Hollywood’s disconnect with reality

[DC Tom]

Clearly you've never worked in Hollywood.

 

No, I don't think he's ever waited tables.

[Doc]

No, I don't think he's ever waited tables.

Or done soft porn.

 

[Chef Jim]

No, I don't think he's ever waited tables.

 

Chef Jim: Whose food it this in the window turning to ****?

 

Dumbass Waiter: Mine Chef

 

Chef JIm: Hey.....you're an actor right?

 

Dumbass Waiter: Why yes Chef I am.

 

Chef Jim: Then act like a !@#$ing waiter and get this food out of the !@#$ing kitchen!!

[CosmicBills]

My perception is based on the passion the left-leaning stars display for Dem candidates. I haven't seen that from the right-leaning ones. At least not publicly.

In my opinion that's because, on a purely stereotypical level, lefties are more vocal than righties. And, there are really only a few stars that can afford to be vocal about their politics from a career perspective. Clooney can say anything he wants and people will still go to his movies. If not, he's done pretty okay for himself. Same can be said with SJP, Sex and the City made her enough money to last four lifetimes. So they speak out for what they believe in, it's their right and their careers have afforded them the security to do so.

 

But there are plenty of stars who lean right.

 

Eastwood is a big republican, as is Sandler, Duvall, Dwayne Johnson, 50 Cent, Jessica Simpson, Stalone, Bruce Willis, Sellek, Kelsey Grammer -- those just off the cuff. There are plenty more. And most of the biggest righties in Hollywood are behind the camera, or more aptly put, have way more power and influence in terms of what gets made.

 

No, I don't think he's ever waited tables.

 

 

Or done soft porn.

 

Hey! It wasn't soft porn, it was Skin-O-Max. And I was hard the whole time. It's not my fault they needed the scene to be longer than 30 seconds!

[DC Tom]

In my opinion that's because, on a purely stereotypical level, lefties are more vocal than righties. And, there are really only a few stars that can afford to be vocal about their politics from a career perspective. Clooney can say anything he wants and people will still go to his movies. If not, he's done pretty okay for himself. Same can be said with SJP, Sex and the City made her enough money to last four lifetimes. So they speak out for what they believe in, it's their right and their careers have afforded them the security to do so.

 

But there are plenty of stars who lean right.

 

Eastwood is a big republican, as is Sandler, Duvall, Dwayne Johnson, 50 Cent, Jessica Simpson, Stalone, Bruce Willis, Sellek, Kelsey Grammer -- those just off the cuff. There are plenty more. And most of the biggest righties in Hollywood are behind the camera, or more aptly put, have way more power and influence in terms of what gets made.

 

I knew most of those...but I'm mildly surprised by Sandler, and I never would have guessed Kelsey Grammer.

[CosmicBills]

I knew most of those...but I'm mildly surprised by Sandler, and I never would have guessed Kelsey Grammer.

 

Grammer is another one who's done so well for himself that he has the financial freedom to say anything he wants. I've heard gossip his politics have gotten in the way of a few of his more recent shows not catching on. No idea if they're true, which probably means they aren't.

 

Personally, I think it makes his work in BOSS even more fascinating. He was pretty darn good in that.

[OCinBuffalo]

Grammer is another one who's done so well for himself that he has the financial freedom to say anything he wants. I've heard gossip his politics have gotten in the way of a few of his more recent shows not catching on. No idea if they're true, which probably means they aren't.

 

Personally, I think it makes his work in BOSS even more fascinating. He was pretty darn good in that.

Can you explain then, why there has been so much...gayness...awkwardly inserted into roles/storylines where it ends up detracting from/adding nothing to the story?

 

Is there a business angle? By that I mean, does it do well in focus groups? Do viewers want to see more gay characters?

 

And, don't get me wrong, shows like Will and Grace made a lot of sense, and were actually....entertaining. So did the fab 5 thing. Project runway was frigging awesome....well, for me. There's been a cultural...safe place? for gay characters....ever since Klinger from mash, and Felix from the odd couple.

 

I'm talking about things like the best knight in Game of Thrones, being gay, but nothing being done with it, and the guy's lover getting murdered before there was any sort of interesting development of that part of his character, other than gratuitous whateverthe!@#$. Yeah the lover's wife knows, and doesn't care...done in 4 minutes, and that guy is supposed to be a king? Now the best knight is gone, hiding, I guess, never to be heard from again. What was the point of making him gay? Yes, I understand that the book is probably different, blah, blah. More time to develop the character, etc. But if this is just a synopsis, why bother bringing it up at all? I would have thought it would be more interesting to discuss the ramifications, and even the humor potential, of being a gay knight? Rather, it looks like it was just prefabricated crap thrown into the middle of the story for no purpose, or to satisfy somebody's agenda. (Wouldn't surprise me, I've had to throw nonsense from on high into perfectly reasonable design specs more than a few times)

 

I don't care, really, of the things on my mind right now, this is down around #483. Seriously. It's just something I've noticed recently, because it's been so pervasive. Now the hit man in the borgias is, suddenly, gay too? WTF? I'm not a big believer in coincidence, and these revelations happened/focus was placed back on it, right at the time the gay marriage issue was raised...again.

 

Then again, I also wonder if writers are just trying to experiment with gay characters, and sometimes it's going to work, sometimes not, etc. Is it just a trial and error thing right now? Certainly, I know you can't just flip a switch and have everything go right, and in order.

 

It seems forced to me, because it's so clumsy.

