Y&R Alleged homophobia on set! Star quits!
MarkH
you are spoiler-phobic
Insert spoiler space (double, for good measure)
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
u
v
w
x
y
z
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
u
v
w
x
y
z
Source:
or
> MAJOR SUDS UPDATE: Homophobia on Y&R set?
> Breaking news: A few days after The Nelson Ratings finally
> bought Chris Engen’s uneven portrayal of Adam Newman, the
> newcomer shocked the entire Y&R cast by quitting his role in
> the middle of his contract two days ago! According to sources,
> Engen bolted because, “he [allegedly] refused to kiss [his same-sex]
> co-star Yani Gellman [Rafe]. Chris hasn’t been happy for a while.
> He doesn’t like the dark direction his character is taking. He’s
> called in sick a lot recently and has been taking a slew of meetings
> with Y&R’s [top brass] to discuss his future on the show. Chris is
> still under contract — and Y&R is seriously thinking of taking legal
> action.” Meanwhile, the No. 1 soap is currently scrambling to recast
the pivotal role. Stay tuned for more details on this developing
story
in Friday’s Suds Report.
Shirl
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/q8u6y9
>
> > MAJOR SUDS UPDATE: Homophobia on Y&R set?
> > Breaking news: A few days after The Nelson Ratings finally
> > bought Chris Engen’s uneven portrayal of Adam Newman, the
> > newcomer shocked the entire Y&R cast by quitting his role in
> > the middle of his contract two days ago! According to sources,
> > Engen bolted because, “he [allegedly] refused to kiss [his same-sex]
> > co-star Yani Gellman [Rafe]. Chris hasn’t been happy for a while.
> > He doesn’t like the dark direction his character is taking. He’s
> > called in sick a lot recently and has been taking a slew of meetings
> > with Y&R’s [top brass] to discuss his future on the show. Chris is
> > still under contract — and Y&R is seriously thinking of taking legal
> > action.” Meanwhile, the No. 1 soap is currently scrambling to recast
> > the pivotal role. Stay tuned for more details on this developing
> > story in Friday’s Suds Report.
This, and a couple of other things I've heard recently remind me of
something we often saw when I worked for the vet many moons ago --
prognosis isn't good if the fleas are abandoning ship.
Shirl
MarkH
>
> This, and a couple of other things I've heard recently remind me of
> something we often saw when I worked for the vet many moons ago --
> prognosis isn't good if the fleas are abandoning ship.
>
> Shirl
I also don't totally believe it until we hear more of the story.
Although quitting like this is unprofessional and a career killer...I
also feel the writing has been on the wall regarding this story.
Therefore, I feel that if it got bad enough to quit, it had more to do
with this bizarre turn to villainy, and the harming of all these
"innocents" (Rafe, Ashley, Heather, Estella). I realize Ashley is not
an "innocent", but she has done nothing to him to deserve what she
(and her unborn child) are getting.
record hunter
I read it, spoiler though it is, and I wondered whether the
"homophobia" part of the story isn't just "brilliant" (did he steal
that from you or what, Mark?) hyperbole on Nelson Branco's part. Adam
has gotten less salvageable with every scene he's in, and maybe this
kissing business was just Chris Engen's way of saying "stop" in a way
he thought TIIC would accept. (Of course, Adam's father kept someone
in a cage and is now one of the show's two leads, so maybe Adam as
unredeemable as he seems.)
Shirl
> I also don't totally believe it until we hear more of the story.
Agreed. I got in trouble more than once for getting all fired up over
some unverified spoiler. That's partly why I hate spoilers -- true or
not, viewers form opinions BEFORE they even see it. If it's something
they don't want to happen, the actors could put on the performance of
their lives and many won't even see it or give it the attention they
would if they didn't know it was about to happen. And even some
"reliable" sources don't always know or offer accurate info.
Conversely, expectations created from a spoiler of an event that
people WANT to see are often impossible to meet. I know many disagree,
but IMO, spoilers have far more negative effect than positive.
> Although quitting like this is unprofessional and a career killer...I
> also feel the writing has been on the wall regarding this story.
> Therefore, I feel that if it got bad enough to quit, it had more to do
> with this bizarre turn to villainy, and the harming of all these
> "innocents" (Rafe, Ashley, Heather, Estella). I realize Ashley is not
> an "innocent", but she has done nothing to him to deserve what she
> (and her unborn child) are getting.
Sooner or later, even if you enjoy the daily offering enough to keep
tuning in, you have to see the huge disconnect and decline in quality
of storytelling ... and not all the actors are immune to that. I don't
blame the actors, in these or ANY economic times, for just doing their
job and collecting their paychecks whether they agree with the
storytelling or not. But smart or dumb (in the long run, career-wise),
when the writing starts to make as little sense as it does these days,
it's not a surprise that some would take a stand and walk. IMO. Don't
you think it would be easier to play the dark side of a character if
you understood their motivation?
Shirl
MarkH
>
> I read it, spoiler though it is, and I wondered whether the
> "homophobia" part of the story isn't just "brilliant" (did he steal
> that from you or what, Mark?) hyperbole on Nelson Branco's part. Adam
> has gotten less salvageable with every scene he's in, and maybe this
> kissing business was just Chris Engen's way of saying "stop" in a way
> he thought TIIC would accept. (Of course, Adam's father kept someone
> in a cage and is now one of the show's two leads, so maybe Adam as
> unredeemable as he seems.)
We are in agreement on the writing of Adam.
But a young actor can't just stay "stop". Not if he wants to remain a
young actor. Not with a 4-year contract that will stop him (if they
play hardball) from taking another job till his contract is up...and
that could get him sued for damages (emergency casting expenses, risk
of loss of public appeal to character).
Again, I'll wait till I hear the whole story, but....I want this
appealing young actor to be sensible and save his career.
If the worst is true, Adam will get written off (jail) or killed by
the Fall...he's so unredeemable. And then he'll be "free" anyway.
menud...@yahoo.com
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/q8u6y9
>
> > MAJOR SUDS UPDATE: Homophobia on Y&R set?
> > Breaking news: A few days after The Nelson Ratings finally
> > bought Chris Engen’s uneven portrayal of Adam Newman, the
> > newcomer shocked the entire Y&R cast by quitting his role in
> > the middle of his contract two days ago! According to sources,
> > Engen bolted because, “he [allegedly] refused to kiss [his same-sex]
> > co-star Yani Gellman [Rafe]. Chris hasn’t been happy for a while.
> > He doesn’t like the dark direction his character is taking. He’s
> > called in sick a lot recently and has been taking a slew of meetings
> > with Y&R’s [top brass] to discuss his future on the show. Chris is
> > still under contract — and Y&R is seriously thinking of taking legal
> > action.” Meanwhile, the No. 1 soap is currently scrambling to recast
>
> the pivotal role. Stay tuned for more details on this developing
> story
> in Friday’s Suds Report.
I am sorry but a heterosexual not wanting to kiss another male is not
"homophobia". If a heterosexual does not feel comfortable kissing
another gay male, coming from a gay male, I would not want them too.
ATWT supposedly went through the same thing with the teen Luke.
Instead of pushing it, the soap just hired another actor who was told
before he was hired what direction the character would be going. And a
few years later, the same thing when the one he was coupled with was
hired.
If this is why the actor is quitting, I really wish the soap would
pick someone else to pair Rafe with who is comfortable in playing the
role.
Not someone who is going to get nauseous in the stomach every time
such a scene pops up.
Sorry but having the character Adam gay is the not the right decision.
As others pointed out in other threads we have seen absolutely no
homosexual tendencies from the character at all whatsoever. I would
have a hard time believing he is gay.
Hiring another actor to make Adam gay is just not what I would like to
see,
Y&R is already botching it all up just by choosing Adam to pair Rafe
with.
Before this decision, this plot looked so promising.
I feel for Yani Gellman (Rafe) since he was on board with the whole
gay plot.
Shirl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Y&R is already botching it all up just by choosing Adam to pair Rafe
> with.
>
> Before this decision, this plot looked so promising.
>
> I feel for Yani Gellman (Rafe) since he was on board with the whole
> gay plot.
Character flip-flops of that magnitude are rarely a good thing.
Unpredictable behavior? sure ... but this goes way beyond that. It
truly insults viewers. But then, we *do* keep watching, don't we?
