“Asian” versus “white” is a false dichotomy, since one is a continent, and the other is a (sort-of) color. Whereas I agree that there are problems of representation in Hollywood, people who feel a need to be critical need to be careful in how they frame bigotry in language, lest they undo their argument before it has even begun.
Such representation in movies can be dealt with in terms of race, color, ethnicity, region, culture, and religion - and I would say these are definitely not interchangeable. But people casually do so all of the time. Since Asia is a continent, what does invoking it suggest that we know about a person? Why should they look a certain way? But the OP discusses the prevalence of ads and alphabets, which are cultural. And many fail to consider that the critic themselves is deferring to stereotypes to draw such conclusions about people based upon their appearance in movies. Or even simply assuming what kind of person is “default” when reading literature. A failure to unpack the underlying semantics is how imperialism sneaks in through the back door and so occupies norms, expectations, and assumptions - in effect creating the very stereotypes we are trying to criticize.
If we intend to effectively critique bigotry and bias, I think we need to compare like categories in order to say anything meaningful and thus make any progress. Contrasting continent versus continent, color versus color, ethnicity versus ethnicity. Not nationality versus religion, or culture versus color, for example. When these categories seem to intersect, it is important to point out how and why they seem to, rather than suggest that they have any innate connection or equivalence. But I know - that requires some effort, and needing to think about what we say.