GLAAD grades the networks

[firehawk12]

Well, full integration - except that it'll never happen. So here we are.

Oh, it will happen eventually. But it's always two steps forward and one step back.

Like I said in that People of Colour thread in SFF - when the Latino/Hispanic population of the US is more than 50%, suddenly Hollywood's demographics will change.

Or, alternatively, piracy in India and China is stopped and Hollywood can make money in those markets. When that happens, you'll have a Michael Bay film directed entirely in Chinese or Hindu with Chinese/Indian stars.

 

[stj]

Brother Sam is supposed to be gay? They sure didn't flaunt it, unlike the breasts in the holodeck, (er, VR) sequences.

This is really surprising, as Sam was also supposed to be the Mexican (er, Tauron) gangster brother. A gay Mexican gangster? I'm sure any such is so far back in the closet the dust bunnies are nervous. Feeling free to write any old crap you want because it's just science fiction leads to nonsense like this.

I don't think we're at the point where having the villains be the gay guys is entirely unproblematic. There aren't any gay heroes to balance the picture.

 

[Broccoli]

Conan had a great gag about SyFy being ranked low the other day. He claimed it was the latest in the long standing feud between the homosexual and the non sexual.

I laughed.

Cheap but funny.

All of Conan's gags are cheap, but funny.

 

[DevilEyes]

Brother Sam is supposed to be gay? They sure didn't flaunt it, unlike the breasts in the holodeck, (er, VR) sequences.

This is really surprising, as Sam was also supposed to be the Mexican (er, Tauron) gangster brother. A gay Mexican gangster? I'm sure any such is so far back in the closet the dust bunnies are nervous. Feeling free to write any old crap you want because it's just science fiction leads to nonsense like this.

"Nonsense"? Are you serious? You are saying that a gangster can't be gay? Or that a Mexican (who isn't even Mexican in this case, but nevermind) can't be gay? LMAO Talk about nonsense.

FYI Ronnie Kray, one of the most notorious British gangsters, was gay, and it's always been common knowledge.

And newsflash: "Caprica" does not take place on 20th/21st century Earth and the Adamas are not Mexicans. They are TAURANS. What in the world makes you think that Taurans have any problems with homosexuality, or that anyone would have to be in the closet? Do you just believe that every society has the same attitudes towards sexuality? Does ancient Greece ring any bells?

I don't think we're at the point where having the villains be the gay guys is entirely unproblematic. There aren't any gay heroes to balance the picture.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to lame Hollywood cliche-ridden movies and shows with lovable gay best friends who all love Barbra Streisand and Liza Minelli. Why can't we have non-steretypical gay characters? And I don't even know if Caprica will have straightforward 'heroes' or 'villains'.

 

[barnaclelapse]

This is almost as stupid as parent watchdog groups grading TV shows on what is "good TV" and "bad TV".

Almost.

I don't even pay attention to this kind of nonsense.

 

[Harvey]

Sam's a pretty minor character to call a "lead." Is he even a regular?

He's been compared by the writers to Helo. A one-off character in the pilot episode who delivered a performance they liked so much that they've decided to bring him back as a regular. So, yes, beginning with episode two, he's a regular.

Brother Sam is supposed to be gay? They sure didn't flaunt it, unlike the breasts in the holodeck, (er, VR) sequences.

Such are the perils of "unrated" versions on DVD. Throw in some breasts, add in some violence, and toss it out to consumers as if it has the same legitimacy or worth as the director's cuts of Lawrence of Arabia or Blade Runner. Unlike the extended episodes on Battlestar Galactica, except for the Razor telemovie, these shots call attention to themselves because they've been designed to be easily excisable from the cut for the broadcast version.

As for not flaunting the character's homosexuality, either they didn't envision this aspect of his character until well after the pilot was filmed, or they didn't think 'flaunting it' as you put it would serve a purpose.

This is really surprising, as Sam was also supposed to be the Mexican (er, Tauron) gangster brother. A gay Mexican gangster? I'm sure any such is so far back in the closet the dust bunnies are nervous. Feeling free to write any old crap you want because it's just science fiction leads to nonsense like this.

I'm far more worried that they'll quickly become caricatures of Italian gangsters, the ethnicity of the Adam(a)s not withstanding. But who can say based on just a pilot what they'll develop into. Get back to me after five or ten episodes...

I don't think we're at the point where having the villains be the gay guys is entirely unproblematic. There aren't any gay heroes to balance the picture.

Quite true. Although I will give Caprica some credit. It's not introducing lipstick lesbians (the safe bet) like Stargate Universe. Although, on the flipside, Stargate has a character who appears to be a protagonist, and Caprica has a character who appears to be an antagonist. But whether that position will remain constant is not certain. One thing is certain: both series are offering far more of a role for homosexuals than any incarnation of Star Trek ever has, including the new movie.

