Hello India! Because I unfortunately belong to the overthinkers club, I´ve been recently thinking about that "famously sexy" quote especially after H´s extra sexy outfit yesterday. And I would like to share some of my opinions about this theme which maybe goes hand in hand with H´s sexuality.

As we can see how Louis is becoming more and more confident and open every show - his tanktops, his smile after barricade ripped tank top and how he came back half naked looking beyond happy, his interaction with fans, dancing and just feeling himself - I have no doubt that H is very the same. When I think back to that Better homes and gardens´ interview he said something like how he struggled with himself and felt that his sex life was the only thing that was truly his and he felt ashamed of that. The Harry we can see on stage these months is - as I personally see it - very open person who no longer struggle to be truly himself, being proud and comfortable of his sexuality (no matter how he identifies) and he loves his body. Of course, there´s a factor of being on stage and put up a great show but I don´t think he´ll be able to do it as he does if he won´t be confident and won´t feel it. Yes, there are all those marketing strategies how he´s sold as a sex symbol mostly for female audience and I see this very similar to how Ricky Martin has been sold during 00´s - he has very sexy videos where he´s making out with woman, his body was (and still is) very ripped and mostly half naked. Back then even my child self (I was about 10 years old) saw him as a total sex god. And now he´s openly gay, still doing very sexy photoshoots....because he´s proud and he´s feeling himself. But I see something different with Harry being more open and giving hints of his queerness - something Ricky Marting wasn´t probably able to do back then - his total sexy gay outfits (yesterday he looked like he´s literally came on stage from gay bar), his banana dick, penis jokes and gay innuendos are just a few which came to my mind now. And there´s his role for MP and those sex scenes which he was able and comfortable to shoot which also speaks volume. Writing this, his stunts with women and interaction to some het signs are just to get away with everything queer he does. And the last question to think about - for whom is he famously sexy? He´s sold as a sex symbol for female audience mostly but....but does it mean that gay men don´t see him as a sex symbol too? What if his actual target are gays and never women (but heteronormativity makes us feel like it´s primary for women) - we will never know because he will never tell and that´s probably good because he´ll loose most if he just come out. Sorry for longer message, hope it´s understandable what I´m trying to say - not everything we think he´s sold as and primary for whom might be true and his inner target can be totally different.

I think, to stay mentally healthy, Harry has very much learned to compartmentalize between his personal and professional life.

I tend to think the fandom struggles with this compartmentalization because it feels so drastically different from what he seemed to want when he was younger and how much he visibly pushed against that overly sexualized image (which he still does, btw, because enjoying being sexy and inviting sexualization will always be two different things).

But yeah, I think the fandom doesn’t know how to reconcile his personal acceptance of his status as a sex symbol with the way he used to push back so fiercely against it. But really, I think it’s just a conscious, strategic adult decision.

This is not to say I agree with forcibly closeting anyone, or using closeting/stunting as currency to win back inalienable rights and personal freedoms. I absolutely do not and I wish the world was not this way at all.

But I’m also aware that we live in this reality, where the entertainment industry will continue to commodify people because there’s nothing that stops them, which means playing into that role allows him other freedoms, because anyone with any kind of professional career understands that making yourself “worth the trouble” and irreplaceable, especially in such a finicky industry, is what’s going to allow for both creative control and longevity in your career.

At the end of the day, I think it all boils down to cost. We like to think of stunts in a vacuum - either they exist or they don’t, and everything else stays the same - but the truth is, that’s not the way it works. Rather, it’s a lot more likely that stunts are a constant part of being That Kind of celebrity, particularly because of Harry’s profile, how he shot to fame, and how he has always been marketed, and what he has managed to do is gain enough leverage and popularity to exchange participation for something/multiple things: creative freedom, personal expression, rainbow flags every night, sparkly bi music… the list goes on.

And, as easy as it is to say it’s black-and-white not worth it… do we really mean that? If we had a printed receipt that said the cost of being allowed to fly a rainbow flag every night and play a starring role in a queer film and write songs like She and Find Line and Little Freak and helping fans come out and saying “we’re all a little bit gay” was one (1) stunt every year, would we, as a fandom, be willing to make the trade? Would we be willing to go back to the way it was in the 1D days, where everything he did and said was so tightly monitored that a glimpse of anything rainbow would send us into cardiac arrest and growing his hair was the biggest act of authenticity and rebellion he could manage?