[dayman]

 

 

I'm talking about things like the best knight in Game of Thrones, being gay, but nothing being done with it, and the guy's lover getting murdered before there was any sort of interesting development of that part of his character, other than gratuitous whateverthe!@#$. Yeah the lover's wife knows, and doesn't care...done in 4 minutes, and that guy is supposed to be a king? Now the best knight is gone, hiding, I guess, never to be heard from again. What was the point of making him gay? Yes, I understand that the book is probably different, blah, blah. More time to develop the character, etc. But if this is just a synopsis, why bother bringing it up at all? I would have thought it would be more interesting to discuss the ramifications, and even the humor potential, of being a gay knight? Rather, it looks like it was just prefabricated crap thrown into the middle of the story for no purpose, or to satisfy somebody's agenda. (Wouldn't surprise me, I've had to throw nonsense from on high into perfectly reasonable design specs more than a few times)

 

 

 

I'm only commenting to address this. As a huge fan of the series the HBO-ification of that story line was actually different from the book but in a way (as actually happens quite a bit) that ads to the story for book lovers (but no doubt would subtract if the book did not exist). There are many subtle things hinted and hidden in plain sight in the books (including one major spoiler regarding Jon Snow's mom that everyone reading the book now knows despite it not being revealed yet as of book 5)....the books are absolutely glorious in that way and the author makes not effort to spoon feed anything.

 

One such thing was that relationship. There was actually a complex and subtle writing behind that relationship and it was totally ambiguous but totally meant to show it was there and it was "hidden" well from the public but in plain sight if you knew what to look for at the same time. Obviously nothing would be better than having it remain the same in the show but with 10 1 hour episodes it would impossible you have to show it or not on TV...and they showed it. Most book lovers liked that...I understand how it's retarded for viewers but for fans of the series who acknowledge the limitations of the show we like to see affirmation of various subtle things that are argued about on the show...if the author himself wasn't directly involved we would probably all go nuts but it is "canon" in the sense that the author himself is involved. It actually furthers some of the stories in that manner...and this was one such case. And yes obviously the entire thing was handled differently in the book the book is very subtle you basically have to read into many things including that storyline. The same is true of Stannis banging down the red witch...that was ambiguous until the most recent book (book 5) and even then it still remains far from explicit.

 

And in any event as you probably now know that knight is far from gone he'll be central for some time...however I assure you his gay scenes are over so no more worries lol his "love" is gone lol

 

All I'm saying is HBo does what HBO does but in that one specific example and with this particular show a lot of the book fans love seeing certain stuff and that was one of them. Not b/c we love gay stuff...trust me those scenes are awkward as hell to watch...but it's nice to just see things on screen in front of you it adds to the writing really it doesn't distract from it. It's kind of like the answers to an easter egg hunt in the book (but by no means do I mean it isn't in the book this stuff IS IN THE BOOK CLEARLY but not explicitly).

Edited June 6, 2012 by TheNewBills

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm only commenting to address this. As a huge fan of the series the HBO-ification of that story line was actually different from the book but in a way (as actually happens quite a bit) that ads to the story for book lovers (but no doubt would subtract if the book did not exist). There are many subtle things hinted and hidden in plain sight in the books (including one major spoiler regarding Jon Snow's mom that everyone reading the book now knows despite it not being revealed yet as of book 5)....the books are absolutely glorious in that way and the author makes not effort to spoon feed anything.

 

One such thing was that relationship. There was actually a complex and subtle writing behind that relationship and it was totally ambiguous but totally meant to show it was there and it was "hidden" well from the public but in plain sight if you knew what to look for at the same time. Obviously nothing would be better than having it remain the same in the show but with 10 1 hour episodes it would impossible you have to show it or not on TV...and they showed it. Most book lovers liked that...I understand how it's retarded for viewers but for fans of the series who acknowledge the limitations of the show we like to see affirmation of various subtle things that are argued about on the show...if the author himself wasn't directly involved we would probably all go nuts but it is "canon" in the sense that the author himself is involved. It actually furthers some of the stories in that manner...and this was one such case. And yes obviously the entire thing was handled differently in the book the book is very subtle you basically have to read into many things including that storyline. The same is true of Stannis banging down the red witch...that was ambiguous until the most recent book (book 5) and even then it still remains far from explicit.

 

And in any event as you probably now know that knight is far from gone he'll be central for some time...however I assure you his gay scenes are over so no more worries lol his "love" is gone lol

 

All I'm saying is HBo does what HBO does but in that one specific example and with this particular show a lot of the book fans love seeing certain stuff and that was one of them. Not b/c we love gay stuff...trust me those scenes are awkward as hell to watch...but it's nice to just see things on screen in front of you it adds to the writing really it doesn't distract from it.

As I said, I'm sure the book has the time to handle it properly...if that is the right word. I haven't read the books, no time. I do have time for a one hour show once a week, and, as you stated, this whole arc just looked like it was forced, and therefore, yeah, retarded. Love the show, don't care about gay characters, but don't understand why I'm seeing a pattern of awkwardly handled gay characters in show after show, movies, etc.

 

If there's a business angle, then I can see it. But, it seems like they are just trying to see what sticks, trial and error, shoving it in now, rather than later, etc., and I just want to know why this is the approach. Seems like doing it this way would do the opposite of what is intended, IF there is in fact an agenda.

 

And of course, it's not like the far-left doesn't a have a long and storied history of getting the exact opposite of what they intend.