Shirl
MarkH
>
> Sorry but having the character Adam gay is the not the right decision.
> As others pointed out in other threads we have seen absolutely no
> homosexual tendencies from the character at all whatsoever. I would
> have a hard time believing he is gay.
>
See, we can't judge.
I don't actually think they would make Adam gay. I think they would
have made him "opportunistic", preying on Rafe's feelings.
In my view of it, Rafe would have "stumbled" on something evil about
Adam. And to shut him up, like he has done with Heather, Adam would
have feigned attraction to Rafe.
That doesn't make Adam gay.
record hunter
It didn't occur to me that they were making Adam gay, just that the
character was capable of using Rafe's attraction to him in a most
egregious way to get what he (Adam) wants.
menud...@yahoo.com
Coming from a gay male, I completely agree. Surely, Y&R realizes they
would not want to take an actor to court because he did not want to
kiss another male.
If he backed out because he did not like the psycho plot, that may be
different.
Y&R should have handled the choice more diplomatically by picking
someone who was willing. They lucked out with Yani Gellman with his
agreeing to gay when they told him a month after he was hired.
I say pick another character who is comfortable with such scenes and
get CE back in the studio as Adam.
Work to save the damage the show has created before it gets any worse
and while it is still possible to save the actor. Sorry, I would not
want to see anyone else in the role of Adam and was liking his plot
with Heather. I just hope that it is not too late.
menud...@yahoo.com
I was sort of thinking the same thing according to what I was told by
someone supposedly credible.
Since all we are hearing in the story is "gay kiss" could mean that it
was a plot device to fool us in to thinking this was who Rafe was
going to be paired with when the real character is yet to arrive.
I would love to be able to say, actor CE could have just humbled us
with one simple male kiss (lol) but then that would only be my wishful
thinking talking.
;)
lol
Bottom line still: Work things out with the actor and get him back in
the role before it is too late.
record hunter
As much as Chris Engen might not want to kiss me, I would love to kiss
him, so I hope he gets to stay. (Of course, that might change now that
they've painted him with the big, broad Mel Gibson brush. Damn it.)
record hunter
menud...@yahoo.com
Yes, I retracted that above in my reply to Mark. And as much as I
would love to see the two kiss ...
... oh well, can't have everything.
lol
stfu...@gmail.com
outside and look up to make sure.
If Engen did quit, it's purely speculative that he's homophobic. It
sounds like there were a number of other issues and the kiss may have
been the breaking point.
Shirl
EGGSactly! ... and ... economics aside, I would totally support his
stand about the other issues.
Shirl
MarkH
>
> EGGSactly! ... and ... economics aside, I would totally support his
> stand about the other issues.
>
> Shirl
Wait a minute. I agree with you...we don't know what the real issues
are.
BUT...you would support an actor SIMPLY WALKING OFF of a four-year
contract (with possible legal and economic and reputational and career
damage to follow) because THEY DID NOT LIKE THE STORYLINE?
Really? Really?
Who will ever hire this actor again, if he gets a reputation for not
playing what is on the page?
Really?
When Eric Braeden refuses to play a scene, you are .... ahem ... not a
fan. But Engen does it, and it is okay? Really?
I'm misreading you, I'm sure. 'Cause on these kinds of issues you
have always been reasonable about this stuff.
As I have written elsewhere, if the script called for Adam to have sex
with hogs and be a pedophile, he still had to play it. Period. Or am
I wrong?
MarkH
(in the comments):
"Just found out more news on Engen. Tune into Suds tomorrow."
MarkH
MarkH
http://www.tvguide.com/Soaps/Young-Restless-Muhney-1006263.aspx
MarkH
"The new job is the likes of which i have never done...and i get to
indulge in some interesting, perverse, warped scenarios..."
"I'll let you know as soon as the publicists give me the okay...*back
to memorizing* (and THANK YOU for all the "congrats", it means a lot)"
menud...@yahoo.com
Breaking news: A few days after The Nelson Ratings finally bought
Chris Engen’s uneven portrayal of Adam Newman ...
The Nelson ratings??
Are they as credible as the Nielsen ones?
menud...@yahoo.com
I wonder if his first question was:
Will you kiss a guy?
Sure, why not.
HIRED!!!!!!!!
;)
Shirl
> It's Nelson Branco. If he said the sky was blue I would still go
> outside and look up to make sure.
>
> If Engen did quit, it's purely speculative that he's homophobic. It
> sounds like there were a number of other issues and the kiss
> may have been the breaking point.
Shirl:
> EGGSactly! ... and ... economics aside, I would totally support
> his stand about the other issues.
MarkH:
> Wait a minute. I agree with you...we don't know what the real
> issues are.
That's true.
I'm talking about the *speculated* issues.
[snip]
> I'm misreading you, I'm sure. 'Cause on these kinds of issues you
> have always been reasonable about this stuff.
>
> As I have written elsewhere, if the script called for Adam to have sex
> with hogs and be a pedophile, he still had to play it. Period. Or am
> I wrong?
Actually, in your hypothetical -- if after he was hired, he was told
he had to play a guy having sex with hogs or be a pedophile and he
refused -- legally, I don't think it wouldn't be as cut-and-dry as you
may believe.
But of course you're right -- with a young actor like Engen, there's a
future to consider. HOWEVER, I think you may be giving such a move --
considering THESE specific circumstances -- more dire significance
than it would actually have. Soaps are dying, and I'm not the only one
who sees some pretty dismal storytelling where Adam is concerned.
Still, Engen has done some great work here. No, I don't necessarily
think he would be blacklisted if he walked away, and if I were hiring,
I wouldn't automatically cross him off the list the details are what
we think they are.
While the scenario is similar, it's not the same as Braeden.
Braeden wasn't objecting to stories that made no sense or to being
blindsided with having to play something he didn't agree with (again,
I recognize that we don't know for sure if Engen walked away or the
real reason(s) why). Braeden didn't walk or refuse to play a scene (as
far as I know), although he did publicly THREATEN to do so. And I
don't consider what goes on in contract negoations the same thing.
EB's objections were more general ... about Victor not being written
to be anything less than the all-powerful, challenged-but-NEVER-
defeated, irresistible stud. He even claimed to know how fans wanted
Victor to be written and also described that publicly -- it couldn't
have been further from what I and other non-worshippers wanted to
see.
Generally, in most situations I don't support actors having creative
control or veto power. While I know others may disagree, I don't think
this is your typical cut-and-dry, black-and-white writer/actor
dispute... and I don't think Engen is the only one who is having
issues with the quality of the storytelling for their characters.
Shirl
MarkH
>
> But of course you're right -- with a young actor like Engen, there's a
> future to consider. HOWEVER, I think you may be giving such a move --
> considering THESE specific circumstances -- more dire significance
> than it would actually have. Soaps are dying, and I'm not the only one
> who sees some pretty dismal storytelling where Adam is concerned.
> Still, Engen has done some great work here. No, I don't necessarily
> think he would be blacklisted if he walked away, and if I were hiring,
> I wouldn't automatically cross him off the list the details are what
> we think they are.
>
<snip>
>
> Generally, in most situations I don't support actors having creative
> control or veto power. While I know others may disagree, I don't think
> this is your typical cut-and-dry, black-and-white writer/actor
> dispute... and I don't think Engen is the only one who is having
> issues with the quality of the storytelling for their characters.
>
> Shirl
Yeah, but here's the thing. I wouldn't necessarily worry too much
about blacklisting either except:
- agewise, he's in the prime of his career...so even a temporary
hiatus could be a problem, and
MORE IMPORTANTLY
- I don't think he had the LEGAL RIGHT to walk. As a newbie, I'm
guessing he had a 4-year contract (at least 3-year). So, if Sony
wants to hold him by the short hairs, they can not only sue him, but
they can prevent him from working for the next 3 years.
That can't be a wise move for this young answer.
News that Y&R has already recast makes me wonder if Sony will go a
little easier on Engen. Maybe they'll make him pay some "emergency
casting" costs, and make him non-compete (on another soap) for the
next 3 years...and leave him alone. We'll see.