And more than that, do we even have the right to have weigh in on something we know nothing about the complexities of, and that neither affect our life/our career/our future/the way we’re allowed to move about the world as a person/artist?

I recently had this link shared with me by one of my lovely friends here in the fandom, and found it so compelling that I wanted to share it with all of you.

This is a recent article from Vanity Fair about Cary Grant and Randolph Scott, both iconic actors from the era we now call "Old Hollywood," and it details their extremely interesting--both by the standards of the era and today--relationship. It's a long read, but more than worth it.

For those who may not know, Cary Grant was an English-born American actor and iconic leading man, and Randolph Scott was an American actor most known for appearing in Westerns. Both men were married to women/had children at varying points in their lives, but by some accounts (and especially what is chronicled in this article), they were the loves of each other's lives, even though being openly queer was next to impossible at the time, and would've been looked at as a career-ending (and maybe even life-ending) move.

There also seem to be quite a few parallels between Cary and Randolph 90 years ago and Michael and David today. The two men actually lived together for a number of years, during which the press of the day chose to portray them as "just two fun-loving bachelors waiting to find the right gal," all while Grant in particular starred in films with queer-flavored undertones that were both bold and downright dangerous in the era of the Hays Code. They continued living together when Grant was first married to his first wife, Virginia Cherrill (and after they divorced), and fun fact: While Grant was married, Scott moved right next door...so they were, in fact, neighbors.

Here are a few other excerpts that very much reminded me of Michael and David, for your consideration. (FYI that "Archie Leach" was Cary Grant's birth name before he changed it to his stage name.) This first one calls to mind the Radio Times calling Michael and David a "handsome couple" on the night of the NTAs in 2021:

This next one of course made me think of Michael and David talking on David's podcast (skip to the 1:25 mark) in 2019 about hating photo shoots and how Michael flat-out refused to answer questions at one point and only got through it because of David:

And this last one features a quote from a close friend about Grant and Scott that nearly made my heart skip an entire beat. For reasons that will soon be very, very obvious:

(I mean...)

What is also remarkable about this article (though not necessarily in a good way) is the mention of how little has changed since Grant and Scott's time. How even today, any actor who comes out as any flavor of queer is immediately looked at differently, and how the fear of both professional and personal repercussions keeps people in the closet for so many reasons.

These were the parts of the article that stood out to me the most, but as always I would love to hear from my followers with your thoughts and takes on the parallels above or anything else that you find interesting...

I am a big believer in respecting the statements celebrities make about their relationships, sexualities, ect and also understanding that there is always the potential for it being dishonest.

There are hundreds of celebrities who've come out to talk about blocking contracts and to reveal their sexualities or relationships literally decades after the fact. There really are still agencies and contracts who will prevent celebrities from talking honestly about who they like, date, ect. And there really are just celebrities who don't want to announce what they are or who they date to the world for their own reasons.

I will never argue against a celebrity's voice or disagree with their own authority over themselves, but I'm also not a crazy freak for staying aware of the fact that in thirty years time that celebrity could come out and say it was all a lie.

So many people are made fun of for believing celebrities are or have previously dated, or that certain celebrities might be closeted queer, and honestly as long as they're being respectful of how that person or people currently exist, we should all just shut up about it.

It is very strange to me that there's this idea that open bigotry or otherwise abhorrent behavior becomes okay if the target is in some way acceptable.

Like ... bigotry towards or about people who are themselves awful, and/or powerful, and/or cringe, and/or older/younger, and/or public figures, and/or however you want to define them as acceptable targets, is still bigotry.

Your target may never hear what you say. But the people around you generally will. You're still adding to the bigotry that people witness and experience and which is just ... this miasma in the world.

I'm not saying there's no place for anger, confrontation, condemnation, harsh jokes, whatever—it's not that context never has any bearing on whether actions in general are right or wrong. But relying on bigotry to make your point is wrong without exception.

i do think historical fiction that includes real historical figures exists in a weird space wrt fandom and that some people are way too quick to just apply the exact same fandom lenses they'd use for stories that are entirely fictional without really thinking through the implications, but also i don't think people who are horny posting online about an actor playing a historical figure are in any way shape or form indicating their opinions on the actions of the real person. i think they're just being horny for an actor.

Folks, the whole "Karl Lagerfeld hated pink and that's why celebs worn pink at Met Gala" is fake.