[dayman]

As I said, I'm sure the book has the time to handle it properly...if that is the right word. I haven't read the books, no time. I do have time for a one hour show once a week, and, as you stated, this whole arc just looked like it was forced, and therefore, yeah, retarded. Love the show, don't care about gay characters, but don't understand why I'm seeing a pattern of awkwardly handled gay characters in show after show, movies, etc.

 

If there's a business angle, then I can see it. But, it seems like they are just trying to see what sticks, trial and error, shoving it in now, rather than later, etc., and I just want to know why this is the approach. Seems like doing it this way would do the opposite of what is intended, IF there is in fact an agenda.

 

And of course, it's not like the far-left doesn't a have a long and storied history of getting the exact opposite of what they intend.

 

I can see the point in media in general clearly and with the show for non-book readers. Totally fair.

[ieatcrayonz]

That entitled feeling?

 

[KD in CA]

No, I don't think it is a bad idea for anyone to get control of their finances, but at what cost?

 

 

What 'cost' have they experienced that you seem to be implying was so onerous?

[C.Biscuit97]

In my opinion that's because, on a purely stereotypical level, lefties are more vocal than righties. And, there are really only a few stars that can afford to be vocal about their politics from a career perspective. Clooney can say anything he wants and people will still go to his movies. If not, he's done pretty okay for himself. Same can be said with SJP, Sex and the City made her enough money to last four lifetimes. So they speak out for what they believe in, it's their right and their careers have afforded them the security to do so.

 

But there are plenty of stars who lean right.

 

Eastwood is a big republican, as is Sandler, Duvall, Dwayne Johnson, 50 Cent, Jessica Simpson, Stalone, Bruce Willis, Sellek, Kelsey Grammer -- those just off the cuff. There are plenty more. And most of the biggest righties in Hollywood are behind the camera, or more aptly put, have way more power and influence in terms of what gets made.

 

 

 

 

 

Hey! It wasn't soft porn, it was Skin-O-Max. And I was hard the whole time. It's not my fault they needed the scene to be longer than 30 seconds!

 

My god, how big of a loser do you have to be to not go to an actor's movie because you don't agree with their politics?

[IDBillzFan]

This seems like as good a place to put this as any.

 

Anyone who has ever had the president come to town knows what it does to traffic.

 

Tonight, Obama comes to LA. Just in time for what could be the final game of the Stanley Cup at the Staples Center

 

He probably doesn't want to snarl traffic that is going to the game tonight.

 

Just sayin'.

[CosmicBills]

Can you explain then, why there has been so much...gayness...awkwardly inserted into roles/storylines where it ends up detracting from/adding nothing to the story?

 

Is there a business angle? By that I mean, does it do well in focus groups? Do viewers want to see more gay characters?

 

And, don't get me wrong, shows like Will and Grace made a lot of sense, and were actually....entertaining. So did the fab 5 thing. Project runway was frigging awesome....well, for me. There's been a cultural...safe place? for gay characters....ever since Klinger from mash, and Felix from the odd couple.

 

I'm talking about things like the best knight in Game of Thrones, being gay, but nothing being done with it, and the guy's lover getting murdered before there was any sort of interesting development of that part of his character, other than gratuitous whateverthe!@#$. Yeah the lover's wife knows, and doesn't care...done in 4 minutes, and that guy is supposed to be a king? Now the best knight is gone, hiding, I guess, never to be heard from again. What was the point of making him gay? Yes, I understand that the book is probably different, blah, blah. More time to develop the character, etc. But if this is just a synopsis, why bother bringing it up at all? I would have thought it would be more interesting to discuss the ramifications, and even the humor potential, of being a gay knight? Rather, it looks like it was just prefabricated crap thrown into the middle of the story for no purpose, or to satisfy somebody's agenda. (Wouldn't surprise me, I've had to throw nonsense from on high into perfectly reasonable design specs more than a few times)

 

I don't care, really, of the things on my mind right now, this is down around #483. Seriously. It's just something I've noticed recently, because it's been so pervasive. Now the hit man in the borgias is, suddenly, gay too? WTF? I'm not a big believer in coincidence, and these revelations happened/focus was placed back on it, right at the time the gay marriage issue was raised...again.

 

Then again, I also wonder if writers are just trying to experiment with gay characters, and sometimes it's going to work, sometimes not, etc. Is it just a trial and error thing right now? Certainly, I know you can't just flip a switch and have everything go right, and in order.

 

It seems forced to me, because it's so clumsy.

 

While I disagree completely with your initial statement that gay characters are being inserted awkwardly into shows at the expense of story, you are absolutely correct that there has been a significant rise in the number of openly gay characters and story lines in television and film over the past decade. You're also correct that this increase is not a mere coincidence. There is a reason for it but it has nothing to do with the "media"(in the conspiratorial sense of the word) attempting to push an agenda onto the public.

 

The truth is there are a multitude of reasons for this seemingly sudden change. And, if you really examine the issue you'll see this change isn't so sudden. It's been a long time coming.

 

First, the people who actually control what makes it to air and what doesn't are not driven by ideologies as much as both sides of the ledger claim. They're driven by revenue which, by in large, is derived from ratings. That means that if there wasn't an audience for this sort of material, it wouldn't be on the air -- at least not on network airwaves. Some cablers have more leeway with regards to pushing the social envelope (the HBOs, Showtimes, Cinemax's) as their profits come from subscription dollars not ad dollars. Which is probably why you saw shows such as Queer as Folk, The L-Word being niche shows that were in some ways ahead of their time. Bravo is another example of a cabler that is pandering to a specific demographic -- but no more than SyFy or ESPN does to their own.

