Entertainment
Hollywood Doesn’t Need Another Warning Label for LGBTQ+ Stories
Christopher Racster is an award-winning producer of LGBTQ+ film and television with more than 25 years of internationally distributed work. He leads Outfest and serves on the board of the Iris Prize LGBTQ+ Film Festival in Wales, and speaks frequently on LGBTQ+ media and its role in advocacy and public understanding. Ahead of OutfestNEXT this weekend in Los Angeles, Racster looks at an FCC proposal that could harm how queer stories are told.
On April 22, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) opened an inquiry asking whether the television ratings system should create a new rating or warning for programs with transgender or gender non-binary content. Supporters of the inquiry framed the idea as a way to protect parental authority. After the inquiry opened, more than 40 organizations, including GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign, and PFLAG, filed comments against it before the window closed. Supporters’ arguments ran along two lines: that parents and guardians, not federal regulators, should be the ones deciding what their children watch, and that a label singling out LGBTQ+ characters wrongly files our stories alongside graphic violence and explicit sex, as if the presence of a gay or trans person were itself a mature theme.
I have spent more than 25 years producing LGBTQ+ film and television, and I have sat across enough tables from financiers, acquisition executives, and marketers to tell you exactly what this proposal does. It obstructs. A rating has never been a neutral fact printed on a box. It is a scarlet letter, and every decision-maker quietly takes it at face value. Advertisers and distributors pay attention to it. The people deciding which projects get money pay attention to it. I have watched a room go quiet over the fear of a single letter grade before anyone had seen a frame of the actual work. By attaching a warning to a story simply because a queer character walks into it, you have not given parents anything real to decide on. The label says nothing about whether a show is violent, frightening, or sexually explicit. It flags only that a queer character exists, which tells a parent nothing about whether the program is right for their child. What it does tell every studio is that these stories come with a tax. You have made them harder to sell and harder to greenlight, and therefore easier to remove from the public eye entirely.
We have seen this machinery before, and we should say so clearly. For years, the film ratings board applied a double standard that anyone paying attention could clearly see. LGBTQ+ films drew harsher ratings than their straight equivalents. “Henry & June” became the first film to receive an NC-17 rating in 1990. “Boys Don’t Cry” and “But I’m a Cheerleader” were both forced into cuts to escape the same fate. The 2006 documentary “This Film Is Not Yet Rated” put the pattern on the record, and a peer-reviewed study in 2018 confirmed that films recommended for LGBTQ+ teenagers were routinely rated in ways that put them out of reach.

These are films that could have been a vital lifeline for those young people. And this is not a thing of the past. In 2023, the drama “Passages” drew an NC-17 for gay sex scenes that were not remotely explicit, while “Blue Valentine,” a straight drama built around a comparable scene of oral sex, had its own NC-17 reduced to an R on appeal a decade earlier without cutting a single frame. Same act, different rating, and the clearest variable was who was in the bed. The mechanism was never an outright ban, and it did not need to be. A rating that limits who can watch a film also limits who will fund it, and that is a quieter and more durable form of control than any ban.
For a while, I let myself believe that era was behind us. Through the 2010s and into this decade, LGBTQ+ stories moved from the margins to the center of the culture. They won Oscars and Emmys. They traveled the world and made real money. Audiences did not just tolerate them; they went looking for them. I watched a film that I helped bring to the screen play to a full house in a country where I had been assured, confidently, by people who should have known better, that no one there wanted to see it. They were wrong. The appetite was always there. What had been missing was the permission.
That progress is now being reversed, and reversed purposefully. GLAAD’s most recent studio report found that LGBTQ+ inclusion in major film releases was at a three-year low, the third straight year of decline, with not a single transgender character among the 225 films it studied from the 10 largest distributors. This did not happen because the stories stopped working or stopped needing to be told. It happened because the climate around them changed. The FCC inquiry does not stand alone. It sits alongside Florida’s 2022 “Don’t Say Gay” law, the wave of school library book removals, and a broader campaign that treats the ordinary visibility of LGBTQ+ people as something to be flagged, restricted, and eventually erased. A warning label is the entertainment industry’s version of that same instinct. It borrows the language of child safety to put our lives back in the category of things adults must be cautioned about.

The argument against this is not only moral. It is also commercial, and the industry should not be shy about saying so. Gallup finds that nearly a quarter of adults under 30 identify as LGBTQ+. The Williams Institute counts roughly five million American children being raised by LGBTQ+ parents. Surveys show large majorities of Americans believe everyone deserves to see themselves on screen. Studios that let a government inquiry frighten them into caution are not managing risk. They are walking away from one of the few audiences that still shows up reliably, and handing it to platforms that will never accept a warning label in the first place.
