Finally saw it yesterday. Holding off to the review ep for a more thorough review, but my main take away is this:
Although there were a lot of times it looked like Spider-man, there were small moments that actually felt like Spider-man. I still put Raimi's 2.5 Spider-man movies ahead of this one because they had few moments that didn't feel like Spider-man.
Also, the last series (well, at least the 1st, I didn't see ASM2) lacked the "with great power..." line. I felt that was an obvious fumble in the movie. This one doubles down by also not including an Uncle Ben mention.
Also, the last series (well, at least the 1st, I didn't see ASM2) lacked the "with great power..." line. I felt that was an obvious fumble in the movie. This one doubles down by also not including an Uncle Ben mention.
Agreed. Similarly, it also irked me how rarely in this new film Peter refers to his Aunt May as "Aunt May." It's just "May" here. Are the producers that terrified about reminding audiences that her character is of an older generation?
And I'm sure if you looked through print media of the time, you'd find similar opinion pieces (probably not on Blade, that was treated as a B-Movie, not the prototype of the modern superhero movie). It's just now a lot easier to find them in 2017, but lets not pretend that people didn't have opinions on the internet in 2000.
And I'm sure if you looked through print media of the time, you'd find similar opinion pieces (probably not on Blade, that was treated as a B-Movie, not the prototype of the modern superhero movie). It's just now a lot easier to find them in 2017, but lets not pretend that people didn't have opinions on the internet in 2000.
Clearly there were websites in the early aughts that were Christian, Jewish-representative, and LGBT-friendly that saw these films as allegory for their particular point of view. This has been a standing tradition in opinion journalism for decades. Nowadays, with the ease and advent of self-publishing online, more people are able to get their message out further and more frequently, so it is more noticeable, and maybe even more prolific.
I don't mean to speak for him, but perhaps @Matt misspoke when he said "agenda-driven articles" - instead he may have meant "agenda driven attacks & criticism". While some of the examples you supplied were critical of the source material, there were far fewer examples of attacks on the material and the creators than there are today. I would submit that this is due to a more polarized society and the emergence of a victim-hood culture that is distinct from the honor cultures and dignity cultures of our past. This foreshadows a potentially bad future for social and political peace.
For example: Can't we just herald and anticipate the new female Doctor without demanding that nothing is good enough until we've replaced every popular protagonist in the history of fiction with a diversity trans/POC character?
When the "victims" continue to publicize microaggressions, they call attention to what they see as the deviant behavior of the "offenders", calling attention to their own victimization. This raises the moral status of the victims and then increases the incentive to publicize the so-called grievances, which leads to aggrieved parties being more likely to highlight their identity as victims, emphasizing their own suffering and innocence. This is a very depressing trend today that I hope will end soon so we can unapologetically enjoy our arts and culture to our tastes, and see an end to the efforts to homogenize or destroy it.
And I'm sure if you looked through print media of the time, you'd find similar opinion pieces (probably not on Blade, that was treated as a B-Movie, not the prototype of the modern superhero movie). It's just now a lot easier to find them in 2017, but lets not pretend that people didn't have opinions on the internet in 2000.
Clearly there were websites in the early aughts that were Christian, Jewish-representative, and LGBT-friendly that saw these films as allegory for their particular point of view. This has been a standing tradition in opinion journalism for decades. Nowadays, with the ease and advent of self-publishing online, more people are able to get their message out further and more frequently, so it is more noticeable, and maybe even more prolific.
I don't mean to speak for him, but perhaps @Matt misspoke when he said "agenda-driven articles" - instead he may have meant "agenda driven attacks & criticism". While some of the examples you supplied were critical of the source material, there were far fewer examples of attacks on the material and the creators than there are today. I would submit that this is due to a more polarized society and the emergence of a victim-hood culture that is distinct from the honor cultures and dignity cultures of our past. This foreshadows a potentially bad future for social and political peace.
For example: Can't we just herald and anticipate the new female Doctor without demanding that nothing is good enough until we've replaced every popular protagonist in the history of fiction with a diversity trans/POC character?
When the "victims" continue to publicize microaggressions, they call attention to what they see as the deviant behavior of the "offenders", calling attention to their own victimization. This raises the moral status of the victims and then increases the incentive to publicize the so-called grievances, which leads to aggrieved parties being more likely to highlight their identity as victims, emphasizing their own suffering and innocence. This is a very depressing trend today that I hope will end soon so we can unapologetically enjoy our arts and culture to our tastes, and see an end to the efforts to homogenize or destroy it.