Yeah Karl Lagerfeld was a racist and fatphobic shithead, even a nazi apologist, all these discourses are true, but not the pink thing and the rich people at Met Gala (an event born to praise him this year) are not part of the brave resistance of your activist dream. No one made a real statement against him.

They were just there to be pretty and wear luxury accessories.

Writers and actors and directors will make up any excuse they can for why a character just couldn't possibly be queer, and then hurriedly say something about how they don't hate gay people, the character just isn't gay, as a way to cover up the thinely veiled homophobia of the sentament. The majority of these characters not once talked about their sexuality, it's just assumed they're straight based on who they dated. Yet queer people can be in straight relationships, so that truly isn't even a factor in the grand scheme of things. When people bring up that they view that character as queer, those writers/actors/directors just act so shocked and repulsed because their precious fictional character just couldn't possibly be queer. And they say things like "Yeah, ___ is completely straight. Sexuality just isn't something they think about, theyre just that way. Not that anything is wrong with being gay, but this character isn't." Just think about that for a minute. Being gay is such a big deal to these people that they couldn't fathom their character being queer. This characters sexuality was never brought up or confirmed, so why is people saying they think they're queer so shocking and wrong, but them saying that character is completely straight is just the natural accepted truth. Why is a character being queer an "other" or "special" thing? Why can't that character be casually queer? Why are they all so resistant to it? If it's not a big deal like they claim, why do they get so defensive when it's brought up? Why do they get so upset when a character with an unconfirmed sexuality is perceived as queer by fans? When their character is shipped with the opposite sex, they don't care, they laugh and joke about it. When they're shipped with a same sex character, it's "Oh that's definitely not true." They see straight as the default, and the idea that a character they feel connected to could be queer, is literally mind blowing to them and they immediately reject it. It's widely accepted homophobia that's almost never talked about. The immediate shock when being queer is mentioned is because society has drilled into these people's heads that being queer is big deal that makes someone wildly different and unrecognizable. To them, if their character was queer, it wouldn't be their character anymore. They hold onto their straight identity so tightly, that they see anything else as a personal attack. And they get away with it because they quickly try to cover it up with " Oh there's nothing wrong with being queer my character just definitely isn’t." Or "Oh it's actually an insult to real gay people to suggest my character is gay when they aren't." They'll find any excuse. So their character couldn't possible be gay, and neither could the next, and neither could the next, and neither could the next, etc. Because none of these straight people can cope with the possibility that someone they feel connected to could be queer. And I don't believe they're even aware of it, it's a knee-jerk reaction society has drilled into them and they don't even recognize they're doing it. And that's why we need to call these things out. Ask them, "Why is it so upsetting to you to imagine this character as queer, when they have no confirmed sexuality? Why do you automatically assume they're straight and find anything else inconceivable?" Straight is not the default, and the idea that a character might be queer does not change their entire identity, it is not the huge deal they are making it out to be. Queer people can exist casually. The truth of the matter is that they still view us as "other", and as different. The fact that we're queer is so unrelatable that the idea of their character being queer automatically ruins it them. Homophobia is alive and well in the intertanment industry, and we see it casually every single day from our favourite writers/actors/directors.

Btw there's a beware abt you saying your transphobic for not believing in transmisandry?

OHHHH MY GOD LMAO oh I've really made it now huh. I think I lost like one follower one time bc I said misandry doesn't exist and now I'm transphobic I guess. The trans guy who posts about Demo tf2's male vagina all day is transphobic. "We are not oppressed for being men because society at large does not oppress or discriminate against men" is transphobic. An extremely basic 2014-era understanding of feminism is transphobic. That's right! I hate trans men. That's my big secret. Pack it up ladies they got me (all sarcasm obviously)

To me, the Jedi worshippers complaining about how Dave Filoni is ruining Star Wars, is sounding increasingly indistinguishable from all the chuds complaining about how Kathleen Kennedy is ruining Star Wars.

Incoming: Long post! Black media discourse! Zendaya think piece!

Two years ago I wrote this post about Zendaya, Keke Palmer, and how colorism shapes the career trajectories of Black actresses.

This past weekend Challengers released in theaters, sparking a round of online discussion about Zendaya, her star power, her talent as an actor, and how a raunchy film like Challengers fits into a cultural landscape that’s less enthusiastic about on-screen depictions of sex.

Early reviews of the film lauded Zendaya’s performance, and even after it’s release, the general consensus remains overwhelmingly positive, with quiet buzzing of a potential Oscar nomination for Zendaya. Kudos to her!