I also want to name something that rarely makes it into these debates, because it is the part of my life I know best. LGBTQ+ film festivals are not a nice addition to this ecosystem. We are load-bearing. Festivals like Outfest and the Iris Prize in Wales, where I serve on the board, do work that no algorithm and no studio slate will do on its own. They are where accurate representation is initially developed and defended before the stories make it to the wider market. They are where a first-time filmmaker finds an audience that a distributor has not yet imagined. And they are the most reliable answer we have when someone in power decides our stories need a warning. When a festival programs a film and fills a theater, it makes an argument that no ratings board can overrule. It says these stories are already being watched, already being loved, and already part of the culture. In a period when institutions are quietly deciding what is safe to show, festivals remain a platform that cannot be pressured into silence, because they belong to the community that built them.
The choice before the industry is not complicated. A warning label on LGBTQ+ content is a request to return to a time when our stories were treated as a liability to be managed rather than ones with an audience to be served. We have lived through that version of the business. It was not safer for children. It was only smaller, poorer, and less honest. The people who make and distribute this work should refuse the premise outright, and they should say why publicly. The rest of us should keep doing what has always worked. Keep making the stories. Keep filling the theaters. Keep proving, one sold-out screening at a time, that nothing here needs a warning.
OutfestNEXT runs July 23 to 26 in Los Angeles.
>
movies
‘BMF’ Star Da’Vinchi Joins ‘Chicago Fire’ For Season 15
EXCLUSIVE: After playing one of the real-life crime duo, the Flenory Brothers, on Starz’s BMF, Da’Vinchi has joined the series regular cast of NBC‘s Chicago Fire.
Da’Vinchi joins the Chicago Fire cast: Taylor Kinney, David Eigenberg, Miranda Rae Mayo, Christian Stolte, Joe Miñoso, Jocelyn Hudon and Brandon Larracuente. The new season premieres on Wednesday, Oct. 7 at 9 p.m.
In the procedural’s upcoming 15th season, the Haitian-American actor will play Marcus Burke, a firefighter candidate at Firehouse 51. Roguish and funny with a wry sense of humor, and also a little defiant.
Chicago Fire follows the professional and personal lives of firefighters, rescuers, and paramedics of Firehouse 51 in the Windy City.
A logline for Season 15 has yet to be released.
Season 14 ended with various new opportunities for the characters. Former Chief Pascal (Dermott Mulroney), who had been absent since Episode 14, returns to discuss with Severide (Kinney) his professional options: Chief of Firehouse 51 or Chief of Fire Investigation? As Severide was about to share his decision, an emergency call interrupts his announcement.
The episode ends on a major cliffhanger when 51 answers an emergency call that a storage facility is on fire. All the regulars head inside with the hope of taming the flames, but then a loud boom shocks viewers. The best and brightest at 51 are all in danger…and fans have to wait for Season 15 to find out who survives.
Additionally, Herrmann (David Eigenberg) and his wife renew their vows. Speaking of Herrmann, he told his bestie Mouch (Christian Stolte) that he’s pondering retiring.
The new season also brings a new showrunner, following Andrea Newman’s exit after 14 seasons. Victor Terharn will showrun and executive produce the series, from Dick Wolf’s Wolf Entertainment and Universal Television.
Chicago Fire is executive produced by Dick Wolf, Victor Tehran, Reza Tabrizi, Matt Whitney, Anastasia Puglisi, Rebecca McGill and Peter Jankowski.
In addition to the Starz series Black Mafia Family (BMF), Da’Vinci also starred in the CW’s All-American. Up next, he will co-star in a pair of upcoming Tyler Perry projects for Netflix: The series Where There’s Smoke and the film Why Did I Get Married Again. He is repped by IAG and Artist Collective Entertainment.
>
movies
Venice festival Lineup: Alberto Barbera on the Studios, AI, Gender Gap
Artistic Director Alberto Barbera unveiled the lineup for the 83rd Venice International Film Festival on Thursday, and, as ever, there is no shortage of auteur firepower headed for the Lido.
The competition slate includes Primetime, starring and produced by Robert Pattinson; Bunker, with Penélope Cruz and Javier Bardem; Ink, featuring Jack O’Connell, Guy Pearce and Claire Foy; and The Echo Chamber, led by Alicia Vikander. There are also hotly anticipated new features from Martin McDonagh (Wild Horses Nine), Lee Chang-dong (Possible Love) and Werner Herzog (Bucking Fastard).