 

But what was once niche has now gone mainstream. And it isn't going back. So you better buckle up and get used to it. The critical success of Modern Family, Glee, and the public outing of NPH to some extent has shown the suits that there has been a culture shift within the American zeitgeist. The key demographics (18-35 year olds) not only have a more permissive attitude towards sexual orientation than their older counterparts, they are the ones that actually watch television. They're the consumer and the market has shifted to meet their demands. It's simply a matter of basic economics to the men and women in control of the purse strings. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

Secondly, and perhaps the more important factor causing the rise in such story lines and characters, is the essence of art itself. While the suits run the business side of town, the artists are the ones who actually create content. All art is social commentary. In fact an artist's number one job is to portray the world around them in a way that speaks to the truth of the human condition and the realities of the day. Finding ways to express oneself truly and in an entertaining fashion has always been the greatest challenge for any artist in any medium. It's been this way throughout the history of drama and literature but perhaps it's never been more true than it is for the medium of television. Due to the immediacy of the medium itself, television has always been a battle ground for dealing with contemporary issues in the here and now. Film does the same thing of course, but due to the slower turn around (18-24 months to write, shoot, edit and release a movie) and the corporate take over of the studio system, mainstream films have a more difficult time keeping pace with television -- today more than ever.

 

The issue of gay rights has been gaining steam over the course of the past 20 years. The issue has picked up incredible momentum thanks in some part to the success of shows that portray gay characters but it has more to do with a generational stance on the issue of sexuality itself than it does with television actually initiating change. Again, an artist's job is to reflect the reality they see around them. And as a new generation of writers, directors and artists take over in Hollywood, it's only natural that they would tackle what they see as a very relevant social issue of the day. That's their job. That's what makes a good story great. It's what makes the audience connect to what they're seeing.

 

From a purely artistic perspective, it's comments like the ones you made in your post "...and even the humor potential, of being a gay knight? " that provides a clear example of why so many writers have flocked to the issue of gay rights. I'm in no way implying that your comment came from a place of hate (just using it as an example) -- but it's a narrow minded viewpoint of the world at large that in no way reflects the truth of the human condition. Instead it only furthers a small minded and negative stereotype of human sexuality.

 

You see the inclusion of a gay knight as an opportunity for humor ("Knights can't be gay! They're manly men!") and you're not alone in thinking that. I'm sure there are plenty of other viewers who thought the same thing. Which is precisely why the writers chose not to go down that path. It's an antiquated viewpoint that has no relevancy in the real world. Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time and has never been restricted to a certain segment of the population. Though Game of Thrones is not attempting to portray an accurate retelling of the history of Earth (Westeros is literally a different world), of course there were gay knights and gladiators in the past as well as gay kings, gay stone masons, gay peasants etc. Just as there have been, and continue to be, gay professional athletes (our modern day gladiators and knights) in every major sport. To deny this in art is to deny truth. Which makes for incredibly ****ty art.

 

As a writer I see it as a way to challenge that kind of negative mindset in the viewers. Not in an effort to ridicule or demean, but in an effort to elevate social consciousness. In fact, while you contend the issue was handled poorly in those scenes I would argue they were handled brilliantly. The issue of Laros' and Renly's sexuality was secondary to Renly's quest to become king because it's just not that important. Sexuality doesn't define who someone is, just as race doesn't. Still, everyone close to Renly knew he was gay and suspected he was having an affair with Laros, it was the subject of much conversation at King's Landing throughout the entire first 2 seasons. Backhanded insults from grunts to the more refined (yet still belittling) slings and arrows thrown at Renly by the King's Council. Game of Thrones hasn't run from the issue of sexuality being divisive, but instead has embraced it without falling into the trap of dealing in untrue stereotypes. Renly is gay, he is hiding it from the masses, but those closest to him know and attempt to use it against him. We see the stress it causes Renly and his men. The fact that his bride gets over it instantly isn't because the writers are handling the issue poorly, rather it's such a non issue to her character because she wants POWER. She wants to be "THE Queen" -- so much so she's willing to endure a three way with her own brother and husband in an effort to become pregnant and produce a line. That's not awkward or clumsy, that's damn fine writing. All of us are walking contradictions and we are often forced to make decisions that challenge our own morals and values. Characters in any dramas that are worth a damn are no different.

 

In the case of Game of Thrones, the depth is there. The craft is there. The handling of Loras and Renly's love story was loaded with subtext designed not just to further the story, but NOT to pander to the kind of mindset you're proposing. Homosexuality is not a choice, it's not unnatural, it's always existed and will ALWAYS exist. Treating a gay character as a real character and not a characterization of a stereotype better represents truth. And finding truth is the artist's job. Had the writers treated Laros in the way you're suggesting, playing into the outdated humor of a tough guy being gay, it would do a tremendous disservice to the story being told. It would do a disservice to the characters Martin created. It would be reinforcing negative stereotypes that frankly do not fall in line with the reality of the world as seen through the eyes of the younger generation artists AND the consumers. And thus would not be nearly as popular or effective as a commodity.

 

It's NOT just liberal writers and directors deciding to create a movement, though there are certainly a few of those. In reality the change has come from a combination of a new generation of artists attempting to portray a truth that a growing segment of the population believes is long overdue. If there wasn't growing support for gay rights among the population at large, shows like Glee and Modern Family would never have the type of popular success that they've had. Networks wouldn't air them and we'd have more Klingers as characters than we'd have Renly and Laroses. Which brings us to the third reason...

