🦇

when i encounter some sort of ironic metatextual thing/commentary, i always ask myself: is there material difference between endorsement and criticism in this case? or in other words, what exactly this meta thing is trying to achieve and is this artistic decision more important than material consequences? because if the end result is the same, i don't think it matters if this was an ironic "meta" thing or simply a bad (racist/misogynistic/homophobic etc) decision.

the marketing could be meta. or it could be not meta. the end result is the same: actors of color do not get recognition and attention on the same level the main white actor does. s1&2 did everything to boost sam reid's presence in the show and marketing, even when lestat barely had any reason to be in the narrative. s3 marketing does everything to downplay the importance of jacob, assad and delainey and there are very clear negative consequences to it.

if amc respected bipoc, it'd find a way to keep their presence in the marketing without hurting any kind of "meta" vision of it. they could put up ominous clips of ghost or hallucination of claudia lurking behind lestat or haunting louis. they could make more silly in-character interviews like they did with "documentary outtakes". they still could show more of louis and armand in the official trailer. they simply could talk more about the first two seasons and encourage people to watch it instead of downplaying any connection between iwtv and tvl.

You're not nomads relying on each other to hunt and gather anymore, you're talking about stocking shelves for fucking wal marts

like whenever anyone tries to bring it up we're told we're tripping because it looks so queer but... not really? obviously it's not like super hetero but visually it's very much a 70s-80s throwback to glam rock which was mostly very straight, underneath all the glitter and posturing about sexual experimentation. plus people acting like m/f incest would horrify and turn off straight audiences are killing me. since when? game of thrones was full of it. it's an extremely popular porn category (unfortunately) cishet men love that shit!

we've got women shooting ping pong balls out of their coochies, women kissing (which yes, queer, but also titillating to straight men), women and men kissing, a guy appearing to eat out a woman, female strippers. i'm not saying i'm not entertained but these are not the kind of visuals that turn away straight audiences. they're "shocking" in a safe way. i keep thinking my homophobic dad would probably watch the show based on the trailers and teasers we've had so far, whereas the season 1 trailer with louis sucking on lestat's thumb would've made him throw the remote at the tv in anger.

that doesn't make the characters any less queer, nor is it bi erasure (something i, a bisexual, was accused of by a straight lestat fan lol) to point out that to the general audience who aren't familiar with the show, you wouldn't necessarily get an accurate impression of just how gay it is

it just feels silly to me to pretend this show exists in a bubble and that the marketing wouldn't be influenced by the current political climate in any way, as if it's not a huge operation with tons of people behind the scenes, and as if they wouldn't try to get their viewing figures up

like i'm a bisexual transmasc here who dresses fruity as fuck but can we have a sensible and serious conversation about the way in which the show is being promoted (which, again, doesn't necessarily reflect the content of the show itself)

as for gabi, i'm still holding out hope that there will be some kind of twist or that things aren't quite the way they seem based on the promos