But compared with last year — when Jacob Elordi, Dwayne Johnson, Emma Stone, George Clooney and Julia Roberts helped turn Venice into a red-carpet supernova — the wattage is noticeably dimmer. The lineup is also light on Hollywood studio fare, continuing a troubling pattern seen this year in Berlin and Cannes: the majors are increasingly ghosting the big festivals.
Equally glaring is the gender imbalance. Of the 20 films in competition, just one — May El-Toukhy’s Danish drama Woman Unknown — has a female director. Nearly a decade after Barbera signed the 50/50 by 2020 pledge to improve representation for women filmmakers at Venice, the numbers offer little evidence of progress.
In a wide-ranging conversation with The Hollywood Reporter, Barbera addressed the studio slowdown, Venice’s gender-parity setback and whether AI-made films may have a future on the festival circuit.
How are you doing?
Pretty good. Actually, I’m exhausted already. Now I have to work on the screening schedule. Everybody wants to play on the first weekend, which is impossible. Then we have actors who have obligations and commitments because they are on set somewhere and can only come for 20-24 hours. It’s extremely complicated and difficult. Just endless discussion. Over the next two weeks we’ll redo the schedule several times. It’s a nightmare. The worst part of my job.
Well congratulations at least in finalizing the lineup. What are you most proud of in your selection this year?
The fact that the combination of films is both big names and young talents. We have newcomers from all over the world. Which of course is part of our mission, to reflect world cinema. But this year is much more varied than previous years. There are a lot of discoveries, a lot of newcomers. In the main competition we only have nine films from filmmakers who attended Venice before. The others are completely new to the main competition. Some of them are pretty young, and very talented.
We also have a lot of documentaries, very strong documentaries, more than usual, this year. They are so strong and very relevant and I think they will have an impact. We gave up the idea of screening many TV series this year, also because, from a quality point of view, they weren’t so interesting. We prefer to show more documentaries.
One thing I noticed was, like at other big festivals this year, there aren’t many big studio movies.
No, no big studio films. Because they aren’t available. The only [studio movie] we were hoping to land in Venice was the [Alejandro G.] Iñárritu film with Tom Cruise [Digger]. But Warner Brothers decided not to do any festival and to release the film at the beginning of October, skipping all the festivals. That their marketing strategy. There was no room to discuss it with them.
But there were no other big studio films available in time. The films the trades have been speculating about in the last two or three months simply weren’t ready. Alan Sorkin’s film [The Social Reckoning] is not ready. They decided to reshoot some sequences in August, so the film won’t be ready in time for Venice. David Fincher’s film [Brad Pitt-starrer The Adventures of Cliff Booth], which is highly anticipated, for us too, isn’t ready because Fincher had to pause for personal reasons. It has been slightly postponed and will be probably ready in October, but not in time for for Venice.
But there were no other major disappointments because the films weren’t ready. Can you name a single film from a studio that was ready and is not in Venice? Of course Dune 3 isn’t ready. It’ll be released around Christmas.
The problem isn’t that the studios chose not to bring their films to Venice, the films simply aren’t finished. I wouldn’t say it’s a trend that the studios are skipping the festivals. It’s a temporary situation, the result of the film production schedule that the big festivals like Cannes and Venice don’t have access to.
Next year we’ll see. Maybe the studio will come back to the festival. Or maybe not. Because we do know that all the studios are re-thinking their marketing strategies, because marketing films has become more complicated and more difficult. If you have a blockbuster, if you have a Tom Cruise film, it’s easy. You release the film and the people come. With other movies it’s more difficult because the traditional marketing tools don’t work anymore and they are still building the new tools. So we will see what happens.
As marketing strategies change, does that change the role a festival like Venice plays in the industry?
I don’t see any big changes in the near future. The future, by definition of course, is unpredictable. But I can’t see a big revolutionary change in the role of the festivals. If the big Hollywood movies decide to skip the festivals, we will work to improve our role in promoting independent films, new talents, and new filmmakers — auteur cinema from around the world. Which is part of our mission and something we’ve always done. Maybe we will just be doing more of that.
One film I was surprised not to see in the lineup was Luca Guadagnino’s Artificial. Was that ready? Did you screen it?
Yes. I saw the film. I love the movie. I think it’s a great, great movie. The only problem was Neon only bought it a few weeks ago [after Amazon MGM dropped the film]. I had a long discussion with [Neon boss] Tom Quinn. He said he was very sorry. He sees the film as a strong contender for the Oscars next year. But they won’t be ready to release the movie until early 2027. They’ll do a release in December to qualify for the Oscar but they aren’t ready yet. I think that the film was probably quite expensive for them. They spent a lot of money to buy the film. Now they need to sell it all over the world and they don’t want [to premiere] the film before selling it everywhere. So they decided to skip the fall festivals [for] a straight commercial release. It’s unfortunate because the film is really, really good.