I’m not here, however, to discuss or analyze Zendaya’s acting chops. (To some ppl, she’s outstanding, to others she’s overhyped. Personally, I think Zendaya is talented. Her work in Euphoria was no small feat and she’s proved herself capable.)

The reason I’m writing this now is that an excerpt from this article about Zendaya and Challengers got me thinking again about what it takes for Black actors to become “stars” in this day and age. I’ll insert screenshots here.

Now I’m sure the reviewer’s tone in these excerpts will be off-putting to some, esp those who identify as a part of the Zendaya standom. It’s clear that Ms. Angelica Jade Bastien has yet to buy into the fanfare about Zendaya’s acting abilities.

But she touches on something very interesting to me. Zendaya is THE most prominent Black actress of the younger generation and I’d argue her degree of star power is unmatched by even her non-Black peers, some of them having comparatively longer (& more impressive) resumes. Zendaya is incredibly well liked. People want to see her and she’s been so visible these past 6 years that it’s hard to believe Challengers is her first leading role in a big release.

So…why her? Why has Zendaya been able to garner this level of star power and leverage behind the scenes while other equally talented Black actors fight for adequate roles and visibility? After reading several opinions, I’ve come to some conclusions.

I think colorism, racial identity, and desirability politics all play a role (as was discussed in the colorism post). But I also think Zendaya has been very smart about managing her online presence and overall brand. She’s maintained Beyonce level privacy about her personal life (virtually scandal free since her teens) and has managed to exude poise while still being seen as delightfully down-to-earth. That in itself is praiseworthy b/c it’s a delicate balancing act and many have faltered.

I also think that as AJB states, there’s an indictment on Hollywood to be made here. I think since Zendaya’s exit from Disney, the projects she’s taken on have used her likeness to stoke public interest in the films. (Similar to the way ppl watched Selena’s film choices post- Wizards of Waverly: “What’s this beloved disney kid up to next?”)

And this is noteworthy b/c the significance of Zendaya’s roles in the early films of the Spiderman and Dune franchises have been disproportionate to her visibility in promotional materials. Zendaya’s screentime in the first Dune couldn’t have amounted to more than 10 minutes, but she was prominently featured on the press tour and red carpets. The same goes for the first Spiderman. She’s clearly been used to sell tickets to these movies, even when she doesn’t have a lot to do in them.

And Zendaya, to her credit, has made the most of these opportunities (earlier this year she received high praise for her performance as Chani in Dune 2). She once stated in a vogue interview that she started going out for roles initially written as white to see if she’d be able to change the casting team’s mind. And it seems that she’s succeeded, as evidenced by her presence in several huge releases over the past 6 years. But these were often small, supporting roles where her identity as a biracial Black woman didn’t impact her character’s arc within the overall story. (This is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but stay with me)

This then begs the question, “What does it mean for a star like Zendaya to take up roles originally reserved for white actresses?”

The conclusion I’ve come to is that it means providing a film with enough racial diversity to give the impression that Hollywood cares about being inclusive, while not being so different that certain audiences are unable to “connect” to the character. I think that “Hollywood’s acceptable Black girl” has to be Black enough to fulfill a diversity quota, but not so Black that audiences are reminded the character has a different lived experience from them and feel uncomfortable.

Like AJB said, I don’t believe mainstream audiences are actually interested in Black female rage. It makes them uncomfortable and lately certain factions of the population have been extremely vocal about being “tired of woke.”

I find it strange that Justin Kuritzkes (the Challengers screenwriter) stated it only made sense to write Tashi as a Black woman bc of the visibility and dominance of Black women in tennis, but didn’t think it’d be important to explore any of the challenges that come with that in the film. And for this to be followed by the decision to cast a light skinned, biracial actress in the role? It doesn’t make any sense.

We’re shown that Tashi Duncan is a fierce, unapologetically competitive athlete. And yet, these are not qualities that Black female athletes are usually applauded for having. Just look at the narratives that have swirled around athletes like Serena Williams and Sha’Carri Richardson since their debuts. There’s always a barely concealed desire to humble high achieving Black women who are confident in their abilities. The press coverage around Serena & Naomi’s infamous match (which Justin Kuritzkes said inspired Challengers) is a perfect example of that. It’s strange to model a character after these figures and give no mention of these struggles and how they’d influence character motivations.