 

If you look at how gay characters have traditionally been featured on television or film you'll see it parallels how black characters where portrayed for decades. Go back and watch TV in the 60s & 70s and you will see less than a handful of black characters being portrayed on screen. Was this because there weren't any black people in real life? Of course not. It was because the country was less than a decade removed from the Civil Rights movement. It was an explosive topic that mainstream Americans by in large wanted to ignore when they were escaping into the world of the boob tube. More importantly, most of the writers working in Hollywood at that time were middle aged white men who grew up with segregation as a normal part of their lives. In other words, it represented their truth, right or wrong. Some shows certainly tackled the issue ("All in the Family" springs to mind) but most were forced to do so through subtext out of fear of stirring the ire of the network heads. It wasn't until the next generation of writers took over -- writers who grew up in a desegregated America, writers who saw the shows of the 60s and 70s as reinforcing the racial stereotypes rather than accurately reflecting the world around them -- that things began to change. Success of actors such as Poitier and challenging independent movies that struck a national chord certainly helped pave the way by creating more opportunities for writers and actors of color.

 

Of course, the change didn't happen overnight. It was a slow crescendo -- some would say too slow -- but progress was made. Less than 10 years after Fox put the first black president on screen the nation elected its first black commander in chief. Did one thing happen because of the other? No. But there is a connection between the two from an artistic perspective. In this case, artists being at the fore front of a social issue. Even today there are far too few parts written for (and by) minorities in television and film but at least those characters making it to the screen are now portrayed more accurately than they were less than 10 years ago.

 

Now look at the history of gay characters on television.

 

You're absolutely right that TV used to be a "safe place" where the only gay characters served as comic relief or were so utterly effeminate that it crossed into absurdity. It parallels nicely with the way all black characters in film or TV were portrayed to be thugs and criminals (Dirty Harry offering the best example of that) which only reinforced the racist and negative stereotypes of the black community. In terms of homosexuality, writers today are looking back on those shows and characters with the same sort of stink eye as the writers who came the generation before them looked at the issue of racial relations on screen. It's only natural that this new generation of artists are attempting to change the way TV and film deals with sexuality. If the past is any indication, things will only continue down this path until seeing a gay character in a leading role will be as common as seeing a black actor or actress playing the lead ... which, again, is not as common as it should be but certainly happens much more so now than ever before in our nation's history.

 

This all traces back to the reality of the world around us and how artists view it.

 

I grew up in Rochester in a very conservative part of town in the 90s at a time when being gay was a social death sentence for a high schooler. Kids I played football with, kids I consider to my friends to this day, having to hide who they really were and being unable to talk about the issue with their family or their friends because they were afraid of the ramifications. An entire segment of the population silently suffered with absolutely no outlet or anyone to talk to about the things they were going through. Worse, every example of homosexuality they saw in the mainstream media was a parody of a negative stereo type. These kids had no role models, no outlets and no recourse. Looking back on it now, and in relation to the divisiveness the issue of gay marriage is causing even today, it's shameful. That's not what this country is about. This country was built upon the promise of freedom from religious and governmental persecution. Yet, for many older Americans (those above 40 usually) this simply does not apply to sexual orientation. It's the one area left where it's somehow socially acceptable to be bigoted and hateful.

 

But it's quickly changing. Not just in Hollywood but in every day life. For the generation coming into their own right now, this issue isn't an issue. My younger sister, less than 4 years after I graduated, had a completely different high school experience than I did. In less than 4 years since I was there, my sister not only had openly gay friends, but her friend's sexuality were accepted by nearly everyone of their peers. While this acceptance certainly wasn't universal throughout the country, it was when I first started noticing the issue of gay rights coming to a head. It was a dramatic social shift in the youth of my hometown that occurred in less than 4 years. It didn't happen because of things these kids saw on TV or some sort of liberal message they were receiving from the mainstream media -- it was a cultural shift, rooted firmly in the youth of America. It carried over to my college and graduate school years where I witnessed several people very close to me finally come out and finding acceptance from peers. Parents and grandparents had their issues as the older generation always does, but peers? Not so much. The kids in my generation and the one below me by in large realized that sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with who the person is.

 

That feeling has only been accelerated in the generations since. Today high schoolers who are gay have real role models they can point to on mainstream shows. Gay actors and actresses coming out and taking a stand against homophobic bullying has only encouraged others to speak up for themselves. To not live in fear. To not try to deny who they are. It's small minded and silly to assume that the prevalence of gay characters in television or film is somehow "creating" more gay people or corrupting the youth in some way. Instead, it's a reflection of the true reality of their lives.

 

It's only natural that as this shift in public consciousness has picked up steam, the artists within that generation have become more vocal. Artists who grew up in a world where their peers accepted homosexuality more easily than the "man" have reached the age where they're writing novels, feature scripts and TV shows that tackle the issue of sexuality. But, because these artists grew up in an age where sexuality wasn't a big taboo for their peers, they aren't forcing gay characters into their work. They are just acknowledging that homosexuality has always, and will always, exist. Pandering to stereotypes does not reflect the reality of the world around them, it does a disservice to it.

 

This doesn't mean every story or show or movie will work. Some miss completely. But to think that this is all some media driven message attempting to force change is completely false. Do individual artists do this? Sometimes. But again, especially when talking about television or film, if the audience didn't exist for this kind of storytelling, these shows wouldn't be on the air.