Actually, I meant both...though more so with what you were referencing. I guess with the days of social media, podcasts, blogs, etc., more people's voices stretch further then before.
Then again, maybe the whole notion seems foreign to me because I don't go to any movie and inject my own politics, religious(-ish), or social points of view into it. I go to be entertained. I watch movies I think look interesting rather then because there's someone "like me" in (or not in) the final product. And I completely understand how one person's POV will always trump someone else's POV.
Then again, maybe the whole notion seems foreign to me because I don't go to any movie and inject my own politics, religious(-ish), or social points of view into it. I go to be entertained. I watch movies I think look interesting rather then because there's someone "like me" in (or not in) the final product. And I completely understand how one person's POV will always trump someone else's POV.
That's healthy, @Matt. People who crave validation through the latest pop-culture tropes are usually very shallow people with self-esteem issues. If you only prefer pop-culture that echoes who you think you are, what you think and feel, you're likely suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder and are only interested in pop-culture in so far as it confirms precisely what you want it to confirm. Anyone heard of confirmation bias? This is essentially the same thing and there are sufferers on both sides of the political aisle.
Conversely, this isn't to say one can't make valid critiques of pop-culture when it panders to these sorts of people. In fact, that's probably the more healthy approach because it may cause those who demand pop-culture validations to re-evaluate themselves. One can hope this takes place. Otherwise the next iteration will need to become the thick-skinned culture.
I watch movies I think look interesting rather then because there's someone "like me" in (or not in) the final product.
I'm the same way. Of course, you and I were fortunate enough that no matter what movie we were interested in growing up, it was practically guaranteed that someone “like us”, or close enough to it, would be in that movie. More than likely there would be several someones “like us”, and those someones would be a variety of personality types, at least one of which (usually the main protagonist) we would likely be able to especially relate to. The thought of not seeing anyone “like us” on screen never had a chance to even cross our minds, because we always saw people “like us”.
I have no idea what it would be like to grow up not seeing anyone “like me” in the movies or on TV or in the comics I read, so I'm not going to judge people in that situation for being vocal in their desire to see that change.
I watch movies I think look interesting rather then because there's someone "like me" in (or not in) the final product.
I'm the same way. Of course, you and I were fortunate enough that no matter what movie we were interested in growing up, it was practically guaranteed that someone “like us”, or close enough to it, would be in that movie. More than likely there would be several someones “like us”, and those someones would be a variety of personality types, at least one of which (usually the main protagonist) we would likely be able to especially relate to. The thought of not seeing anyone “like us” on screen never had a chance to even cross our minds, because we always saw people “like us”.
I have no idea what it would be like to grow up not seeing anyone “like me” in the movies or on TV or in the comics I read, so I'm not going to judge people in that situation for being vocal in their desire to see that change.
"Like me" is subjective though.
Is "like me" in relation to my ethnicity? That doesn't fit too well when I was an avid viewer of 227, Martin, Amen, The Cosby Show, or Family Matters.
Is "like me" in relation to my gender? That doesn't fit too well when I was an avid viewer of Designing Women and Golden Girls (& Palace).
Is "like me" in relation to my age? That doesn't fit too well when I was never big in watching TV shows geared toward my age range (in my youth).
I always look for entertainment in my entertainment, not if the characters are tangibly "like me." I'm not "judging" as I am unable to relate because of what "like me" means to me.
"Like me" is subjective though. You can find "like me's" in any entertainment; depending on what the hook is.
I was an avid viewer of Sex & the City, Designing Women, Golden Girls (& Palace), & 227 and I found them interesting because of something "like me" I could relate to in various characters of each show. Conversely, I could never stand watching Simon & Simon, 90210, Everybody Loves Raymond, or the Big Bang Theory.
If a show is entertaining, it's easy to find an "in."
The shows you mentioned (minus 227) are all more alike than not. Namely, they all star white men and women, they all feature middle class to upper class characters, they all feature university educated characters with good (often glamorous) jobs, etc. In other words, they all feature characters you could either see in you everyday life, or realistically aspire to be (whether you would want to or not is another story). So of course it’s easy for you or me to find an “in”.
Is "like me" in relation to my ethnicity? That doesn't fit too well when I was an avid viewer of 227, Martin, Amen, The Cosby Show, or Family Matters.
Is "like me" in relation to my gender? That doesn't fit too well when I was an avid viewer of Designing Women and Golden Girls (& Palace).