Shirl
> Yeah, but here's the thing. I wouldn't necessarily worry too much
> about blacklisting either except:
>
> - agewise, he's in the prime of his career...so even a temporary
> hiatus could be a problem, and
>
> MORE IMPORTANTLY
>
> - I don't think he had the LEGAL RIGHT to walk. As a newbie, I'm
> guessing he had a 4-year contract (at least 3-year). So, if Sony
> wants to hold him by the short hairs, they can not only sue him, but
> they can prevent him from working for the next 3 years.
>
> That can't be a wise move for this young answer.
>
> News that Y&R has already recast makes me wonder if Sony will go a
> little easier on Engen. Maybe they'll make him pay some "emergency
> casting" costs, and make him non-compete (on another soap) for the
> next 3 years...and leave him alone. We'll see.
*nods* ... all points well taken.
But here's something else to consider ... guys like Engen generally
have an agent/advisor...might not be a GOOD one, but unless Engen is a
total hot-head, he would likely have checked-out the possible
ramifications, what he might be held liable for.
Who knows, he may have even negotiated some kind of release from his
contract.
As you said, we'll likely hear more as time passes, but even the
"official word" released to the public isn't always what actually
happened.
Shirl
MarkH
>
> Who knows, he may have even negotiated some kind of release from his
> contract.
>
> As you said, we'll likely hear more as time passes, but even the
> "official word" released to the public isn't always what actually
> happened.
>
> Shirl
Since they have their nu-Adam, hopefully they won't go all "Goliath"
on his "David".
Shirl
> Since they have their nu-Adam, hopefully they won't go all "Goliath"
> on his "David".
Yeah, that kind of thing can cut both ways, too/
JMO, but it likely wouldn't be worth it to put the time and $ into
pursuing it punitively. And, like with the actual stories, sometimes
it's better to just write it off (no pun) and move on.
Shirl
record hunter
> But of course you're right -- with a young actor like Engen, there's a
> future to consider.
I just googled him, and found out he was 29. I thought he was 36, at
least.
Rthrquiet
> I am sorry but a heterosexual not wanting to kiss another male is not
> "homophobia".
Right. And if a white actor doesn't want to kiss a black actress
because she's black, that's not racism.
Come on. Of COURSE it's homophobia (if it's true that that's the
reason he walked). How on earth else could you describe it?
> If a heterosexual does not feel comfortable kissing
> another gay male, coming from a gay male, I would not want them too.
You undoubtedly know how you feel and are in the best position to
describe it to us, but as someone who is also a gay male, I want to
point out that your feeling that way has nothing whatsoever to do with
whether this is or isn't a case of homophobia.
Michael
Rthrquiet
> It's Nelson Branco. If he said the sky was blue I would still go
> outside and look up to make sure.
That's the gospel truth.
NB doesn't make any pretense at being a journalist; he's an
entertainer and pretty much says so himself. He may feel obligated to
get the basic facts straight--Actor X walked off the set--but I think
he feels that whatever spin he wants to put on it is justified for
hyping viewership of his site, etc. I imagine it would be enough for
him, in this case, that if he doesn't KNOW for sure that homophobia
ISN'T what's going on here, he's more than willing to call it that and
milk it until it's proven otherwise.
I find his columns amusing and entertaining (and his breathy fan-
worshiping of certain TPTB occasionally ridiculous), but you do have
to filter.
Michael
menud...@yahoo.com
> On May 21, 11:09 am, menudobo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I am sorry but a heterosexual not wanting to kiss another male is not
> > "homophobia".
>
> Right. And if a white actor doesn't want to kiss a black actress
> because she's black, that's not racism. >
Correct it is not.
No more than a homosexual not wanting to kiss a female is showing he
is a hetero basher.
In your mind, apparently, he is.
> Come on. Of COURSE it's homophobia (if it's true that that's the
> reason he walked). How on earth else could you describe it? >
> > If a heterosexual does not feel comfortable kissing
> > another gay male, coming from a gay male, I would not want them too.
>
> You undoubtedly know how you feel and are in the best position to
> describe it to us, but as someone who is also a gay male, I want to
> point out that your feeling that way has nothing whatsoever to do with
> whether this is or isn't a case of homophobia.
>
> Michael
Apparently from your warped line of thinking, neither is yours.
A gay male should not have to kiss a black female if he does not want
to.
That does not mean he is a female hater or racist.
And so on.
Calm down Michael and take your chill pill.
Rthrquiet
> On May 21, 6:05 pm, Rthrquiet <rthrqu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 11:09 am, menudobo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > I am sorry but a heterosexual not wanting to kiss another male is not
> > > "homophobia".
>
> > Right. And if a white actor doesn't want to kiss a black actress
> > because she's black, that's not racism. >
>
> Correct it is not.
> No more than a homosexual not wanting to kiss a female is showing he
> is a hetero basher.
I'm not attracted to females romantically and don't think of them in a
romantic way and don't "want" to kiss them in that sense. However, if
I were an actor? Yes, I'm sorry, it's part of the job. Whether I
"want" to kiss them is irrelevant; bringing my feelings about it onto
the job would be irrelevant; and refusing to do so would be
misogynistic.
> In your mind, apparently, he is.
If he refused to kiss another male, and the reason is that the person
he is supposed to kiss is male, yep, he is.
> > > If a heterosexual does not feel comfortable kissing
> > > another gay male, coming from a gay male, I would not want them too.
>
> > You undoubtedly know how you feel and are in the best position to
> > describe it to us, but as someone who is also a gay male, I want to
> > point out that your feeling that way has nothing whatsoever to do with
> > whether this is or isn't a case of homophobia.
>
> > Michael
>
> Apparently from your warped line of thinking, neither is yours.
I'm not describing what I do or do not want. You are. Whether you, as
a gay male, want to watch a heterosexual male actor who is expected to
kiss another male as part of his job and doesn't want to do it,
because you'd prefer to see somebody who isn't icked out about it, is
totally irrelevant to whether it's a case of homophobia or not.
> A gay male should not have to kiss a black female if he does not want
> to.
That isn't the issue. The issue is whether refusing to do so, because
she's black, and it's part of his job to kiss her, is racist or not.
It is.
> That does not mean he is a female hater or racist.
If he's an actor? I mean, if a gay male actor doesn't want to kiss
women in his private life, that's one thing, but if he's on, say, a
soap opera and refuses to kiss his female costar because she's female?
Yes, I'd say he's misogynist (not to mention a bad judge of what line
of work he needs to choose). And if she's black and he won't kiss her
because she's black, then yes, he's racist.
> And so on.
Indeed.
> Calm down Michael and take your chill pill.
Thank you for your kind concern; I'm quite calm, actually. It doesn't
make your argument any more convincing.
Michael
Dave
"Rthrquiet" <rthr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:89dbd0e5-67a4-4aed...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 11:09 am, menudobo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am sorry but a heterosexual not wanting to kiss another male is not
> "homophobia".
Right. And if a white actor doesn't want to kiss a black actress
because she's black, that's not racism.
Come on. Of COURSE it's homophobia (if it's true that that's the
reason he walked). How on earth else could you describe it?
---
I agree with Menudoboy (lol...I remember Menudo btw). I don't think it's
homophobia at all. It's a matter of personal preference. Personally
speaking, I'm not gay myself. But, I believe everyone has a right to their
sexuality and what goes on behind closed doors is no one's business anyways.
Gay people (men or women) should be treated with respect just as
heterosexual people are. I've known many gay men, most of which were very
friendly and had dynamite senses of humor (fantasic cooks, though I may be
stereotyping here). However, I would feel very uncomfortable if I was asked
to kiss another man (in any capacity whether it be on screen or whatever).
I don't view myself as homophobic. I just prefer to kiss women instead of
men.
If CE was not told of this twist in events before he was hired (and I doubt
he would have been as he's been on the show for awhile now and I don't think
the writers have any sense of long term vision these days)...then I kinda
sympathize with his stand here. TPTB should put actors into such positions
as same sex matchups who are actually comfortable acting these types of
roles. Obviously CE wasn't comfortable with it. However, I think there is
more to this story than meets the eye (such as his dismayal of how the
character has basically been written borderline unredeemable).
Dave - Toronto
Rthrquiet
> "> I agree with Menudoboy (lol...I remember Menudo btw). I don't think it's
> homophobia at all. It's a matter of personal preference.
In his personal life, it is. In his professional life? No, sorry.
