In recent times, especially as movements such as Black Lives Matter gain traction, there has been a push for increased diversity in movies and shows. Some people may think, “Why does this matter? It’s only TV. Aren’t there more important things to worry about?” While it is true that there are many real-world issues that should be acknowledged with urgency, movies and shows are widely enjoyed by people from a range of socioeconomic statuses, ethnicities and ages. They reflect ideals and standards in our society, and can even push these boundaries by bringing certain stories, characters and themes into the limelight. When things are normalized on screen, it is easier to normalize them off-screen in our own society.
Unfortunately, lots of representation of characters with diverse ethnicities, sexualities, body types and abilities are more harmful than beneficial. Many times, these characters are only sprinkled into shows or movies in order to give an appearance of diversity without actually doing any work. Too often, these instances of “representation” only contribute to pushing forth negative stereotypes adopted by real-world society.
One example is having these characters die, such as the “bury-your-gays” trope—where the queer characters get killed off, usually due to their sexuality—or having the person of color be the first to die in a horror movie. Or when it is drawn out, the minority character suffers and does not get a happy ending. Now, I am a sucker for tear-jerkers but when people only ever see the character that they relate the most unable to achieve a happy ending, what does that imply? That these types of people are destined for tragedy in real life? That happiness is an impossible ideal to achieve despite any hard work that is put in? And what does this suggest to the rest of society who may not relate to these characters—that the world is not made for people that look different? Furthermore, this would not be a problem if it did not happen so disproportionately often, and people were able to see a fair number of instances where these types of characters have a chance to succeed. Spoiler alert for “Get Out”: this was even one of the reasons “Get Out” director and writer Jordan Peele modified the ending to make the Black main character come out on top at the end, saying to Vanity Fair, “The ending needed to transform into something that gives us a hero, that gives us an escape, that gives us a positive feeling.”
 Other times, minority characters are portrayed in an outright negative light. Oftentimes, the only queer characters and characters of ethnic minorities—such as Black, Latinx, and Asian—in a cast are the ones that are selected to be the antagonist or have character traits that reflect a sense of immorality such as selfishness or rudeness. People with disfigurements are also the villains a lot of times, and their appearances are either used to amp their scariness or explain their hatred of the world. I’m not saying that these roles should be taken away from actors that have been historically marginalized, just that constantly seeing minorities villainized on-screen reflects how society, unfortunately, sees them in real life. Xenophobia, homophobia, and racism are deep-rooted and long-running issues in our society. Black and Latinx people have been disproportionately arrested and punished under the criminal justice system for as long as the system has been put in place. According to the Sentencing Project, “African-American adults are 5.9 times as likely to be incarcerated than whites and Hispanics are 3.1 times as likely.” Constantly taking in images of them as bad guys feed into this irrational fear and help to rationalize prejudice in our government systems as this villainous stereotype becomes one of the main things that come to mind when we envision them.
 When minority characters are not being killed off or villainized, many times they are the comedic relief or are only there to support the main character by providing advice or encouragement and then are never seen again. They add light to the movie or show by being the butt of the joke. The script plays into stereotypes that either make fun of the character’s culture or if they’re a plus-sized character, it pokes fun at their weight. They do not have any other contribution, and the jokes are made out to be deserved and only make sense. When offensive jokes are normalized in the media, viewers normalize it when they turn off their streaming devices. Microaggressions are no longer seen as problematic but as lighthearted jokes that no one has the right to be worked up over. Also, there is nothing wrong with having a funny or supportive character, but many times, these characters are only ever there to be laughed at or to drop a token of wisdom and then disappear, as if that is that is all they are good for. Why can’t these characters have an arc? Why aren’t they important or interesting enough to show their personal lives outside of being a tool to highlight the main character’s traits or struggles?
People always say to not judge a book by its cover, but when you always see certain people portrayed as certain roles it is hard not to associate the two; it is just a shortcut your brain takes automatically. That is why it is important to start seeing minority characters in roles outside of being the token friend, the villain or a hopeless victim. Minority characters need to have their chance to shine and to reflect the complex and nuanced people that they are representing.
Seeing characters that you relate to be treated as whole and complex people that eventually, succeed in the end suggests that you too can succeed. And normalizing heroes of all backgrounds encourages the rest of society to realize the power and potential of people like them. Our world is not made up of one specific type of person and each person has their own traits and journeys that are valid and beautiful—the more this can be reflected in big-screen adaptations, the more society as a whole will be able to recognize this as well.