Is "like me" in relation to my age? That doesn't fit too well when I was never big in watching TV shows geared toward my age range (in my youth).
I always look for entertainment in my entertainment, not if the characters are tangibly "like me." I'm not "judging" as I am unable to relate because of what "like me" means to me.
Ah, you've edited.
I think it’s important to keep in mind just how powerful an impact the various entertainment mediums can have on society as a whole. For example, starting with vaudeville, and going on through standup comedy, theater, film, and television, the depiction of Jews in the entertainment industry (much of which, of course, was produced by Jews) completely changed the way Americans viewed the Jewish community. The first Jews in America were typically thought of as an ignoble ethnic group and were treated as second-class citizens, much like the Italians and the Irish were. But over the years through vaudeville, then the theater and film, and especially television, America saw a wide variety of Jewish writers, actors, comedians, characters, etc., and saw that they were no different than any of their other neighbors. There were other factors to be sure, but I think it's safe to say the entertainment industry played an overwhelming role in the integration of the Jewish community into American culture as a whole.
Familiarity breeds understanding, while the unknown stokes the fires of fear and rejection. And minorities recognize this fact because the see it at play in their lives every day. If I were in a minority group, I would absolutely want to see people like me on screen, not just for my own enjoyment and satisfaction, but so that others could see people like me and get used to the idea people like me exist and aren’t so different from them as they might think.
"Like me" is subjective though. You can find "like me's" in any entertainment; depending on what the hook is.
I was an avid viewer of Sex & the City, Designing Women, Golden Girls (& Palace), & 227 and I found them interesting because of something "like me" I could relate to in various characters of each show. Conversely, I could never stand watching Simon & Simon, 90210, Everybody Loves Raymond, or the Big Bang Theory.
If a show is entertaining, it's easy to find an "in."
The shows you mentioned (minus 227) are all more alike than not. Namely, they all star white men and women, they all feature middle class to upper class characters, they all feature university educated characters with good (often glamorous) jobs, etc. In other words, they all feature characters you could either see in you everyday life, or realistically aspire to be (whether you would want to or not is another story). So of course it’s easy for you or me to find an “in”.
I'm a bad example for these types of comparisons. In the last 14 years, I've encountered more people of various beliefs, preferences, shades, shapes & sizes then probably the bulk of this country has. I'm betting nearly any TV show has a character or characters, settings, or themes I encounter in my daily life (I don't aspire to be someone else; real or fictional).
Is "like me" in relation to my ethnicity? That doesn't fit too well when I was an avid viewer of 227, Martin, Amen, The Cosby Show, or Family Matters.
Is "like me" in relation to my gender? That doesn't fit too well when I was an avid viewer of Designing Women and Golden Girls (& Palace).
Is "like me" in relation to my age? That doesn't fit too well when I was never big in watching TV shows geared toward my age range (in my youth).
I always look for entertainment in my entertainment, not if the characters are tangibly "like me." I'm not "judging" as I am unable to relate because of what "like me" means to me.
Ah, you've edited.
I think it’s important to keep in mind just how powerful an impact the various entertainment mediums can have on society as a whole. For example, starting with vaudeville, and going on through standup comedy, theater, film, and television, the depiction of Jews in the entertainment industry (much of which, of course, was produced by Jews) completely changed the way Americans viewed the Jewish community. The first Jews in America were typically thought of as an ignoble ethnic group and were treated as second-class citizens, much like the Italians and the Irish were. But over the years through vaudeville, then the theater and film, and especially television, America saw a wide variety of Jewish writers, actors, comedians, characters, etc., and saw that they were no different than any of their other neighbors. There were other factors to be sure, but I think it's safe to say the entertainment industry played an overwhelming role in the integration of the Jewish community into American culture as a whole.
Familiarity breeds understanding, while the unknown stokes the fires of fear and rejection. And minorities recognize this fact because the see it at play in their lives every day. If I were in a minority group, I would absolutely want to see people like me on screen, not just for my own enjoyment and satisfaction, but so that others could see people like me and get used to the idea people like me exist and aren’t so different from them as they might think.
Seems like a lot of work to look into the backgrounds of the players in a movie or show.
Is "like me" in relation to my ethnicity? That doesn't fit too well when I was an avid viewer of 227, Martin, Amen, The Cosby Show, or Family Matters.
Is "like me" in relation to my gender? That doesn't fit too well when I was an avid viewer of Designing Women and Golden Girls (& Palace).