You and the Venice festival tend to stay above the fray when it comes to political discussions, but in his comments today, Biennale chairman Pietrangelo Buttafuoco made a very political statement, slamming the decision by the European Commission to withdraw a €2 million ($2.3 million) grant to the Biennale’s arts exhibition. Mr. Buttafuoco suggested the loss of the grant could impact the Venice festival, particularly on funding for the Biennale College and the Venice Production Bridge programs. Is that the case?
Luckily enough, no. The decision by the European Community will not impact the Venice production bridge or the Biennale College. It was supposed to be €2 million over three years, so it means less than €700,000 [$796,211] a year, which we can cover with our own budget. I wouldn’t say we are not worried. We are. We are sad and frustrated by the decision, which is just a matter of politics and unacceptable.
It’s well known that you and Mr. Buttafuoco don’t share the same politics. [Buttafuoco is a right-wing writer and journalist.] But you seem to work very well together. How do you manage that, despite the political differences I assume are there?
Of course they are. Everybody knows that, it’s not a secret. But it’s actually very simple. He is extremely, extremely respectful of my autonomy as artistic director of the festival. He never interferes in my choices. He is one of the most respectful men I have ever worked with. It’s very easy working with him. This is the opinion of everybody working at the Biennale. He has succeeded in creating a space where everyone feels free to support the artists we champion, where there is freedom of expression and space for confrontation and discussion between people who don’t necessarily share the same political opinions.
One more political question. Back in 2018 you signed the 50/50 by 2020 pledge to try and increase gender parity at the Venice film festival, increase the number of female directors in competition. How do you assess your progress, given that this year out of the 20 directors in competition, you have only one woman?
I’m very sorry about that. I’m actually desperate. I would love to be able to find more films, more female-directed films to put in competition. But it simply was not possible. For many reasons. The number of films made by women has decreased, which is quite strange and hard to understand.
From 2018, 2019, 2020, we saw the figures improving year after year. From female directors making up 18-19 percent of film production to more than 30 percent. But for feature films [this year] there were fewer than 24 percent directed by women. And the quality of the ones we saw was not such that we could put them in competition. The only one was from the Danish director [May el-Toukhy’s Woman Unknown].
I don’t know why this is, but I know the other sections, the independent sections in Venice, had the same problem. I think it’s a temporary negative situation. I hope next year will improve again, we’ll get more films made by women and the quality will improve. It’s difficult for us to understand. But we are at the end of a chain that we don’t know control. There are choices made by the producers, by financiers. It’s a matter of the budgets [being given to female directors]. I’m very sorry about the situation but there was nothing we could do. We don’t want to select the competition on the basis of gender, but on the quality of the films. Of course quality is a subjective category but we take the responsibility that our choices are made on the basis of the quality of the films rather than any other criteria.
Speaking of selection criteria, there’s obviously a big discussion around the use of artificial intelligence in cinema. You have a documentary screening out of competition [Be Brave] that was made almost entirely using AI. What’s Venice’s position on the use of AI in the films? Would you select a film for competition that was made using AI?
I’m very interested in AI because it’s an incredible, and powerful tool that, without a doubt, will have a major impact on mankind. It will completely change the world of production. Not only in cinema but in every field of human activity.
The problem is that so far most of the things we read about artificial intelligence are focused on the negative impact. And it’s true, these are very dangerous tools. But I think it’s time to discuss the possibility of how we can use this incredibly powerful tool in the service of the creativity of a filmmaker. We know most films are already using AI in some form, even if they aren’t talking about it. What is interesting to understand is how can you use AI differently in film production, in film creation. This documentary is a sort of experiment by an Italian production company to show how you can use AI under the total control of a filmmaker, to create something you couldn’t do without the technology, or it would very difficult.
It’s a way to open the discussion about the possible uses of the AI in film creation. We know AI is here to stay and will become more and more important in film production. The thing that we need to understand is how we can use AI to suit the aims of the artist or creator. That’s the reason why we’re open to films made by AI. But only ones made under the complete control of the artist.
>
movies
‘Percy Jackson’ Season 3 Release Date, First Footage Revealed
Percy Jackson is departing on yet another world-altering adventure this fall.
The third season of Disney+’s Percy Jackson and the Olympians will debut on November 20, 2026, it was revealed during the show’s buzzy San Diego Comic-Con panel Thursday morning.