[OCinBuffalo]

While I disagree completely with your initial statement that gay characters are being inserted awkwardly into shows at the expense of story, you are absolutely correct that there has been a significant rise in the number of openly gay characters and story lines in television and film over the past decade. You're also correct that this increase is not a mere coincidence. There is a reason for it but it has nothing to do with the "media"(in the conspiratorial sense of the word) attempting to push an agenda onto the public.

 

The truth is there are a multitude of reasons for this seemingly sudden change. And, if you really examine the issue you'll see this change isn't so sudden. It's been a long time coming.

 

First, the people who actually control what makes it to air and what doesn't are not driven by ideologies as much as both sides of the ledger claim. They're driven by revenue which, by in large, is derived from ratings. That means that if there wasn't an audience for this sort of material, it wouldn't be on the air -- at least not on network airwaves. Some cablers have more leeway with regards to pushing the social envelope (the HBOs, Showtimes, Cinemax's) as their profits come from subscription dollars not ad dollars. Which is probably why you saw shows such as Queer as Folk, The L-Word being niche shows that were in some ways ahead of their time. Bravo is another example of a cabler that is pandering to a specific demographic -- but no more than SyFy or ESPN does to their own.

 

But what was once niche has now gone mainstream. And it isn't going back. So you better buckle up and get used to it. The critical success of Modern Family, Glee, and the public outing of NPH to some extent has shown the suits that there has been a culture shift within the American zeitgeist. The key demographics (18-35 year olds) not only have a more permissive attitude towards sexual orientation than their older counterparts, they are the ones that actually watch television. They're the consumer and the market has shifted to meet their demands. It's simply a matter of basic economics to the men and women in control of the purse strings. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

Secondly, and perhaps the more important factor causing the rise in such story lines and characters, is the essence of art itself. While the suits run the business side of town, the artists are the ones who actually create content. All art is social commentary. In fact an artist's number one job is to portray the world around them in a way that speaks to the truth of the human condition and the realities of the day. Finding ways to express oneself truly and in an entertaining fashion has always been the greatest challenge for any artist in any medium. It's been this way throughout the history of drama and literature but perhaps it's never been more true than it is for the medium of television. Due to the immediacy of the medium itself, television has always been a battle ground for dealing with contemporary issues in the here and now. Film does the same thing of course, but due to the slower turn around (18-24 months to write, shoot, edit and release a movie) and the corporate take over of the studio system, mainstream films have a more difficult time keeping pace with television -- today more than ever.

 

The issue of gay rights has been gaining steam over the course of the past 20 years. The issue has picked up incredible momentum thanks in some part to the success of shows that portray gay characters but it has more to do with a generational stance on the issue of sexuality itself than it does with television actually initiating change. Again, an artist's job is to reflect the reality they see around them. And as a new generation of writers, directors and artists take over in Hollywood, it's only natural that they would tackle what they see as a very relevant social issue of the day. That's their job. That's what makes a good story great. It's what makes the audience connect to what they're seeing.

 

From a purely artistic perspective, it's comments like the ones you made in your post "...and even the humor potential, of being a gay knight? " that provides a clear example of why so many writers have flocked to the issue of gay rights. I'm in no way implying that your comment came from a place of hate (just using it as an example) -- but it's a narrow minded viewpoint of the world at large that in no way reflects the truth of the human condition. Instead it only furthers a small minded and negative stereotype of human sexuality.

 

You see the inclusion of a gay knight as an opportunity for humor ("Knights can't be gay! They're manly men!") and you're not alone in thinking that. I'm sure there are plenty of other viewers who thought the same thing. Which is precisely why the writers chose not to go down that path. It's an antiquated viewpoint that has no relevancy in the real world. Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time and has never been restricted to a certain segment of the population. Though Game of Thrones is not attempting to portray an accurate retelling of the history of Earth (Westeros is literally a different world), of course there were gay knights and gladiators in the past as well as gay kings, gay stone masons, gay peasants etc. Just as there have been, and continue to be, gay professional athletes (our modern day gladiators and knights) in every major sport. To deny this in art is to deny truth. Which makes for incredibly ****ty art.

 

As a writer I see it as a way to challenge that kind of negative mindset in the viewers. Not in an effort to ridicule or demean, but in an effort to elevate social consciousness. In fact, while you contend the issue was handled poorly in those scenes I would argue they were handled brilliantly. The issue of Laros' and Renly's sexuality was secondary to Renly's quest to become king because it's just not that important. Sexuality doesn't define who someone is, just as race doesn't. Still, everyone close to Renly knew he was gay and suspected he was having an affair with Laros, it was the subject of much conversation at King's Landing throughout the entire first 2 seasons. Backhanded insults from grunts to the more refined (yet still belittling) slings and arrows thrown at Renly by the King's Council. Game of Thrones hasn't run from the issue of sexuality being divisive, but instead has embraced it without falling into the trap of dealing in untrue stereotypes. Renly is gay, he is hiding it from the masses, but those closest to him know and attempt to use it against him. We see the stress it causes Renly and his men. The fact that his bride gets over it instantly isn't because the writers are handling the issue poorly, rather it's such a non issue to her character because she wants POWER. She wants to be "THE Queen" -- so much so she's willing to endure a three way with her own brother and husband in an effort to become pregnant and produce a line. That's not awkward or clumsy, that's damn fine writing. All of us are walking contradictions and we are often forced to make decisions that challenge our own morals and values. Characters in any dramas that are worth a damn are no different.

