Fraya wrote:
Quote:
why do they always show the severe cases?
Because hollywood thinks everyone who doesnt work for the movie industry is a complete idiot who wouldnt understand the person was different unless they made it super obvious? Plus their research rarely extends beyond the stereotypes.
It might be nice to imagine so, but I don't think that's it. Rather, the reality is far less flattering: get yourself a video camera, write yourself a speech, and read it naturally for a while while recording. If you're like me, when you play it back you'll soon realise the reason why Hollywood prefers the extreme cases: because there's no possible way the less extreme cases will look interesting to watch

If people don't like us in real life because we aren't user-friendly, they certainly aren't going to like us on-screen for the same reason. We are simply the exact opposite of everything Hollywood would normally want in a character: we might as well have anti-charisma.
Unless you want to put your audience to sleep (or outright annoy them), as a movie maker you'll want to "dress up" your aspie/autistic type by making them either an adorable, childlike, but profoundly out-of-touch basket case played against a more normal sympathetic character, or by making them an extreme nerdy weirdo geek who stands out by being annoying comic relief of some kind played against a group of more normal characters (preferably including at least one normal character who, by taking himself too seriously, obviously deserves to be punished by having some kind of Urkel inflicted upon him.)
The best you can hope for, otherwise, would be aspie-like characters appearing in works of surrealism and psychedelia (say,
Lemony Snickets' "A Series of Unfortunate Events", or
Monty Python's Flying Circus, or
Fawlty Towers, or the film version The Who's
Tommy) - where, for example, outlandish scenery, surreal situations, and shrill supporting characters might balance things out and actually make an aspie look normal by comparison.