IMO, this reads as another case of not wanting to be critized for lack of diversity in your film, while also not wanting to do the work that goes into making your diverse cast authentic. (like getting input from or writing alongside other BIPOC screenwriters. That “little white boys” line is truly meaningless without any context or backstory. And it doesn’t sound like they’ve given Tashi much.) The result is an Black female lead character who is under-written and whose importance has been overstated in the promos in contrast to the actual story. (Which seems to fit right on trend for films Zendaya’s been a part of.)

Zendaya seems to have become the go-to Black actress for when big budget films want to “go ethnic.” She’s mixed race, conventionally beautiful, near universally well-liked w/ a loyal fanbase, and has been recognized as talented enough (Two Emmys! Count ‘em. Two!) to get the job done. She’s a safe bet that allows them to kill two birds with one stone. By adding Zendaya to the mix, the studio gets to check a diversity box for their cast and gets leading star guaranteed to get them sales.

I really don’t want anyone to misconstrue this as downplaying Zendaya’s achievements or her talent, b/c it’s not. But no part of the society we live in is a true meritocracy. As I discussed in the original post re: colorism, there are always structural and social forces at work shaping our ability to advance. Like Beyonce, Zendaya is an incredibly privileged Black woman who is talented, has worked hard, and has made the most of the advantages she’s been afforded. And I don’t think Zendaya has any control over the way she’s been used to advertise the films she’s done over the past 6 years.

I just think this conversation is another opportunity to adjust our perspectives and examine the limitations of representation in Hollywood. I’m reluctant to acknowledge Zendaya’s current success as a marker of progress or even see it as a win for Black female representation.

“Zendaya is officially Gen Z’s Hollywood star. Gen Z’s first true Hollywood star is a Black woman!”

What does it say about the stage of progress we’re in if our generation’s chosen Black leading lady has to have such close proximity to whiteness that people can choose to overlook her Blackness, if they so desire? Is the mere presence of a Black face in a high place progress? Or is it what that person’s power allows them to do for others who are also marginalized? As AJB asked, how meaningful is Zendaya’s position as a Black female producer if everything about the projects she’s involved in is white except for her? (Just throwing out food for thought: How different would Challengers have been if a MoC was casted as one of the male leads instead of the two “white twinks” everyone can’t stop talking about? No shade to Mike Faist or Josh O’Connor, but would it still have gotten buzz? Would the marketing team have known how to advertise the film if there were two main actors of color instead of one?)

I think it’s amazing to see Zendaya’s growth and success as a biracial Black female entertainer, but I won’t attach any meaning to her success that isn’t there.

This is actually a really shitty time for Black art and Black actors in Hollywood. Last year, so many wonderful Black shows were cancelled. DEI rollbacks are hitting all parts of society, but especially entertainment and the trend doesn’t seem to be reversing any time soon.

It’s not comforting to see Zendaya reach the heights she’s soared to, while other equally talented yet less privileged Black actors fall into obscurity waiting years before they get another role that showcases their abilities. Black actors continue to suffer from lack access to opportunities/roles. Their projects are not marketed and given time to grow. And even when the support is there, the shows will still be cancelled. What does it say that the one Black actress who has had consistent enough access to these opportunites to achieve “star” status is the one with the closest proximity to whiteness?

Things are actually very bleak.

whizzoqualityassortment replied to your post "Cary Grant and Randolph Scott's Hollywood Story:…"

The saddest and most poignant part of Grant and Scott’s story is towards the end when, as two old men, they sat in a Hollywood restaurant and ate lunch, and gazed lovingly at each other. I like to imagine an eternity for them — like that.

@whizzoqualityassortment Oh god. And here I thought the end of the Vanity Fair article was heartbreaking enough, talking about how Grant and Scott's relationship ultimately ended because it wasn't allowed to fully progress, due to the overwhelmingly homophobic strictures of the era, and the ongoing criminalization of LGBTQ+ people. Reading Grant's words near the end just about shattered me:

Most poignantly, Grant confessed to the pain of saying goodbye to the love of his life, all those years ago: “It was dreadful having to let go of him in my heart.”

No one should have to say goodbye to the person they love for the sole reason that other people have decided it is unacceptable. Also that phrase that you used ("gaze lovingly") of course made me think of Michael and David, because that's exactly how they look at each other, and it makes me ache inside to imagine them having to stop for any reason.

Thinking about Grant and Scott at that lunch, I can't help wondering how wistful they might have felt--happy to be with each other, but also deeply sad for the years they didn't get to have together. I would like to hope that things are different enough now that, if there is something between Michael and David, they can be open about it (in whatever way is right for them), and will never have to experience such heartache.

