? Nebraska? Utah? Nope. Cities. Thus, your notion of the "over-representation" of blacks is inaccurate.</p>

18

<p>Ok, so you are saying that shows should mirror reality as closely as possible?</p>

19

<p>You're now trying to present a strawman argument because your point has been disproved. You're trying to make me defend a ridiculous stance such as insisting on low-brow entertainment to precisely mirror every minute detail of reality, like some pedant. Do I want some basis in reality, such as making a movie about a tsunami that killed 200 000 Indonesians to be actually about the 200 000 Indonesians who were killed by the tsunami? Yes. That's not a little detail.</p>

<p>Let's get back to the debate at hand, shall we? You said that blacks were over-represented because given their national population of 10%, only 1 in 10 TV characters should be black. But given the fact that most TV shows take place in urban metropolises such as New York City where the black population is much higher than the national average (which takes into account places like South Dakota), I have stated that blacks seem to be more or less fairly represented, given their concentrations in urban areas. I'm probably more right than you are.</p>

<p>Also, you're the one who wanted TV shows to "mirror reality as closely as possible" by insisting upon less representation of blacks, based on a fallacious notion of yours that most cities in America have a black population of around 10%. But when I point out otherwise, now you make it seem as if taking notes from reality is something absurd. Stop flip-flopping.</p>

20

<p>Hilarious. I want to know what the point behind your tirade is. The first post. Do you want media to most accurately mirror reality? Yes or no question.</p>

<p>I don't even disagree with any factual statement you've said. And you haven't disagreed with any factual thing I've said. Your argument is that because most shows take place in metro areas that the makeup of the show should match the makeup of the metro area. That in itself is not accurate view of how the world works. At all.</p>