Is "like me" in relation to my age? That doesn't fit too well when I was never big in watching TV shows geared toward my age range (in my youth).
I always look for entertainment in my entertainment, not if the characters are tangibly "like me." I'm not "judging" as I am unable to relate because of what "like me" means to me.
Ah, you've edited.
I think it’s important to keep in mind just how powerful an impact the various entertainment mediums can have on society as a whole. For example, starting with vaudeville, and going on through standup comedy, theater, film, and television, the depiction of Jews in the entertainment industry (much of which, of course, was produced by Jews) completely changed the way Americans viewed the Jewish community. The first Jews in America were typically thought of as an ignoble ethnic group and were treated as second-class citizens, much like the Italians and the Irish were. But over the years through vaudeville, then the theater and film, and especially television, America saw a wide variety of Jewish writers, actors, comedians, characters, etc., and saw that they were no different than any of their other neighbors. There were other factors to be sure, but I think it's safe to say the entertainment industry played an overwhelming role in the integration of the Jewish community into American culture as a whole.
Familiarity breeds understanding, while the unknown stokes the fires of fear and rejection. And minorities recognize this fact because the see it at play in their lives every day. If I were in a minority group, I would absolutely want to see people like me on screen, not just for my own enjoyment and satisfaction, but so that others could see people like me and get used to the idea people like me exist and aren’t so different from them as they might think.
Hmm. I'm way in my own category. The "unknown" has always been facinating to me. I'd rather surround myself with variety then similarity.
You're not in your own category. I think everyone wants variety in their lives, including in their entertainment experiences. But there are degrees of variety that people feel comfortable with. You and I prefer a wide, far-ranging amount of variety, whereas most people prefer a more limited amount of variety, or rather are simply unwilling to step outside of that comfort zone for any number of reasons. The phrase “try it, you might like it” resonates for a reason.
All you have to do is examine comic book fandom to see this.
Seems like a lot of work to look into the backgrounds of the players in a movie or show.
It wasn't work. Everyone knew the Marx Brothers were Jewish. Everyone knew Milton Berle was Jewish. Everyone knew Phil Silvers and Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks were Jewish. Everyone knew Woody Allen was Jewish. It was part of their act. Everyone knew most of the early Hollywood producers were Jewish. It was something of a running gag.
Hmm. I'm way in my own category. The "unknown" has always been facinating to me. I'd rather surround myself with variety then similarity.
You're not in your own category. I think everyone wants variety in their lives, including in their entertainment experiences. But there are degrees of variety that people feel comfortable with. You and I prefer a wide, far-ranging amount of variety, whereas most people prefer a more limited amount of variety, or rather are simply unwilling to step outside of that comfort zone for any number of reasons. The phrase “try it, you might like it” resonates for a reason.
All you have to do is examine comic book fandom to see this.
E! Entertainment and the Game Show Network are doing a fine job focusing on the ones who "prefer a more limited amount of variety," but the most successful TV shows weren't trying to tick the diversity boxes, they just tried to be entertaining with interesting characters; The Simpsons, Friends, Married with Children, Steve Harvey Show, Bernie Mac, Seinfeld, Cosby Show, and so on. When I was growing up, I watched Good Times, Sanford & Son, Fat Albert, etc and never thought, "I don't identify with these characters because they don't look like me."
Maybe times have changed today, but I'm not convinced. Either the producers of today's entertainment will buy into the fallacy of "diversity is crucial" and intellectual property owners will seek to replace every popular protagonist in the history of fiction with a trans/POC so we can all enjoy safe, diverse, homogenized entertainment, or they will resist that urge and just focus on making good entertainment with interesting characters/relationships and let the culture decide to embrace it or not.
E! Entertainment and the Game Show Network are doing a fine job focusing on the ones who "prefer a more limited amount of variety," but the most successful TV shows weren't trying to tick the diversity boxes, they just tried to be entertaining with interesting characters; The Simpsons, Friends, Married with Children, Steve Harvey Show, Bernie Mac, Seinfeld, Cosby Show, and so on. When I was growing up, I watched Good Times, Sanford & Son, Fat Albert, etc and never thought, "I don't identify with these characters because they don't look like me."
When I say “a more limited amount of variety”, I want to be clear that I’m not equating that with the lowest common denominator stuff you find on E! or the Game Show Network. Some people like superhero comics, but have no time or interest for other genres of comics. Likewise, some people are only into Fantagraphics’ (and the like) “sophisticated” line of comics, and scoff at the “lowbrow” fare the Big Two produce. Both groups seek out a limited amount of variety, they’re just looking for different, fairly specific things.