An eternity like that is such a beautiful thought, and I'm so glad that you have shared it. Although both Grant and Scott are long gone, I can see the echoes of them in Michael and David. How precious and rare love like that is. How lucky are they all to have to found it...

By the way the celebrity industry being infested with predatory contracts, homophobia, sexism, predatory power imbalances, manipulation, fake relationships/wealth/controversy and otherwise immoral and dangerous aspects is not a conspiracy theory ❤

Just because Carol disappeared doesn't mean her absence negates the care she provided Monica before and/or after. That's a really fucking gross take on parenting. Along those lines all the dead parents weren't actually parents, or the soldiers and fly in/out workers etc etc etc. And you know what, don't you actually have a non poc mod on this account talking about poc issues like they have any fucking right to??????? Wtf is up your ass cause it ain't the fucking truth.

First of all there's 3 of us. I'm mod ali, there's a mod laina who's mostly mia and mod palette. We're all poc.

I'm going to refer you to moths video on the subject and leave this alone because it's past 2am.

https://youtu.be/0_6D8bXiZ6w

So if you'd like to get me in a better mood to dissect this for you pls do your homework and return no earlier than 5 hours from now. You will be asked to support your claims and understand marvel comics. In particular how captain marvel should have been a vehicle for Monica rambeau.

good night

mod ali

i can't with the fandom over twitter laying it on thick and blowing it out of proportion every time owen is mentioned "instead" of carlos (now over an episode/a whole ass season we HAVEN'T seen yet and still relatively know nothing about), like aren't everybody and their mother in this fandom has been talking about carlos begins and storylines, and whump in season 4 etc etc?!? why then are you complaining about something you HAVEN'T seen yet — DO we even know if that FBI agent, extremist group episode is after or before a carlos centric episode or not, and thus him not being involved is not detracting or feels off being handled by owen after all ??

Resident Evil Show Racism and Hollywood shallow, irresponsible attempt to be diverse

Wesker resident evil.. Why he's black? Look I don't have any problem with POC/black adaptation but the problem with the resident evil show Wesker is that... Hollywood seems to forget or don't care that Spencer is a eugenist and the Wesker project is a eugenic project to breed superior humans and then make the umbrella executives as gods of their new world?

Oswell E Spencer and his friends are white eugenist. Sure I think the umbrella version of eugenics perhaps is like "we don't give a shit about your race or sexuality we just want to breed superior humans and be gods"

Still it is uncomfortable I think? Umbrella was founded in 1968 and although the war has long ended I have to remind people that it was not just Germany who was into eugenics but also nations like England, America, French and any other white dominated nations.

Umbrella corporation itself is a symbol of the corrupt rich or noble white class. They literally slaughtered many poc/native people to get the stairways of the sun flowers which is the source of the t-virus, this flower was found in Africa.

Then Alfred Ashford

Alfred literally took away a Hispanic community land and turning Rockfort into a damn concentration camp prison island for Umbrella Corporation enemies and traitors.

Alex Wesker

Umbrella corporation is a symbolism of white colonialism as well. They often took advantage of poc/native or any community deemed as weak and poor, take the land and then used the local population for their experiment

Perhaps they don't give a shit about any race and experiment is just experiment, but the symbolism of umbrella and many of their executive as white eugenics and colonists is very apparent!

You telling me that Albert Wesker who is fair skinned, blonde haired blue eyed Caucasian man that was a part of a eugenics project instigated by a megalomaniac white British aristocrat is now black in the tv show?

Does nobody... Not a single fucking thinking humans in Hollywood ever think about this? Look I'm not black, I'm Southeast Asian and I cannot represent black people... Still in my opinion the Wesker tv show is uncomfortable due to the canon source material and then Hollywood doesn't give a shit about the source material or the effect of their decision

I'm south east Asian and if Wesker is portrayed as South East goddamn Asian in the tv show I'll be fucking weirded out because my country was razed and enslaved by white colonists

There's a reason why many Umbrella executives are rich/noble white people. It is a critics for the predatory, colonists white people who take advantage of POC, even poorer white people and anyone they deemed as inferior such as people with autism, mentally ill, the LGBTQIA+

( I'm not sure if Umbrella and all of their executives are homophobic but still)

Hollywood once again tried or pretend to be diverse and progressive but failed miserably because they don't actually care...