> Personally
> speaking, I'm not gay myself. But, I believe everyone has a right to their
> sexuality and what goes on behind closed doors is no one's business anyways.
> Gay people (men or women) should be treated with respect just as
> heterosexual people are. I've known many gay men, most of which were very
> friendly and had dynamite senses of humor (fantasic cooks, though I may be
> stereotyping here). However, I would feel very uncomfortable if I was asked
> to kiss another man (in any capacity whether it be on screen or whatever).
Yes, but (and this is crucial) unless I've missed something in your
posts, you didn't choose to become an actor. That's key.
This isn't speaking of what he might or might not choose to do in his
personal life, but of his refusing to do something that's a part of
his professional life (kissing)--with someone of the same gender,
because that person is of the same gender.
> I don't view myself as homophobic. I just prefer to kiss women instead of
> men.
I would never brand you as homophobic because you chose, in your
personal life, to follow your inclinations. That would be silly.
Plenty of heterosexual men and women are not the least bit homophobic,
and they never kiss anybody of the same sex, and that doesn't make
them homophobic. But they don't kiss people as part of how they make a
living, either.
Putting any other possible issues here aside (and I agree, as you and
Shirl and others have said, that there probably are other things here
that are more the "real" story), if the sole reason he quit is because
he was asked to kiss a male and didn't want to, yes, that's
homophobic--because kissing whom the writers decide he'll kiss is part
of his job. If you're an actor on a soap, you kiss people. Probably
lots of them. This actor has undoubtedly, in his career, kissed
actresses he didn't want to kiss, so if this story is true on its face
(which, as we've said, it may well not be), and he's decided to quit
because in this case, the person he didn't want to kiss is male, yes,
that's homophobic.
> If CE was not told of this twist in events before he was hired (and I doubt
> he would have been as he's been on the show for awhile now and I don't think
> the writers have any sense of long term vision these days)...then I kinda
> sympathize with his stand here.
I would agree that it's something they should have discussed with him
ahead of time and not surprised him with. Still, it's not 1970. Same-
sex kissing on television isn't unheard-of anymore, and I would think
any actor/actress who takes on an ongoing role on a television show
would envision the possibility it could be asked of him/her. If CE
asked ahead of taking the role and was assured he'd never, ever have
to kiss a male, and then they hit him with this, I'd at least say he
had a good case to skip out on his contract, as they misled him.
> TPTB should put actors into such positions
> as same sex matchups who are actually comfortable acting these types of
> roles.
I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, you would think
producers would want actors to be happy and comfortable and would
consult them. On the other, if TPTB feel it's the right thing for the
character, should the actor's reluctance to kiss another male be
allowed to dictate whether the writers go forward with it? (Putting
aside, again, whether we might or might not agree with the writers.)
> Obviously CE wasn't comfortable with it. However, I think there is
> more to this story than meets the eye (such as his dismayal of how the
> character has basically been written borderline unredeemable).
I think the homophobia angle will turn out to be Branco's hype and
there will turn out to be other reasons that really motivated this.
(For one thing, actors don't get handed their scripts the day of
taping. If a male-male kiss were scripted and the actor had a strong
objection to it, surely it would have been resolved before taping
day.)
Michael
menud...@yahoo.com
romantic way and don't "want" to kiss them in that sense. However, if
I were an actor? Yes, I'm sorry, it's part of the job. Whether I
"want" to kiss them is irrelevant; bringing my feelings about it onto
the job would be irrelevant; and refusing to do so would be
misogynistic. <
There may be some things I have a problem kissing but females is not
one of them.
However, you can not expect the world to think the same.
For Chris it may have been as simple as he did not think Adam should
use a gay to kiss on in his psycho plot. Whatever the reason it was
his choice to make. It sounds like there were problems to begin with
and he just wanted out making this the final straw. If he had problems
with this and things before this, then I would think there would be
more problems coming up in the future.
Who knows maybe the show wrote the kiss in the script knowing he would
walk after all they had been dealing with concerning him so this way
they would not have to worry about letting him go and risk being sued.
> A gay male should not have to kiss a black female if he does not want
> to.
< That isn't the issue. The issue is whether refusing to do so,
because
she's black, and it's part of his job to kiss her, is racist or not.
It is. >
Actors are humans, not robots.
It is simply a matter of if this actor is not up for the job then
actor standing over there is.
Chris made that decision based on whatever it was he was feeling on
whatever it was he did not want to do.
If I was Yani Gellman, I would not want Chris kissing on me if he felt
repelled to do so---if that was the case.
> If he's an actor? I mean, if a gay male actor doesn't want to kiss
women in his private life, that's one thing, but if he's on, say, a
soap opera and refuses to kiss his female costar because she's female?
Yes, I'd say he's misogynist (not to mention a bad judge of what line
of work he needs to choose). >
Which is why Chris is no longer in the role.
> And if she's black and he won't kiss her because she's black, then yes, he's racist. <
If a gay male finds it hard to kiss a female (whether black, white,
Asian, Chinese, alien from Mars, etc) to the point of getting nauseous
and throwing up, that does not mean he is racist.
Racism is something entirely different and has nothing at all to do
with kissing.
Bunny
"MarkH" <mark...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:77ff30cc-6c33-4d92...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Source:
or
> MAJOR SUDS UPDATE: Homophobia on Y&R set?
> Breaking news: A few days after The Nelson Ratings finally
> bought Chris Engen�s uneven portrayal of Adam Newman, the
> newcomer shocked the entire Y&R cast by quitting his role in
> the middle of his contract two days ago! According to sources,
> Engen bolted because, �he [allegedly] refused to kiss [his same-sex]
> co-star Yani Gellman [Rafe]. Chris hasn�t been happy for a while.
> He doesn�t like the dark direction his character is taking. He�s
> called in sick a lot recently and has been taking a slew of meetings
> with Y&R�s [top brass] to discuss his future on the show. Chris is
> still under contract � and Y&R is seriously thinking of taking legal
> action.� Meanwhile, the No. 1 soap is currently scrambling to recast
the pivotal role. Stay tuned for more details on this developing
story
in Friday�s Suds Report.
Well, if this is true, then he is not much of an actor, is he?
After all, if Ellen can play a fish, and Eddie Murphy a donkey,
then SURELY an actor can play a bisexual or homosexual!!
:-)
Or.....
perhaps he should take a page from Heath Leger's or
Johnny Depp's book.
Depp played a character with scissors for hands for gosh sake.
Didn't Jodie Foster hop into bed with Richard Gere?
Everyone knows she does not desire men.
Well? What's the difference?
<SOOOOO disappointed Bunny>
Rthrquiet
> There may be some things I have a problem kissing but females is not
> one of them.
> However, you can not expect the world to think the same.
I don't. But I do expect actors to do their jobs, and when the reason
they won't do their jobs involves singling out a group of people they
don't want to do their jobs with, whether it's black people, males, or
females, or whoever, then I expect to call them on it.
> For Chris it may have been as simple as he did not think Adam should
> use a gay to kiss on in his psycho plot.
Sure. In fact, he could even have a noble reason, something along the
lines of not approving of something that exploits gayness for
titillation, which this could very well turn out to be. But that
wouldn't be what we were talking about. What we were talking about was
male actors who refuse to kiss other male actors purely because they
don't want to kiss males.
> Whatever the reason it was
> his choice to make.
Sure it was. But again, that is irrelevant to whether or not it was
homophobic.
> It sounds like there were problems to begin with
> and he just wanted out making this the final straw. If he had problems
> with this and things before this, then I would think there would be
> more problems coming up in the future.
I suspect what happened is that it was part of a big picture of things
he was having trouble coming up with motivations for and figuring out
how to play. I don't have a problem at all believing Adam would plant
a manipulative kiss on a male, as Mark has suggested elsewhere in the
thread, as part of one of his schemes and manipulations. But it was
quite possibly part of a bigger group of things that CE himself
couldn't see Adam doing, was having a hard time making it work, and he
finally just said, "Get somebody else, I can't make what you're
writing believable." I think if we ever find out the real story, it
will be rather different from what Nelson is cracking it up to be, and
in fact we may find out that TPTB agreed to CE's departure.