 

[stj]

That's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to lame Hollywood cliche-ridden movies and shows with lovable gay best friends who all love Barbra Streisand and Liza Minelli. Why can't we have non-steretypical gay characters? And I don't even know if Caprica will have straightforward 'heroes' or 'villains'.

^^^That's the nonsense. It's the kind of thinking that would lead to the occasional movie where the gay guy is the action hero, or the love interest for the hero. When some of those are around, the gay guy being the villain becomes reasonable variety. When they're not, the gay villains are a message. Just because you refuse to read subtext, doesn't mean it's there. To put it another way, movies always carry messages. Even if the messages are conventional wisdom, common sense or prevalent prejudices, they are there.

For instance, if Tauron is a whole other planet, it won't all be hot, violent, dirty and poor. Going from one planet to another will be hugely expensive and only a handful will ever do so. And only the filthy rich will go back and forth. There will be no space war like a rich country's Marines fighting guerrillas in a banana republic. The subtext is that Joe Adams becomes Joe Adama because he's tired of denying his Latino heritage to get ahead.

As for gay gangsters, I defer to your superior knowledge of criminals.

 

[Broccoli]

This is almost as stupid as parent watchdog groups grading TV shows on what is "good TV" and "bad TV".

Almost.

I don't even pay attention to this kind of nonsense.

Yet, you clicked, read a a few posts, and came up with a response.

 

[Harvey]

stj -- I'm not exactly sure what you're responding to or where you're going with that last point. Care to rephrase?

 

[Maurice]

Seriously, I find it shocking how many people here are so dismissive of this group for simply reporting on how it grades portrayal in media. To look at some of the posts here you'd think the best thing would be for people who are under- or mis-represented in the media should just shut up.

It's a stance especially hypocritical on a BBS devoted to discussions about media, particularly where threads ranking shows and movies on the basis of various criteria is de rigueur.

 

[Messianni]

Seriously, I find it shocking how many people here are so dismissive of this group for simply reporting on how it grades portrayal in media. To look at some of the posts here you'd think the best thing would be for people who are under- or mis-represented in the media should just shut up.

It's a stance especially hypocritical on a BBS devoted to discussions about media, particularly where threads ranking shows and movies on the basis of various criteria is de rigueur.

Because when they actually designate certain percentages with labels like "failure", they're carrying a tone of "you need to change this". As if there should be some sort of quota for gay people on network television, which there shouldn't be, nor should there be for any group. That's what is being discussed.

 

[DevilEyes]

That's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to lame Hollywood cliche-ridden movies and shows with lovable gay best friends who all love Barbra Streisand and Liza Minelli. Why can't we have non-steretypical gay characters? And I don't even know if Caprica will have straightforward 'heroes' or 'villains'.

^^^That's the nonsense. It's the kind of thinking that would lead to the occasional movie where the gay guy is the action hero, or the love interest for the hero. When some of those are around, the gay guy being the villain becomes reasonable variety. When they're not, the gay villains are a message. Just because you refuse to read subtext, doesn't mean it's there. To put it another way, movies always carry messages. Even if the messages are conventional wisdom, common sense or prevalent prejudices, they are there.

That's rubbish. Political correctness at its worst. Oooh we can't possibly have a less than noble, perfectly nice and wonderful person in fiction be gay! Because if a gangster happens to be gay, then the viewers would think that all gay people are gangsters! Please.

If you had been going for "it sends a wrong message to have a gangster of an ethnicity that is somewhat reminiscent of Mexicans/Hispanic people" angle, you may have had a point, as this can be said to be conforming to an existing stereotype, kind of like having a black actor play a pimp on BSG. But as there is no gays = gangsters stereotypes in popular culture, esp. not American, that I am aware of (as your previous post confirmed), you have no basis for an argument. If Sam were portayed as someone who became a gangster because he had an issue related to his sexuality, than you may have a point. But there's been absolutely no indication whatsoever that his sexuality is in any way related to his criminal behaviour.

IMO the best way to treat the issue, especially in a SF show, is just to not treat it as an issue, and completely ignore all the cliches - by having all and any sorts of characters be gay or bisexual - whether they're heroes, villains, antiheroes, antivillains, shades of grey characters, doesn't matter.

As for gay gangsters, I defer to your superior knowledge of criminals.

Common knowledge, more like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kray_twins

I guess being familiar with the basic facts about Lucky Luciano, Al Capone or John Gotti would also constitute "superior knowledge of criminals".

 

[stj]

There is a long tradition that gays=villains. And there is zero tradition of gays=heroes or gays=love interest. Since what I said is substantively the same as "having all and any sorts of characters be gay or bisexual - whether they're heroes, villains, antiheroes, antivillains, shades of grey characters, doesn't matter," your indignation is misplaced: You claim to agree with me. Except you disagree, strenuously.

You're angry about objections to yet another gay villain (or the implication that gangs are prejudiced against gays.) You harshly condemn the very notion that yet another gay villain is prejudicial. You see raising such questions as oppression in itself (the "political correctness" card.) In practice, that means being upset that you can't call people names, and sometimes people object to stereotypes. In my experience, ranting about political correctness is usually a bigot trying to exercise verbal jujitsu on opponents.