 

In the case of Game of Thrones, the depth is there. The craft is there. The handling of Loras and Renly's love story was loaded with subtext designed not just to further the story, but NOT to pander to the kind of mindset you're proposing. Homosexuality is not a choice, it's not unnatural, it's always existed and will ALWAYS exist. Treating a gay character as a real character and not a characterization of a stereotype better represents truth. And finding truth is the artist's job. Had the writers treated Laros in the way you're suggesting, playing into the outdated humor of a tough guy being gay, it would do a tremendous disservice to the story being told. It would do a disservice to the characters Martin created. It would be reinforcing negative stereotypes that frankly do not fall in line with the reality of the world as seen through the eyes of the younger generation artists AND the consumers. And thus would not be nearly as popular or effective as a commodity.

 

It's NOT just liberal writers and directors deciding to create a movement, though there are certainly a few of those. In reality the change has come from a combination of a new generation of artists attempting to portray a truth that a growing segment of the population believes is long overdue. If there wasn't growing support for gay rights among the population at large, shows like Glee and Modern Family would never have the type of popular success that they've had. Networks wouldn't air them and we'd have more Klingers as characters than we'd have Renly and Laroses. Which brings us to the third reason...

 

If you look at how gay characters have traditionally been featured on television or film you'll see it parallels how black characters where portrayed for decades. Go back and watch TV in the 60s & 70s and you will see less than a handful of black characters being portrayed on screen. Was this because there weren't any black people in real life? Of course not. It was because the country was less than a decade removed from the Civil Rights movement. It was an explosive topic that mainstream Americans by in large wanted to ignore when they were escaping into the world of the boob tube. More importantly, most of the writers working in Hollywood at that time were middle aged white men who grew up with segregation as a normal part of their lives. In other words, it represented their truth, right or wrong. Some shows certainly tackled the issue ("All in the Family" springs to mind) but most were forced to do so through subtext out of fear of stirring the ire of the network heads. It wasn't until the next generation of writers took over -- writers who grew up in a desegregated America, writers who saw the shows of the 60s and 70s as reinforcing the racial stereotypes rather than accurately reflecting the world around them -- that things began to change. Success of actors such as Poitier and challenging independent movies that struck a national chord certainly helped pave the way by creating more opportunities for writers and actors of color.

 

Of course, the change didn't happen overnight. It was a slow crescendo -- some would say too slow -- but progress was made. Less than 10 years after Fox put the first black president on screen the nation elected its first black commander in chief. Did one thing happen because of the other? No. But there is a connection between the two from an artistic perspective. In this case, artists being at the fore front of a social issue. Even today there are far too few parts written for (and by) minorities in television and film but at least those characters making it to the screen are now portrayed more accurately than they were less than 10 years ago.

 

Now look at the history of gay characters on television.

 

You're absolutely right that TV used to be a "safe place" where the only gay characters served as comic relief or were so utterly effeminate that it crossed into absurdity. It parallels nicely with the way all black characters in film or TV were portrayed to be thugs and criminals (Dirty Harry offering the best example of that) which only reinforced the racist and negative stereotypes of the black community. In terms of homosexuality, writers today are looking back on those shows and characters with the same sort of stink eye as the writers who came the generation before them looked at the issue of racial relations on screen. It's only natural that this new generation of artists are attempting to change the way TV and film deals with sexuality. If the past is any indication, things will only continue down this path until seeing a gay character in a leading role will be as common as seeing a black actor or actress playing the lead ... which, again, is not as common as it should be but certainly happens much more so now than ever before in our nation's history.

 

This all traces back to the reality of the world around us and how artists view it.

 

I grew up in Rochester in a very conservative part of town in the 90s at a time when being gay was a social death sentence for a high schooler. Kids I played football with, kids I consider to my friends to this day, having to hide who they really were and being unable to talk about the issue with their family or their friends because they were afraid of the ramifications. An entire segment of the population silently suffered with absolutely no outlet or anyone to talk to about the things they were going through. Worse, every example of homosexuality they saw in the mainstream media was a parody of a negative stereo type. These kids had no role models, no outlets and no recourse. Looking back on it now, and in relation to the divisiveness the issue of gay marriage is causing even today, it's shameful. That's not what this country is about. This country was built upon the promise of freedom from religious and governmental persecution. Yet, for many older Americans (those above 40 usually) this simply does not apply to sexual orientation. It's the one area left where it's somehow socially acceptable to be bigoted and hateful.

 

But it's quickly changing. Not just in Hollywood but in every day life. For the generation coming into their own right now, this issue isn't an issue. My younger sister, less than 4 years after I graduated, had a completely different high school experience than I did. In less than 4 years since I was there, my sister not only had openly gay friends, but her friend's sexuality were accepted by nearly everyone of their peers. While this acceptance certainly wasn't universal throughout the country, it was when I first started noticing the issue of gay rights coming to a head. It was a dramatic social shift in the youth of my hometown that occurred in less than 4 years. It didn't happen because of things these kids saw on TV or some sort of liberal message they were receiving from the mainstream media -- it was a cultural shift, rooted firmly in the youth of America. It carried over to my college and graduate school years where I witnessed several people very close to me finally come out and finding acceptance from peers. Parents and grandparents had their issues as the older generation always does, but peers? Not so much. The kids in my generation and the one below me by in large realized that sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with who the person is.

 

That feeling has only been accelerated in the generations since. Today high schoolers who are gay have real role models they can point to on mainstream shows. Gay actors and actresses coming out and taking a stand against homophobic bullying has only encouraged others to speak up for themselves. To not live in fear. To not try to deny who they are. It's small minded and silly to assume that the prevalence of gay characters in television or film is somehow "creating" more gay people or corrupting the youth in some way. Instead, it's a reflection of the true reality of their lives.