However, I stand by my earlier statement. If an actor refuses to kiss
another actor purely on the basis of a group characteristic, no other
reason--a male, a black person, a female, whatever--then that action
is homophobic, racist, misogynistic, etc. Personal preference doesn't
have anything to do with it; it's not the actor himself kissing, it's
the character he/she plays. He/she has singled out a class of people
based on a single characteristic and is basing his/her job behavior
purely on that single characteristic, and that's racist, misogynistic,
homophobic, or whatever, based on the characteristic that's involved.
> Actors are humans, not robots.
> It is simply a matter of if this actor is not up for the job then
> actor standing over there is.
OK, fine, I don't dispute that. If this actor doesn't want to play the
kiss scene, the next actor will. But that's not the same thing as
saying that the first actor, who wouldn't do it, isn't engaging in
racist (homophobic, misogynistic, whatever) behavior.
> Chris made that decision based on whatever it was he was feeling on
> whatever it was he did not want to do.
>
> If I was Yani Gellman, I would not want Chris kissing on me if he felt
> repelled to do so---if that was the case.
Again, I don't disagree necessarily with either of those statements--
but neither one of them has anything to do with whether or not it
would be homophobic.
> If a gay male finds it hard to kiss a female (whether black, white,
> Asian, Chinese, alien from Mars, etc) to the point of getting nauseous
> and throwing up, that does not mean he is racist.
No, the mere fact that he doesn't like kissing women doesn't make him
racist, but if he can, say, kiss white women but not women who are
black, it certainly does.
(If a gay male finds it hard to kiss a female, he's going to have a
hard time pursuing an acting career.)
If there are other people he has to kiss that he doesn't want to kiss
(say, there's another male actor that he's in a movie with and he
can't stand him, but the characters are involved romantically), but he
makes himself do it, but he won't make himself kiss *women* when the
role calls for it, then yes, he's misogynistic. If you can make
yourself do something you don't want to do when the need arises, but
you can't do it in regard to racial group X or gender Y, then it's not
your "not liking it" that's driving you, it's something else.
> Racism is something entirely different and has nothing at all to do
> with kissing.
It does if kissing is part of your job, and you kiss plenty of other
people on the job (some of whom you may not especially want to kiss),
but you won't kiss Person X, and the reason you won't kiss Person X is
because Person X is black (or white, or any other particular race, for
that matter). Then it's definitely racist.
(Admittedly, this is an acting-specific discussion, and most of us
don't have to kiss as part of our jobs, so that may be what's making
it so difficult. I can't think of another job that involves kissing as
a job requirement. But if you put it in any other context, and
somebody won't do something that's part of their job when it involves
somebody of a particular race, a particular gender, a particular
religion, whatever, then that's bigoted behavior--racist,
misogynistic, homophobic, something. Soap actors get paid, in part, to
kiss people. Convincingly. If they start picking groups they won't
kiss, they're singling out those groups, and that's bigoted behavior.)
Michael
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
> More on this:http://daytimeconfidential.com/2009/05/breaking-news-did-yrs-chris-en...
If Adam Lambert won, this vicious homophobia would never of happened.
Damn you America!*
I stole this from another site.
menud...@yahoo.com
In reference to everything you have said above, you sound just as big
of a bigot if not bigger than the accusation you bring against Chris
Engen.
Everything you have said above is a ALL bigoted opinion toward
heterosexuals who do not wish to kiss on those of the same sex.
> He/she has singled out a class of people based on a single characteristic and is basing his/her job behavior purely on that single characteristic, and that's racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or whatever, based on the characteristic that's involved.<
Chris Engen did not single out any characteristic about homosexuals.
He did not refuse to kiss another male because the character is gay.
That had NOTHING to do with his decision.
He simply refused to kiss someone of the same sex possibly because he
is appalled by kissing someone of the same sex. There is nothing wrong
with that.
That is his right. You are the bigot for trying to take that right
away from him.
I don't think anybody would argue on the decision as an "actor"
because it is his career decision to make and obviously he has made
it. He is seemingly appalled or bothered by kissing someone of the
same sex. You are not god. You can not dictate how actors should and
should not respond to these situations.
I respect the fact that it is your considered opinion on what actors
should be held responsible to in their careers but that is all that it
is---just an opinion.
In your mind, by refusing the kiss he is bashing homosexuals.
In his mind. he is simply refusing to kiss another male for whatever
reason we have yet to learn. If it is simply because he is appalled by
kissing on another person of the same sex---then that is just the way
it is.
So stop being such a heterosexual bigot. Seriously, you do not sound
any better than the homophobes.
Kolbard
>ATWT supposedly went through the same thing with the teen Luke.
>Instead of pushing it, the soap just hired another actor who was told
>before he was hired what direction the character would be going. And a
>few years later, the same thing when the one he was coupled with was
>hired.
Kim Zimmer pulled her son Jake (who portrayed Luke) from the show
because he was going to be placed on the frontburner, and she wanted
him to concentrate on school and real life. At least, that's the
official story. I liked him way better than Van Hansis as Luke.
Kolbard
Shirl
> Putting any other possible issues here aside (and I agree, as you and
> Shirl and others have said, that there probably are other things here
> that are more the "real" story), if the sole reason he quit is because
> he was asked to kiss a male and didn't want to, yes, that's
> homophobic--because kissing whom the writers decide he'll kiss is part
> of his job. If you're an actor on a soap, you kiss people. Probably
> lots of them. This actor has undoubtedly, in his career, kissed
> actresses he didn't want to kiss, so if this story is true on its face
> (which, as we've said, it may well not be), and he's decided to quit
> because in this case, the person he didn't want to kiss is male, yes,
> that's homophobic.
I disagree on this one, Michael.
Acting is a creative occupation -- that doesn't mean they then agree,
automatically, to do *anything* they may be scripted to do. How many
actresses have there been who have had refused to do nude scenes? Do
they *have to* appear nude just because *some* roles require that? If
they refuse, does that automatically mean it's okay to label them a
prude? Actors who refuse to do nude scenes are sometimes accommodated
by having doubles play those scenes. In fairness, should that option
also be given if an actor will act the part but chooses not to do a
kissing scenes with another person of the same sex? Same thing, isn't
it?
IMO, If he doesn't want to kiss a male, that doesn't make him
homophobic just because he's an actor and actors kiss people. I'm a
graphic designer -- does that automatically mean that I don't have a
say in what ads I design? If I'm under contract with a construction
company and I'm asked to do a flyer for a group of hunters (material I
clearly wouldn't agree to do), does that mean I *have to* do it just
because it's "my job" to design ads? If, while working for a
construction company, I refuse to do a hunting ad, is it fair for me
to be blacklisted or labeled "difficult" by ANY company needing
graphic design services?
On the other hand, if it were not creative, but an emergency services
occupation, for example -- say an EMT, and he refused to provide
emergency service to a gay male, your point would stand. I've never
seen a contract for an EMT, but I'd hope it would be understood that
they provide emergency service no matter WHO the individual needing it
happens to be. Hard to make a direct analogy, but it's sort of like
elective vs. necessary surgery, IMO.
> I would agree that it's something they should have discussed with him
> ahead of time and not surprised him with. Still, it's not 1970. Same-
> sex kissing on television isn't unheard-of anymore, and I would think
> any actor/actress who takes on an ongoing role on a television show
> would envision the possibility it could be asked of him/her.
Doesn't matter what the date is. If nudity were commonplace on TV,
does that mean anyone currently under contract could then be asked to
appear nude at any given point in time and they'd have no say in
whether or not they do it?
> I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, you would think
> producers would want actors to be happy and comfortable and would
> consult them. On the other, if TPTB feel it's the right thing for the
> character, should the actor's reluctance to kiss another male be
> allowed to dictate whether the writers go forward with it? (Putting
> aside, again, whether we might or might not agree with the writers.)
Again, since it's a creative endeavor and still controversial content,
IMO it's a matter of professional courtesy to consult with the actor
if there were no plan to go that route when the actor accepted the
job. As said in another post, I'm not sure, in that instance, that it
would legally be a cut-and-dry case if the actor refused to do
something like that if sprung on him unexpectedly.
> I think the homophobia angle will turn out to be Branco's hype and
> there will turn out to be other reasons that really motivated this.
> (For one thing, actors don't get handed their scripts the day of
> taping. If a male-male kiss were scripted and the actor had a strong
> objection to it, surely it would have been resolved before taping
> day.)