The mere existence of the Kray twins is not a matter of common knowledge, much less the alleged sexual preference of one. I'd seen a mention of the Krays in passing in British mystery novels, which is a minority taste in the mystery reading audience in the US. Yes, you have a superior personal knowledge of criminals.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

TV networks aren't out to push an agenda. They're trying to make money. Why would they purposely put something on the air that will potentially cause them to lose viewers and sponsors?

 

[firehawk12]

I have to imagine in the 50s or 60s, having black people on TV would have been considered controversial and money losing.

But if that didn't happen, stuff like The Cosby Show would have never been made.

 

[DevilEyes]

There is a long tradition that gays=villains. And there is zero tradition of gays=heroes or gays=love interest. Since what I said is substantively the same as "having all and any sorts of characters be gay or bisexual - whether they're heroes, villains, antiheroes, antivillains, shades of grey characters, doesn't matter," your indignation is misplaced: You claim to agree with me. Except you disagree, strenuously.

You're angry about objections to yet another gay villain (or the implication that gangs are prejudiced against gays.) You harshly condemn the very notion that yet another gay villain is prejudicial. You see raising such questions as oppression in itself (the "political correctness" card.) In practice, that means being upset that you can't call people names, and sometimes people object to stereotypes. In my experience, ranting about political correctness is usually a bigot trying to exercise verbal jujitsu on opponents.

This doesn't even deserve a comment other than:

You have just effectively proven what "political correctness at its worst" is, with your lame agitprop-style attempts at dicrediting someone who disagrees with you by laying ridiculous and unfounded accusations. Or, in Internet forum terms, this is called flaming. Therefore I don't think I should waste any more of my time on answering you.

The mere existence of the Kray twins is not a matter of common knowledge, much less the alleged sexual preference of one. I'd seen a mention of the Krays in passing in British mystery novels, which is a minority taste in the mystery reading audience in the US. Yes, you have a superior personal knowledge of criminals.

Umm, let's see: "a mention of the Krays in passing in British mystery novels" which is a minority taste... as well as a Monty Python sketch, a biographical movie about the Krays with the leads played by members of a popular 80s pop band, obvious inspiration for characters in UK TV crime drama series ("Waking the Dead") or crime movies like "Long Good Friday", mentions in songs by Morrissey, Blur, Ray Davies, The Libertines among others... I guess those are all "minority tastes"... And according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kray_twins#In_popular_culture there are even more of those than I was aware of - in cluding plenty mentions and hints in a bunch of UK comedy shows, in the most popular UK soap, in literature (even in the Harry Potter series) and even video games. Not to mention that Reggie Kray's death was widely reported in all the media in 2000 (maybe not in USA, I wouldn't know about that).

Oh yes, it very much is a matter of common knowledge. Except if you are completely clueless about British popular culture. Which is something I obviously do have superior knowledge of, compared to you. Even though (in case you're wondering), I am not British, either.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

I have to imagine in the 50s or 60s, having black people on TV would have been considered controversial and money losing.

But if that didn't happen, stuff like The Cosby Show would have never been made.

That was a gradual evolution, just as this issue is going to be. It takes one small step at a time.

 

[Bad Bishop]

A single episode of CBS' Cold Case was probably all that GLAAD needed to review before they gave the network a failing grade.

In the episode "Brush Man" (first aired January 2009), a murder suspect is revealed to be a married but closeted gay man (or bisexual, whatever) who was violent toward his wife and son. The cherry on top of the cake was a scene from 1967 showing the suspect's homosexual encounter in a park. Not very PC, is it?

Previous episodes of Cold Case have treated gay characters in a very sympathetic fashion. I wonder whether it was enough to earn CBS any approval from GLAAD in previous years.

 

[IndyJones]

SNIP

I think you're overstating your case a bit. While it may be true that aspects of the Kray's lives may have been incorporated into Monty Python and Harry Potter, they weren't mentioned by name and there's no reason to expect anyone would assume they were the real life basis of components of fictional stories.


I had never heard of them. Hell, I hadn't heard of Crippin until I saw the first episode of Coupling. And I doubt I'm in the minority here.

 

[DevilEyes]

SNIP

I think you're overstating your case a bit. While it may be true that aspects of the Kray's lives may have been incorporated into Monty Python and Harry Potter, they weren't mentioned by name and there's no reason to expect anyone would assume they were the real life basis of components of fictional stories.


I had never heard of them. Hell, I hadn't heard of Crippin until I saw the first episode of Coupling. And I doubt I'm in the minority here.

The Krays are the most famous/notorious British gangsters, and the Piranha brothers sketch was full of obvious hints about the Kray brothers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygg2KlicnOQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evj24bXakqg

I figured it the first time I saw it after having watched the movie about Krays, and it seems that people who wrote the Wiki article about the sketch as well as those who wrote the article about the Krays thought the same.