By the time we—and I mean you, Matt, and myself—saw TV shows with predominantly black actors, the color barriers had already begun breaking down. I, and most likely both of you, had black friends at school—something that wouldn’t have been the case 25 years earlier. We, as a younger generation, felt much more comfortable relating to black characters on TV than earlier generations. And while Good Times was an important show in many ways, don’t forget that John Amos and Esther Rolle left the show when it became less serious and focused more on the clownish J.J. character, which they felt presented negative stereotypes. The Jeffersons likewise received complaints of stereotyping, despite the overall positive aspects of the show. The Cosby Show got its share of criticism—not for stereotyping, but for aspects deemed too unrealistic and for not doing more to address big issues for African-Americans.
Either the producers of today's entertainment will buy into the fallacy of "diversity is crucial" and intellectual property owners will seek to replace every popular protagonist in the history of fiction with a trans/POC so we can all enjoy safe, diverse, homogenized entertainment, or they will resist that urge and just focus on making good entertainment with interesting characters/relationships and let the culture decide to embrace it or not.
Producers of today’s entertainment aren’t doing anything different from those of years past. As soon as viewership demographics became available in the ’70s, producers started gearing shows towards those various demographic groups deemed desirable by advertisers. TV and films have always been overwhelmingly safe and homogenized. That’s the easy sell. The only thing that changes with the times is just what is considered “safe”. Good creators are able to work within those constraints and still provide interesting stories about interesting people. And some creators are able to slip out from those constraints and expand the boundaries of what is safe.
I'll admit, I'm not a trend keeping guy, so maybe that's why I can't understand all the lip service being given to Zendaya in this movie. I've read "scene stealing" & "breakout star", but I didn't really find the performance all that different then most of the school cast.
Hell, apparently the dude playing the gym teacher is a well-known actor. I have no idea what else he's been in.
She was quite underwhelming. I thought the Disney-minted actress-singer was barely in the movie at all and she's only one of several high-schoolers in Parker’s circle of friends, popping up every so often at the end of a scene to say something snarky. She has no bearing on the plot and disappears for long periods pf time. Spider-Man never saves her, and Peter Parker never kisses her: In fact, he barely seems to know she exists.
I thought the actual female lead, Laura Harrier, who plays Liz Allan was far more interesting.
Comments
Although there were a lot of times it looked like Spider-man, there were small moments that actually felt like Spider-man. I still put Raimi's 2.5 Spider-man movies ahead of this one because they had few moments that didn't feel like Spider-man.
Also, the last series (well, at least the 1st, I didn't see ASM2) lacked the "with great power..." line. I felt that was an obvious fumble in the movie. This one doubles down by also not including an Uncle Ben mention.
https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2017/07/14/the-secret-politics-of-spider-man-homecoming?media=AMP+HTML
And if you're in a mixed marriage, could you still be labeled "casually racist"?
Also, all from 2000:
The queer world of the X-Men
Are Jews X-Men
"STORM IS A BLACK FEMALE CHRIST FIGURE" "X-MEN ARE GOD'S MEN, THE YAHWEH-MEN, AND THE CHRIST'S MEN"
"Christian objections to the film are obvious. Foremost is the theory of Evolution, the basis for the superhuman powers of the characters."
And I'm sure if you looked through print media of the time, you'd find similar opinion pieces (probably not on Blade, that was treated as a B-Movie, not the prototype of the modern superhero movie). It's just now a lot easier to find them in 2017, but lets not pretend that people didn't have opinions on the internet in 2000.
I don't mean to speak for him, but perhaps @Matt misspoke when he said "agenda-driven articles" - instead he may have meant "agenda driven attacks & criticism". While some of the examples you supplied were critical of the source material, there were far fewer examples of attacks on the material and the creators than there are today. I would submit that this is due to a more polarized society and the emergence of a victim-hood culture that is distinct from the honor cultures and dignity cultures of our past. This foreshadows a potentially bad future for social and political peace.
For example:
When the "victims" continue to publicize microaggressions, they call attention to what they see as the deviant behavior of the "offenders", calling attention to their own victimization. This raises the moral status of the victims and then increases the incentive to publicize the so-called grievances, which leads to aggrieved parties being more likely to highlight their identity as victims, emphasizing their own suffering and innocence. This is a very depressing trend today that I hope will end soon so we can unapologetically enjoy our arts and culture to our tastes, and see an end to the efforts to homogenize or destroy it.