Agreed. It would be **SO** easy for those who weren't there to
unfairly label someone. And that kind of hype is exactly what those
people seek to pull in their audiences.
Shirl
queenie
>Source:
>
>http://tvguide.sympatico.msn.ca/The+Suds+Report+May+14+2009/Soaps/Suds/Articles/090514_news_nelson_NB.htm?isfa=1
>
>or
>
>http://tinyurl.com/q8u6y9
>
>> MAJOR SUDS UPDATE: Homophobia on Y&R set?
>> Breaking news: A few days after The Nelson Ratings finally
>> bought Chris Engen�s uneven portrayal of Adam Newman, the
>> newcomer shocked the entire Y&R cast by quitting his role in
>> the middle of his contract two days ago! According to sources,
>> Engen bolted because, �he [allegedly] refused to kiss [his same-sex]
>> co-star Yani Gellman [Rafe]. Chris hasn�t been happy for a while.
>> He doesn�t like the dark direction his character is taking. He�s
>> called in sick a lot recently and has been taking a slew of meetings
>> with Y&R�s [top brass] to discuss his future on the show. Chris is
>> still under contract � and Y&R is seriously thinking of taking legal
>> action.� Meanwhile, the No. 1 soap is currently scrambling to recast
>the pivotal role. Stay tuned for more details on this developing
>story
>in Friday�s Suds Report.
I don't blame the guy for quitting--AAMOF, I have a new respect for
him. They have ruined his character. They already have a couple of
actors on the show that would be happy to kiss a guy--GR for one! And
they already have a storyline for him. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
And I do not agree that it's "homophobia" if CE does not want to kiss
a man. I think they are now trying to trash him and his future
acting career by saying that he's quitting because he's homophobic.
Face it, it's a stupid storyline to make him gay.
Then you have GR who cannot have a decent love scene with a woman and
they are trying to force us to believe he that he is a straight man
when he's always making puppy-dog eyes at CLB. GMAFB!
queenie
>> http://tvguide.sympatico.msn.ca/The+Suds+Report+May+14+2009/Soaps/Sud...
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/q8u6y9
>>
>> > MAJOR SUDS UPDATE: Homophobia on Y&R set?
>> > Breaking news: A few days after The Nelson Ratings finally
>> > bought Chris Engen�s uneven portrayal of Adam Newman, the
>> > newcomer shocked the entire Y&R cast by quitting his role in
>> > the middle of his contract two days ago! According to sources,
>> > Engen bolted because, �he [allegedly] refused to kiss [his same-sex]
>> > co-star Yani Gellman [Rafe]. Chris hasn�t been happy for a while.
>> > He doesn�t like the dark direction his character is taking. He�s
>> > called in sick a lot recently and has been taking a slew of meetings
>> > with Y&R�s [top brass] to discuss his future on the show. Chris is
>> > still under contract � and Y&R is seriously thinking of taking legal
>> > action.� Meanwhile, the No. 1 soap is currently scrambling to recast
>>
>> the pivotal role. Stay tuned for more details on this developing
>> story
>> in Friday�s Suds Report.
>
>I am sorry but a heterosexual not wanting to kiss another male is not
>"homophobia". If a heterosexual does not feel comfortable kissing
>another gay male, coming from a gay male, I would not want them too.
Exactly. It really pisses me off that they would say that about CE.
>
>ATWT supposedly went through the same thing with the teen Luke.
>Instead of pushing it, the soap just hired another actor who was told
>before he was hired what direction the character would be going. And a
>few years later, the same thing when the one he was coupled with was
>hired.
>
>If this is why the actor is quitting, I really wish the soap would
>pick someone else to pair Rafe with who is comfortable in playing the
>role.
GR GR GR GR
>
>Not someone who is going to get nauseous in the stomach every time
>such a scene pops up.
>
>Sorry but having the character Adam gay is the not the right decision.
>As others pointed out in other threads we have seen absolutely no
>homosexual tendencies from the character at all whatsoever. I would
>have a hard time believing he is gay.
Again--you hit the nail on the head! I think they want push CE out.
First they damage his character and now they are trying trash his
career.
>
>Hiring another actor to make Adam gay is just not what I would like to
>see,
Again, we agree.
queenie
wrote:
>menudoboy:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Y&R is already botching it all up just by choosing Adam to pair Rafe
>> with.
>>
>> Before this decision, this plot looked so promising.
>>
>> I feel for Yani Gellman (Rafe) since he was on board with the whole
>> gay plot.
>
>Character flip-flops of that magnitude are rarely a good thing.
>Unpredictable behavior? sure ... but this goes way beyond that. It
>truly insults viewers. But then, we *do* keep watching, don't we?
No--I keep fast-forwarding. I actually hope Y&R gets cancelled so I
won't have to watch at all. I think that's what CBS wants so that
when the show is finally cancelled, there will be no outcry from the
audience.
queenie
>I say pick another character who is comfortable with such scenes and
>get CE back in the studio as Adam.
Let CLB play the role of a married man on the "downlow".
queenie
<record...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As much as Chris Engen might not want to kiss me, I would love to kiss
>him, so I hope he gets to stay. (Of course, that might change now that
>they've painted him with the big, broad Mel Gibson brush. Damn it.)
That's exactly what those bastards did to CE!
queenie
<rthr...@aol.com> wrote:
>I'm not attracted to females romantically and don't think of them in a
>romantic way and don't "want" to kiss them in that sense. However, if
>I were an actor? Yes, I'm sorry, it's part of the job. Whether I
>"want" to kiss them is irrelevant; bringing my feelings about it onto
>the job would be irrelevant; and refusing to do so would be
>misogynistic.
But forcing an actor to do something that makes him so uncomfortable,
detracts from his acting ability. Like GR and a woman or like CLB
kissing a woman. They do not look natural to me and I get very
uncomfortable when I see them in a love scene.
queenie
wrote:
>perhaps he should take a page from Heath Leger's or
>Johnny Depp's book.
>Depp played a character with scissors for hands for gosh sake.
>Didn't Jodie Foster hop into bed with Richard Gere?
>Everyone knows she does not desire men.
>Well? What's the difference?
Maybe for CE, it was the last straw.
>
><SOOOOO disappointed Bunny>
So am I. Y&R it's destroying itself.
Jennifer
> On Thu, 21 May 2009 16:53:02 -0700 (PDT), Rthrquiet
I am not happy about this development at all. I really like current
Adam and don't want to see him replaced.
We don't know the full story. And i'm certainly not saying he should
have walked off ... but to me if they are going to ask an actor to
kiss another man then it would seem fair to talk to the actor vs
forcing him to do something he is not comfortable with.
I didn't really read the details so i don't know if adam is rafe's new
love interest or if it's just a one time thing. I think that would
maybe make a difference.
Crazy turn of events!
Shirl
> No--I keep fast-forwarding. I actually hope Y&R gets cancelled so I
> won't have to watch at all. I think that's what CBS wants so that
> when the show is finally cancelled, there will be no outcry from the
> audience.
Yeah, I've speculated the same thing.
I mean no offense to those who are still enjoying, but personally,
judging by the quality of the storytelling, I find it hard to imagine
that they aren't TRYING to accelerate the decline/demise.
Shirl
Shirl
>Again--you hit the nail on the head! I think they want push
>CE out. First they damage his character and now they are
>trying trash his career.
The character may indeed have been ruined by poor storytelling (as
MANY have been, IMO), but I wouldn't draw any conclusions yet about
anyone's motivations. Even "official" statements aren't always
accurate reflections of actual reasons for anything. You know there's
a "generic" list for various events that they throw darts at!
Shirl
Cheri
> On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:49:32 -0400, "Bunny" <nosp...@rogers.com>
spoiler space
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
Speaking of CE, Adam on Y&R not wanting to play a part.
>>perhaps he should take a page from Heath Leger's or
>>Johnny Depp's book.
>>Depp played a character with scissors for hands for gosh sake.
>>Didn't Jodie Foster hop into bed with Richard Gere?
>>Everyone knows she does not desire men.
>>Well? What's the difference?
Perhaps the "difference" is that they were hired specifically for those
roles. That would be my best guess.
Cheri
MarkH
>
> Perhaps the "difference" is that they were hired specifically for those
> roles. That would be my best guess.