To kick off the con, Percy Jackson fans inside Hall H were treated to the first few minutes of footage from Season 3. The scene opened with a cloaked figure trudging through dark city streets as ominous holiday tunes emanate from the surrounding businesses. The figure makes its way to a parking garage and removes its hood, revealing that it’s actually Thalia (Tamera Smart) — and she’s looking for Luke (Charlie Bushnell).
She confronts a monster inside the parking garage, pressuring it to tell her about her former best friend’s location, and the fight is not going her way… until Percy (Walker Scobell) shows up. He helps her defeat the monster, much to her chagrin, only to find out that’s it Annabeth (Leah Sava Jeffries) who sent him. She’s there, too, and she tries to convince Thalia to join them on their mission to collect Bianca (Olive Abercrombie) and Nico Di Angelo (Levi Chrisopulos), children of Hades, from their military boarding school.
These two are quite important and anticipated characters who will change the frame of the tension between Percy and Thalia as children of two of the big three gods. They are children of Hades, Kronos’ third and final son. Abercrombie and Chrisopulos took the stage for their very first SDCC in honor of their long-awaited Season 3 arrival.
Back to the clip, Thalia isn’t having it and peels away in a stolen car before the pair can convince her otherwise. Or, really just Annabeth, because Percy makes his disdain for Thalia pretty clear in their brief interaction.
On that note, Smart spoke onstage about how audiences will finally truly get to know Thalia and understand the tension between her and Percy in Season 3 after getting just a glimpse of her at the end of the second season.
“The one thing for me that I really thought about is ‘Yes, I was so excited to be in Season 2’ but Thalia hasn’t been established as a character yet,” Smart said. “For me it was building on what Rick [Riordan] created and wrote. So it was building on that and as you all say, some ‘generational beef’ [between Thalia’s father Zeus and Percy’s father Poseidon.] She’s so layered this season so it was a lot of work into her past.”
RELATED: Comic-Con 2026 Photos: Best Of Panels, Activations, Cosplay & Convention Floor
Jeffries was absent from the panel discussion because she is filming the next-generation Cheetah Girls movie, but she filmed a special video message for the crowd to introduce the clip. Scobell, who was in attendance, also made sure she was represented inside the convention center, bringing a photo of her to the stage with him.
Executive producer Dan Shotz, who was on the panel, also teased that viewers can expect more of Annabeth in Season 3 than they got in the book it is based on, Rick Riordan’s The Titan’s Curse.
“Annabeth is separated from the group,” Shotz said. “We are gonna open up the world and explore where Annabeth is and give a new look into that. It’s been nice to expand on that.”
Shotz also told the audience that the cast was “pushed to the limit” with the darker, deeper stakes for Season 3, adding: “The things we have thrown at them, the emotional depth – these guys, every day, delivered on that.”
In addition to Shotz, EP Craig Silverstein was also on the panel. When asked whether he could confirm Scobell’s previous remarks that Season 3 is the most “book accurate” thus far, he remained coy (as did Shotz), but he did reveal that there are many long-awaited surprises in store for readers.
“You’re going to go to some places that you’ve been waiting to see for a long time,” he said.
Season 3 of Percy Jackson will be the first adaptation of the third book in Riordan’s series, as the previous film adaptations ended with Sea of Monsters, adding another level of anticipation (and anxiety) around how the creative team will bring this pivotal story to life. With The Titan’s Curse, the series starts to become a bit darker and more mature as Percy and his friends become more entangled in the war between the gods.
There is plenty to come, making it hard to choose which scene the Percy team is most excited for fans to see. Naturally, the junkyard scene was a big contender (if you know, you know), which we now know will be in Episode 4.
Added Shotz: “I’m excited for everyone to see the Hunters [of Artemis]. It is time. There was a little sneak peak put out of their costumes and what they look like. That took so much incredible work from our costume and makeup [crew] to make them look so awesome and badass. I can’t wait for you to see them and how they work together.”
For his own favorite moment, Aryan Simhadri, who plays Grover, joked: “The Hoover Dam… it was pretty dam good.”
>
-
Fashion9 years agoThese ’90s fashion trends are making a comeback in 2017
-
Fashion9 years agoAccording to Dior Couture, this taboo fashion accessory is back
-
Fashion9 years agoModel Jocelyn Chew’s Instagram is the best vacation you’ve ever had
-
Fashion9 years agoYour comprehensive guide to this fall’s biggest trends
-
Fashion9 years ago9 Celebrities who have spoken out about being photoshopped
-
Fashion9 years agoEmily Ratajkowski channels back-to-school style
-
Fashion9 years agoA photo diary of the nightlife scene from LA To Ibiza
-
Tech3 months agoOpenAI CEO apologizes to Tumbler Ridge community