 

It's only natural that as this shift in public consciousness has picked up steam, the artists within that generation have become more vocal. Artists who grew up in a world where their peers accepted homosexuality more easily than the "man" have reached the age where they're writing novels, feature scripts and TV shows that tackle the issue of sexuality. But, because these artists grew up in an age where sexuality wasn't a big taboo for their peers, they aren't forcing gay characters into their work. They are just acknowledging that homosexuality has always, and will always, exist. Pandering to stereotypes does not reflect the reality of the world around them, it does a disservice to it.

 

This doesn't mean every story or show or movie will work. Some miss completely. But to think that this is all some media driven message attempting to force change is completely false. Do individual artists do this? Sometimes. But again, especially when talking about television or film, if the audience didn't exist for this kind of storytelling, these shows wouldn't be on the air.

First of all thanks for explaining in detail...this is very instructive.

 

My response:

1. So...yeah...there is a business angle. That's what I figured. I did a project in entertainment industry. I have found that it's all "my aura says I can't do this today", and, "but that background color won't work for the real artists who come here". So, when you speak in terms of "what an artist does", I've heard it before. And that's all great...until the subject of money, and hemorrhaging it, in the case of that project, comes up.

 

2. You massively missed the point on the gay knight/humor thing. Completely. Of course the way you described it, and attributed to me ....is unfunny. Clark Griswald was funny...because he was real. I have 3 Clark Griswalds as clients, and they are hysterical. I've even got one's voice down to the point that I can leave voice mails. Why can't we laugh at a gay knight...if he is as real as Clark Griswald?

 

If anything, the way to do it is to both explore it as the reality you described, and troll backward idiots, at the same time. That would be funny...and the height of skill, imo. We laugh at the truth, especially when those truths are irreverent, or inconvenient. Taking the truth out of things, or distorting it, limits what you do. I am pro-troll, so why would I ever want to take the truth out of things? The whole idea is to promote the truth, by instigating the liar into telling the lie in public.

 

3. You also missed the point on why I brought up Klinger: I said characters like that, no different than the black characters you pointed out, have themselves been "safe" to include...for quite some time. But, thanks for the unnecessary history lesson on the civil rights movement, and the fact that gay rights is being pushed as the new civil rights movement. Yeah, I got it, art/life, imitation, etc.. The question here is: if these roles are "safe" to include...why do them in a way that appears to be forced/shoddy? Instead, why not treat them with the same skill you would use on Othello? You saw what you saw, but what I saw was a hack job...all wrapped up in 4 minutes or less, with of course a nice tit-shot. So...was that supposed to "balance it out". Who's the narrow mind here? Me, or the guy that thinks you have to compensate for a gay story line...with boobs?

 

4. For the last time, being against gay marriage has nothing to do with being a anti-gay. The objections to the traditional definition of marriage are about the legal conditions inherent to it, not being extended beyond its definition....for serious people. Therefore, re-defining it is a legal question, not a moral one. For silly people, it has been a way to prove that they are morally superior to others. And, various political assclowns have tired to turn this into a political wedge issue, for political gain, and gay people have paid a terrible price for that. This is something, that minus the silly and political assclowns, we could have a few lawyers work out in week. But, that is the LAST thing these assclowns want. If it gets solved reasonably and without issue...what will they use to try to pick up girls/votes with?

 

5. If writers are living in a "high propensity to meet gay people" area....and that is "the world around them", then, doesn't that affect "the reality of the world around"...them? If not, then doesn't that effect how "artists view it"? Not to be too zen here, but if I lived in Boys Town in Chicago, and was a writer, there's a good chance that I would have a gay character, or more likely a majority of them, in my novel. But, how real...is that?

 

6. I've been fighting bullies my whole life, in one form or another, so I don't want to hear any whining. There's only one thing you can do with a bully: punch him in the face. If he's bigger than you, kick him in the balls, and then punch him in the face. The trouble is, the actual bullies in this "story" are the ones calling other people bigots, and trying to attack them politically, etc., for doing nothing more than following their religious beliefs. So, what happened? Well, 35 state anti-gay marriage laws later? I'd say it's pretty clear: The bullies got punched in the face. If I was gay, I wouldn't be too happy with the "help" I got from these people. In fact, I'd fire them.

 

7. 3 times you said "does this agenda exist, does this person do it?...sometimes, yeah, but it's not everyone". That's sound right to me. It happens, but, as you said, $ is king, and if it doesn't play, then that's all.

 

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Hopefully, as goes the way you said, and we get better content out of it. But, they wouldn't have had to make such a big deal about Tom Hanks being the "right guy" for Philadelphia, (which was every bit the eye-opener it was intended to be) and hit us with that story for a solid 3 months prior to release, if being gay was no big deal, because it is part of everyone's "reality". Right? Why do we need a straight guy to "show us the way" and why the big story about...if things are as you say?

[DC Tom]

...

 

I honestly thought you were responding to yourself.

[OCinBuffalo]

I honestly thought you were responding to yourself.

No, but I see you are. We are having an interesting discussion. No one liners here for you. Now go torment MDP, or crayonz.

[DC Tom]

No, but I see you are. We are having an interesting discussion. No one liners here for you. Now go torment MDP, or crayonz.

 

tgregg is having an interesting discussion.

 

You...?

[OCinBuffalo]

tgregg is having an interesting discussion.

 

You...?

 

want to "avoid looking at DC_Tom's small pee pee" ?