>
> Cheri
Exactly. Same with the actresses with "no nudity" clauses. They know
UP FRONT about nudity (because this is reserved for film). And, only
powerful actresses are usually able to negotiate them.
A fresh-starter like Engen would not have known...and would not have
had the clout, if he had known...to negotiate a "no homo" clause.
Thus, he signed up to do whatever they handled him.
It may have been a principled stand, possibly even one that had
nothing to do with homophobia, that caused him to walk off. But for a
newbie with a four year contract, it was also reckless. Principled,
but reckless. And not showing up -- calling in sick -- in advance of
the storm-off was even more reckless.
Regardless of the merits of Engen's stand, simply quitting like that
(if true) also indicates some unprofessionalism in the actor.
Here's hoping all parties somehow end up happier at the end of this.
The nu-Adam actor is delighted to be playing a role that he calls
"perverse" and "twisted". He has the advantage of knowing what he's
walking into.
If Adam is redeemable at the end of this (as Victor was once redeemed;
as Phyllis was redeemed; as Kevin was redeemed several times), he has
signed on to the role of a career...scion son of the most recognizable
figure on the most popular soap. Let us hope he appreciates it, and
walks into it with eyes wide open.
Shirl
> > Perhaps the "difference" is that they were hired specifically for those
> > roles. That would be my best guess.
MarkH:
> Exactly. Same with the actresses with "no nudity" clauses. They know
> UP FRONT about nudity (because this is reserved for film). And, only
> powerful actresses are usually able to negotiate them.
I made the same comparison in a response to Rthrquiet this morning.
> A fresh-starter like Engen would not have known...and would not have
> had the clout, if he had known...to negotiate a "no homo" clause.
> Thus, he signed up to do whatever they handled him.
Although, even fresh-starters usually have agents who are aware of
some of these types of potential obstacles.
Shirl
Rthrquiet
> In reference to everything you have said above, you sound just as big
> of a bigot if not bigger than the accusation you bring against Chris
> Engen.
Actually, if you'll go back and read what I wrote more carefully,
you'll see I'm not accusing Engen, specifically, of anything. I said
pretty clearly, I thought, that we don't know the full story, and I
suspect that once we do find out the details (if we ever do), we'll
find out that this whole thing is something rather different than what
Nelson Branco has cast it as.
Having said that, I did argue, and I still do, that an actor--
referring to a general case and nobody specifically--who refuses to
kiss another actor when the script calls for it is homophobic, as is
an actress who refuses to kiss another actress when the script calls
for it, if the only reason they refuse is the gender of the person
they're supposed to kiss.
> Everything you have said above is a ALL bigoted opinion toward
> heterosexuals who do not wish to kiss on those of the same sex.
The issue isn't heterosexuals who do not wish to kiss those of the
same sex, no matter how you try to recast it as that. The issue is,
specifically, actors who kiss as part of their job, such as those on a
soap, who refuse to kiss other actors purely because they're male and
for no other reason.
> Chris Engen did not single out any characteristic about homosexuals.
> He did not refuse to kiss another male because the character is gay.
> That had NOTHING to do with his decision.
This isn't about Chris Engen, specifically, as I thought I said pretty
clearly. (And I agree with your second sentence, actually, but you've
mischaracterized my argument. I never said anything about actors who
refuse to kiss gay actors. I've argued exclusively about actors who
refuse to kiss other actors, whether those actors are gay or
straight.)
> He simply refused to kiss someone of the same sex possibly because he
> is appalled by kissing someone of the same sex. There is nothing wrong
> with that.
No, you're right, there isn't--until he brings it onto the job. I'm
not following why you fail to grasp that what you do on the job is
different from what you do in your private life. If a heterosexual
actor kisses only girls in his life outside the studio, that doesn't
say anything about him. But that isn't what we're discussing.
> That is his right. You are the bigot for trying to take that right
> away from him.
I'm not. I'm dealing with his on-the-job behavior. That's a different
matter. And it doesn't have anything to do with rights, by the way.
People have a "right" to kiss whoever they want. That's not in
dispute, and I couldn't take that away from anybody even if I wanted
to (which I don't).
> I don't think anybody would argue on the decision as an "actor"
> because it is his career decision to make and obviously he has made
> it. He is seemingly appalled or bothered by kissing someone of the
> same sex. You are not god. You can not dictate how actors should and
> should not respond to these situations.
I'm not trying to. I couldn't if I tried. But I do have a right to
look at any actor's behavior and call him on his homophobia when I see
it.
> I respect the fact that it is your considered opinion on what actors
> should be held responsible to in their careers but that is all that it
> is---just an opinion.
As is yours. You do realize that, right?
Nonetheless, homophobia (racism, sexism, etc.) does exist, and it does
have a definition. It isn't "just my opinion."
> In your mind, by refusing the kiss he is bashing homosexuals.
No, I never said anything about bashing homosexuals.
> In his mind. he is simply refusing to kiss another male for whatever
> reason we have yet to learn. If it is simply because he is appalled by
> kissing on another person of the same sex---then that is just the way
> it is.
Sure it is. And it's homophobic.
> So stop being such a heterosexual bigot.
I'm not heterosexual.
> Seriously, you do not sound
> any better than the homophobes.
I'm sorry that the fact that I point out homophobia when I see it
bothers you enough to label me that way, but that's on you. I stand by
what I said.
We don't know specifically what's going on with Engen. As I said--and
I'll say it again, since you seem to be missing it--I think when the
dust clears, if it ever does, we'll find out this situation is
something rather different from what Branco tried to hint at.
But in a generic case, Actor X who has kissing as part of his job and
says he won't kiss other actors (whether those actors are gay or
straight), that's homophobic, and there's no way it can be anything
other than homophobic.
And saying I'm "no better than the homophobes" doesn't change that.
Michael
Rthrquiet
> On Thu, 21 May 2009 16:53:02 -0700 (PDT), Rthrquiet
>
Sure, I agree with that (well, not the part about CLB specifically,
because I don't see that he's having that problem, as you do, but on
the general issue).
I'm not arguing the wisdom of pushing any actor into doing any
particular thing he doesn't want to do. That's for the producers (or
whoever) to decide. And if they make a bad decision, it undoubtedly
will have negative consequences.
But it's a separate issue from an actor/actress's refusing to kiss
somebody from a particular group, when the script calls for it and its
part of his/her job, reveals anything relevant about his/her
prejudices, which is what menudoboy and I are going round and round
about (probably far more than it's worth).
Michael
Shirl
> I'm sorry that the fact that I point out homophobia when I see it
> bothers you enough to label me that way, but that's on you. I stand by
> what I said.
I read your explanations with interest, but I still don't think it is
necessarily homophobia. It certainly COULD be, but I don't think it's
automatically a given or an absolute.
IMO, the part of your argument that you use to justify your argument
is also, IMO, the part that justifies the other side as well -- acting
can, and sometimes does, call for a person to have physical contact
with another person. Just because it's *acting* doesn't necessarily
mean, when a person signs a contract, that he can be asked to do
ANYTHING and that he/she has no say whatsoever. Soaps are a bit
different because they *are* so long lived (or at least they HAVE been
up to this point!), so it isn't always known precisely what story may
be given to any particular character in the long term.
Nevertheless, while I'm certainly no expert on entertainment law, I
don't think that means that a soap actor who is under contract can be
*ordered* to do something like kiss another actor of the same sex if
he/she had no idea his/her character was going to be taken in that
direction when he/she signed the contract. Society has come a long
way, but that's still not your run-of-the-mill, expected soap
storyline. Engen may not, in his wildest dreams, have imagined that
they'd take his character in that direction when he signed-on.
The choice of a male actor not to kiss another male actor isn't
necessarily automatically evidence that he's homophobic. He can
absolutely object to kissing another male, even as part of a role,
while also having absolutely ZERO objection or bias or ANY negative
feelings whatsoever toward homosexuality *for others*. Objecting to
kissing another actor of the same sex isn't proof of homophobia any
more than agreeing to kiss an actor of the same sex is proof that
they're not!
I *do* see your point that the *character* an actor plays is NOT the
person himself. Still, if there's one occupation where many people's
personal and work lives overlap, it's acting! When it comes to kissing
another person of the same sex, it can, for some, become impossible to
separate the two just because "he's just acting". But again, that
doesn't automatically make him homophobic because he objects to it
*for himself*.
