case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2017-03-14 06:47 pm

[ SECRET POST #3723 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3723 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Elementary, Sherlock/Fiona]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Bucky Barnes]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Clerks]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Rumer and Scout Willis]


__________________________________________________



07.
[George R.R. Martin, ASOIAF]









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #531.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

[personal profile] fscom 2017-03-14 10:50 pm (UTC)(link)
03. http://i.imgur.com/ZXEVd5I.png
[Elementary, Sherlock/Fiona]
sarillia: (Default)

[personal profile] sarillia 2017-03-14 10:57 pm (UTC)(link)
I really think the people who go on about "pandering" like this are overestimating how much of the general audience out there cares about stuff like this.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-14 11:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Do you think it's impossible to pander (in the sense of "creating something in such a way as to appeal to") to a relatively small percentage of fandom, then?
sarillia: (Default)

[personal profile] sarillia 2017-03-14 11:18 pm (UTC)(link)
Not impossible, but I don't see why the people in charge of the show would think it would be profitable to pander to that small percentage.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-14 11:23 pm (UTC)(link)
It isn't.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-15 12:02 am (UTC)(link)
That assumes that:

1) including these diverse characters is a lot of effort
2) that everything writers and showrunners do is only for profit

You might have an argument with #2, but eh, not really. Shows often have silly inside jokes or cameos that don't get them any "profit" except to share a giggle with some of the audience. Don't let cynicism blind you to reality.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-14 11:26 pm (UTC)(link)
For fannish goodwill? Someone else in this thread and the secret itself have already suggested the reason: the choices the show makes are relatively minor so they don't alienate the general audience, but still scores points with the smaller portion of the audience that does care about these issues.

Shows deliberately make little nods and references that only a small portion of their audience pick up on all the time. Ever heard of Easter eggs? In jokes? Sight gags? According to your reasoning, none of those things would ever happen.
sarillia: (Default)

[personal profile] sarillia 2017-03-14 11:29 pm (UTC)(link)
That's a good point.

I'm mainly trying to figure out where the cynicism of people complaining of pandering begins and ends. It doesn't come naturally to me. :p

(Anonymous) 2017-03-14 11:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Maybe it's my personal interpretation of the secret, but I thought OP was objecting to the fact that the show is scoring points without actually delivering very much. So, in a sense it's "pandering", but without much substance.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-14 11:05 pm (UTC)(link)
as a lgbt person, yeah, i get the frustration. obviously, making joan transgender would have had more of an impact, for instance.

but, statistically speaking, lgbt viewers and viewers who are on the spectrum are going to be vastly outnumbered by a neurotypical, heteronormative general audience. who, if you want to keep your show on air, need to be appeased first. it puts me between a rock and a hard place: i'm glad steps are being taken at all, but bigger, faster steps would make me happier.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-16 04:48 am (UTC)(link)
I don't really see how more groups would be un-appeasing them. Unless they're bigots but we shouldn't care about bigots anyway. The general audience honestly won't care.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-14 11:05 pm (UTC)(link)
The general audience doesn't care about diversity and never has. That's why diversity has been so rare for so long. It seems like the producers wanted to introduce romance into his life and created a character that they hoped would interest the audience and be a believable love interest for him without retconning earlier seasons.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-14 11:11 pm (UTC)(link)
I think talking about in terms of a "general audience" is misleading and doesn't get at what we're really talking about and assigns a normative status to groups of people that's not warranted. It's not that the general audience doesn't care about diversity. It's that the majority of the American viewing audience is white, straight, cis, etc, and is fine with only seeing people like themselves on screen. Which I think is probably broadly true, but let's be honest about what we mean and not pretend there's any more validity to it than there is, you know?

(Anonymous) 2017-03-14 11:19 pm (UTC)(link)
It's not that the general audience doesn't care about diversity. It's that the majority of the American viewing audience is white, straight, cis, etc, and is fine with only seeing people like themselves on screen.
That's exactly what not caring about diversity means in this context.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-14 11:20 pm (UTC)(link)
Like I said, I think phrasing it as "general audience" assigns it a normativity and virtue it doesn't really deserve

(Anonymous) 2017-03-16 04:49 am (UTC)(link)
The issue isn't that they don't care. The issue is that directors are convinced that they do. As in honestly the general audience would take or leave a diverse show but directors are convinced that they would be repelled by it.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-14 11:12 pm (UTC)(link)
I just don't really give a shit about people complaining about pandering anymore, personally
cbrachyrhynchos: (Default)

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos 2017-03-15 12:01 am (UTC)(link)
Sure, most of the diversity on the show comes from single-episode characters (aside from Holmes, who can't really be described as NT either). But the quality of those characters is well above what I've previously seen on TV. There's gay and bi men who are not sex objects, case studies in tragedy, walking stereotypes, or punchlines. People with major mental illness who take responsibility for it and don't chew the scenery. There are witnesses and informants who just happen to be gay or lesbian.

So sure, I'll take it.

Or maybe the writers thought it would be interesting.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-15 03:20 am (UTC)(link)
I'm pretty sure the relationship with Fiona is intended to give more insight into the way that Sherlock thinks, feels, and behaves. Or at least that's the way it seemed to me.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-15 06:27 am (UTC)(link)
I feel like this is a case of OP being so hyper aware of 'diversity' in media that they can no longer tell when it's done well.

Elementary is a modern Sherlock Holmes adaption. Sherlock the character has been interpreted to be on the spectrum for decades. Fiona's character should therefore be interpreted with that in mind, with their connection strengthening this argument. How they both navigated their relationship was then interesting character work (something the show does a lot of in mini arcs like Fiona's).

As for Mrs Hudson, I've seen other people say it was refreshing to see a trans character just exist without their trans identity being the main part of their character. All in all, I can't even think I've seen criticism of the way the show writes diverse characters, which I think says a lot about the writers seamlessly including diversity in the storylines.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-15 06:26 pm (UTC)(link)
My view of Mrs. Hudson is not that I expect storylines that make a big fuss over her trans identity, it's that I note her lack of presence beyond brief appearances in three episodes - the last one being in 2014. Not trying to be snarky, but maybe the reason why this particular inclusion is so seamless is because she's hardly ever there.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-16 04:50 am (UTC)(link)
I haven't read the books but does Mrs Hudson have a role at ALL? She's always been just "the landlady" in everything I heard, and occasional straight man to the sheninagans going on in the flat.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-15 02:25 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't care if they pander or not, but as someone with aspergers, I get second hand embarrassment so bad when I see someone with it in media or fandom works (as a character).

(Anonymous) 2017-03-16 04:51 am (UTC)(link)
That seems more like your problem than that of the media.