If I had to point out a weak point in this show, that would be it exactly ... the Boris and Natasha stereotype. Every time they bring a Russian character on the screen they are either a hapless oppressed victim or an evil villain. Particularly now, when there is this Ukraine/Russia war and we can see the same heavy hand of censorship and poor if not outright dishonest coverage of it in the Western Media it makes it look like there is a single point of control of the narrative across all media. It reminded me of the MSNBC firing of the host of their most popular TV show, Donahue, who had the audacity to have guests on his show speaking to both sides of the Iraq war.

I don't mind the gay President thread, but instead could be more critical of the terrorist thread. I mean, why? I think you'd have to interview how women/girls/gays see this to make the claim that it is some kind of pandering. Responsible media tries to be inclusive, and to me that is a good thing, but a thing that will always provoke criticism if it is not done perfectly, or even if it is.

I have no problems with inclusion as a RL idea and practice. It is right that people should have a fair crack at opportunity regardless of their colour, gender, orientation etc.

What goes on in drama however, at least from an audience perspective, is representation, not inclusion. It is only inclusion from an actor's perspective, since it is an opportunity to work and be visible. When audiences start to see representations in media that are discordant with reality, then suspension of reality is compromised.

I would pay good money to see an all African production of Macbeth. It would be a challenging and interesting concept and an opportunity to see actors I might not otherwise. But there are limits to how far this sort of thing can be pushed. Even tho FAM is set in an alternate reality, imo it pushed it all too hard and started to look exploitative and opportunistic.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

I would pay good money to see an all African production of Macbeth. It would be a challenging and interesting concept and an opportunity to see actors I might not otherwise. But there are limits to how far this sort of thing can be pushed. Even tho FAM is set in an alternate reality, imo it pushed it all too hard and started to look exploitative and opportunistic.

I saw an African adaptation of Macbeth on stage once. It was badASS. Set in the Congo mid 20th century amid warring tribes (toting machine guns) and cutthroat ambition, Shakespeare’s work came to life in a very real sense while staying true to the spirit & language of the original text. The 3 witches were replaced by a voodoo priestess who made your blood curdle.

Or for that matter, how about Kurosawa’s epic adaptations of Shakespeare as samurai flicks with a Japanese cast? Brilliant. To me that’s the best way to use a minority cast in an incongruous story. Often they really need to change the entire setting to make it work, keeping the audience’s suspension of disbelief. But that’s where the screenwriter’s creativity and skill needs to shine.

I think a lot of the hate toward minority cast remakes is the fault of the screenwriter not putting in any effort to explain the backstory of why we’re seeing an apparent anachronism.

I haven’t watched this series yet (I came here because I thought it was a discussion of the original 1989 film), but I see it was created by Ronald D Moore who did some brilliant upgrades to Battlestar Galactica (is there anyone among us who didn’t think Katee Sackhoff was amazing as the gender-reversed Starbuck??), so I plan to check this out.

I agree with your comments.

The 'lack of backstory' is very simple to explain. Minorities are being cast in generic roles where there are no properties of, for example, blackness, to the character. It is just casting for the sake of representation.

The rejoinder is usually that there are many ways to be black and dramatic representations shouldn't need to pander to stereotypes. I fully accept this. But, and this is important, writers failing to explore minority lives thru their characters means authentic representation isn't moved forward at all. Casting a black actor as Ann Boleyn gives one actor a job and allows for black children to see themselves imagined in publicly meaningful ways. Martin Luther King Jr was absolutely right to encourage Nichelle Nichols to stay with Star Trek for this very reason. But we must surely have moved past where mere visibility is enough. Certainly it isn't enough dramatically. Writers need to do more to explore the experiences of minorities. If they keep doing these token exercises in casting, they may well end up doing more harm than good. And for the probable majority of audiences who just want interesting stories with well written characters, the damage has already been done.