Then again, maybe the whole notion seems foreign to me because I don't go to any movie and inject my own politics, religious(-ish), or social points of view into it. I go to be entertained. I watch movies I think look interesting rather then because there's someone "like me" in (or not in) the final product. And I completely understand how one person's POV will always trump someone else's POV.
Conversely, this isn't to say one can't make valid critiques of pop-culture when it panders to these sorts of people. In fact, that's probably the more healthy approach because it may cause those who demand pop-culture validations to re-evaluate themselves. One can hope this takes place. Otherwise the next iteration will need to become the thick-skinned culture.
I have no idea what it would be like to grow up not seeing anyone “like me” in the movies or on TV or in the comics I read, so I'm not going to judge people in that situation for being vocal in their desire to see that change.
Is "like me" in relation to my ethnicity? That doesn't fit too well when I was an avid viewer of 227, Martin, Amen, The Cosby Show, or Family Matters.
Is "like me" in relation to my gender? That doesn't fit too well when I was an avid viewer of
Designing Women and Golden Girls (& Palace).
Is "like me" in relation to my age? That doesn't fit too well when I was never big in watching TV shows geared toward my age range (in my youth).
I always look for entertainment in my entertainment, not if the characters are tangibly "like me." I'm not "judging" as I am unable to relate because of what "like me" means to me.
I think it’s important to keep in mind just how powerful an impact the various entertainment mediums can have on society as a whole. For example, starting with vaudeville, and going on through standup comedy, theater, film, and television, the depiction of Jews in the entertainment industry (much of which, of course, was produced by Jews) completely changed the way Americans viewed the Jewish community. The first Jews in America were typically thought of as an ignoble ethnic group and were treated as second-class citizens, much like the Italians and the Irish were. But over the years through vaudeville, then the theater and film, and especially television, America saw a wide variety of Jewish writers, actors, comedians, characters, etc., and saw that they were no different than any of their other neighbors. There were other factors to be sure, but I think it's safe to say the entertainment industry played an overwhelming role in the integration of the Jewish community into American culture as a whole.
Familiarity breeds understanding, while the unknown stokes the fires of fear and rejection. And minorities recognize this fact because the see it at play in their lives every day. If I were in a minority group, I would absolutely want to see people like me on screen, not just for my own enjoyment and satisfaction, but so that others could see people like me and get used to the idea people like me exist and aren’t so different from them as they might think.
All you have to do is examine comic book fandom to see this.
Maybe times have changed today, but I'm not convinced. Either the producers of today's entertainment will buy into the fallacy of "diversity is crucial" and intellectual property owners will seek to replace every popular protagonist in the history of fiction with a trans/POC so we can all enjoy safe, diverse, homogenized entertainment, or they will resist that urge and just focus on making good entertainment with interesting characters/relationships and let the culture decide to embrace it or not.
https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2017/7/18/15987638/spider-man-homecoming-iron-man-relationships
By the time we—and I mean you, Matt, and myself—saw TV shows with predominantly black actors, the color barriers had already begun breaking down. I, and most likely both of you, had black friends at school—something that wouldn’t have been the case 25 years earlier. We, as a younger generation, felt much more comfortable relating to black characters on TV than earlier generations. And while Good Times was an important show in many ways, don’t forget that John Amos and Esther Rolle left the show when it became less serious and focused more on the clownish J.J. character, which they felt presented negative stereotypes. The Jeffersons likewise received complaints of stereotyping, despite the overall positive aspects of the show. The Cosby Show got its share of criticism—not for stereotyping, but for aspects deemed too unrealistic and for not doing more to address big issues for African-Americans. Producers of today’s entertainment aren’t doing anything different from those of years past. As soon as viewership demographics became available in the ’70s, producers started gearing shows towards those various demographic groups deemed desirable by advertisers. TV and films have always been overwhelmingly safe and homogenized. That’s the easy sell. The only thing that changes with the times is just what is considered “safe”. Good creators are able to work within those constraints and still provide interesting stories about interesting people. And some creators are able to slip out from those constraints and expand the boundaries of what is safe.
Hell, apparently the dude playing the gym teacher is a well-known actor. I have no idea what else he's been in.
I thought the actual female lead, Laura Harrier, who plays Liz Allan was far more interesting.
http://www.refinery29.com/amp/2017/08/167148/zendaya-tom-holland-spiderman-homecoming-chemistry-test