Yeah, it's interesting that tv is light years ahead of film when it comes to LGBT representation. I wonder why that is? I guess mainstream appeal is more important for movies...? That's the best I can come up with.
TV is still generally made for a Western audience and usually doesn't have
hundreds of millions of dollars on the line that could all be lost if audiences reject the movie in its first few weeks.
Hollywood movies have turned into all-or-nothing endeavors that try to hit as many people as possible. TV shows can build up a decent enough audience and stay successful. There's room for TV shows to breathe and find their audiences by being on the air for several years. They can afford to take risks with LGBT representation and take the hit from people who don't watch the show.
With the advent of the Internet, Netflix, on-demand viewing, and binge watching, fans are also far more accepting for serialized shows with long, intricate storylines. I remember when 24 was the only show on broadcast TV doing a season-long story in the early 2000s; everything else was hopelessly episodic. There's a reason a lot of movie actors have starred in TV shows recently: the overall quality of TV writing is simply leagues better than the overall quality of movie writing right now.