In a response to one of your other posts yesterday, used the
comparison to an actress being asked to do a nude scene. In the kinds
of roles where there is nudity, it is *usually* known ahead of time,
before contracts are signed. But if it were permissible in soaps, do
you think anyone should be required to do it even if they object just
because *some* roles incorporate it? Would you automatically assume
they're prudes if they refuse? IMO, there's no difference.
> And saying I'm "no better than the homophobes" doesn't change that.
Agreed. These are interesting perspectives, and I don't want to see
them deteriorate to name calling.
Shirl
menud...@yahoo.com
> I'm sorry that the fact that I point out homophobia when I see it
bothers you enough to label me that way <
First, you or anyone pointing out homophobia would not bother me.
Second, your "homophobia" accusation is only speculation except
somehow you see it as factual.
Third, you are the one who originated the "labeling" ("homophobic",
"bigots", etc) in this thread. I merely pointed out that you were
sounding no different than the labeled ones you were condemning.
> We don't know specifically what's going on with Engen. As I said--and
> I'll say it again, since you seem to be missing it--I think when the
> dust clears, if it ever does, we'll find out this situation is
> something rather different from what Branco tried to hint at. >
In one post you condemned Branco. So why would you consider anything
he "hints as" as fact?
Nelson Branco does not even know Yani Gellman's correct age. Yani is
23, not 24.
> But in a generic case, Actor X who has kissing as part of his job and
> says he won't kiss other actors (whether those actors are gay or
> straight), that's homophobic, and there's no way it can be anything
> other than homophobic. >
If one becomes nauseous at kissing another male, what should one do?
Seek therapy to try to cure themselves?
Isn't that the same rationalization homophobes have?
> And saying I'm "no better than the homophobes" doesn't change that.
>
> Michael
See above.
Nevertheless, I do believe the Chris Engen constant bickering with the
producers over his storyline material (-if those reports are true-)
will hurt his career a lot more than refusing to kiss another male
will.
I am sure we are all anxious to hear his side of the story and what he
has to say about everything. If his reason sounds the least bit
homophobic, I will the first to jump on your bandwagon.
queenie
<rthr...@aol.com> wrote:
>On May 22, 12:03�pm, queenie <quee...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 May 2009 16:53:02 -0700 (PDT), Rthrquiet
>>
>> <rthrqu...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >I'm not attracted to females romantically and don't think of them in a
>> >romantic way and don't "want" to kiss them in that sense. However, if
>> >I were an actor? Yes, I'm sorry, it's part of the job. Whether I
>> >"want" to kiss them is irrelevant; bringing my feelings about it onto
>> >the job would be irrelevant; and refusing to do so would be
>> >misogynistic.
>>
>> But forcing an actor to do something that makes him so uncomfortable,
>> detracts from his acting ability. �Like GR and a woman or like CLB
>> kissing a woman. �They do not look natural to me and I get very
>> uncomfortable when I see them in a love scene.
>
>Sure, I agree with that (well, not the part about CLB specifically,
>because I don't see that he's having that problem, as you do, but on
>the general issue).
>
>I'm not arguing the wisdom of pushing any actor into doing any
>particular thing he doesn't want to do. That's for the producers (or
>whoever) to decide. And if they make a bad decision, it undoubtedly
>will have negative consequences.
I think it's mean-spirited for the producers to ask the writers to
make an actor play a gay character gay out of the blue--a character
who hasn't shown an iota of homosexuality on screen. They already
have two actors in the cast who could play gay men. Two men who don't
IMO, play heterosexuals very well. It's just meanness to go to a
heterosexual male and ask him to play the part of a gay man when they
already have two able-bodied gay men in the cast--one of whom is a
*really bad* actor when it comes to playing a heterosexual and who
would probably excel if he played a gay man.
>But it's a separate issue from an actor/actress's refusing to kiss
>somebody from a particular group, when the script calls for it and its
>part of his/her job, reveals anything relevant about his/her
>prejudices, which is what menudoboy and I are going round and round
>about (probably far more than it's worth).
I think a heterosexual man who refuses to kiss an AA woman because of
skin color is racist because he feels that way only because of *skin
color*. An actor that shallow and superficial, is worthy of scorn,
IMO.
A heterosexual man who refuses to kiss another man is not necessarily
homophobic in the sense "hate" but in the sense of the word "phobic"
which means fear. Who knows what kissing a man would trigger in a
heterosexual man--maybe revulsion as I saw when CLB had his first
kissing scene or major awkwardness when GLB takes swing at it. Or
maybe he might get turned on and that's what he fears. This actor
deserves compassion, IMO.
An actor who is a racist but who can still convincingly kiss a person
from a race he detests or a homophobic actor who can convincingly kiss
a person of the same sex deserves an Emmy/Oscar.
record hunter
> I think it's mean-spirited for the producers to ask the writers to
> make an actor play a gay character gay out of the blue--a character
> who hasn't shown an iota of homosexuality on screen. They already
> have two actors in the cast who could play gay men. Two men who don't
> IMO, play heterosexuals very well. It's just meanness to go to a
> heterosexual male and ask him to play the part of a gay man when they
> already have two able-bodied gay men in the cast--one of whom is a
> *really bad* actor when it comes to playing a heterosexual and who
> would probably excel if he played a gay man.
IOW, there should be an announcement soon that "The part of Adam
Wilson is now being played by Greg Rikaart"? Pretty damned confusing
(to say nothing of pretty damned stupid).
queenie
No, I'm saying if they are hot for a gay storyline, they have the
writers and GR. Leave Adam Wilson, the hot heterosexual we know and
love, alone!!!
Bunny
"Cheri" <che...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gv6ot...@news3.newsguy.com...
:
: > On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:49:32 -0400, "Bunny" <nosp...@rogers.com>
You have a good point and he could have been absolutely
blind-sided by the turn of the role.
But OTOH, this is not a "new and ground-breaking" plot
twist anymore. A hungry ambitious actor may enjoy the
chance to put something like this on the resume.
What a shame he has decided to move on.
I enjoyed his acting.
MarkH
>
> No, I'm saying if they are hot for a gay storyline, they have the
> writers and GR. Leave Adam Wilson, the hot heterosexual we know and
> love, alone!!!
What is your source that they are "hot" for a gay storyline?
Your pinging gaydar notwithstanding, both GR and Leblanc are playing
straight men. I have read no indication that there is intent to have
them do otherwise. While that could always change, it it probably
time for you to drop it.
There is only one gay (recurring) character (Rafe). That provides no
evidence that anyone is "hot" for a gay storyline. (I gather if
someone WERE "hot" for a gay storyline, you might not be happy? or
would you be happy?)
I see no scenario, whatsoever, that Adam will be gay. Much more
likely is that the ruthless Adam will get 'discovered' doing something
bad by Rafe...and Adam will exploit Rafe's attraction by kissing (or
more) him. This has been exactly his MO with Heather too. That
doesn't make Adam gay. It makes him ruthless, opportunistic, and
maybe even a little psychopathic. I'm not sure an activist audience
would like that...but I totally see it going in that direction.
Now, there has been other speculation, but NONE of it is confirmed.
Is P3 (played by the openly gay Thom Bierdz) gay? (Unlikely, though I
think it could be written plausibly, since the 1980s P3 was
"straight"). Is P4 (the soldier offspring to be played by John
Driscoll) gay? Who knows.
Don't confuse wanton speculation with anyone being "hot" for gay
storylines. And let it go with GR and CJL. Not happening.
Shirl
> A heterosexual man who refuses to kiss another man is not necessarily
> homophobic in the sense "hate" but in the sense of the word "phobic"
> which means fear.
That, too, is a big assumption. Maybe he just *doesn't want to kiss
another man*, period. That doesn't have to automatically mean
*ANYTHING ELSE* other than that, by itself.
> An actor who is a racist but who can still convincingly kiss a person
> from a race he detests or a homophobic actor who can convincingly kiss
> a person of the same sex deserves an Emmy/Oscar.
Agreed. But *whatever* way it looks on screen -- convincing or
otherwise -- is not automatically an accurate indication of the
actor's actual, real life feelings on the subject.
And that was one of my points in another post -- that refusing to kiss
another man is not necessarily any better proof of homophobia than
kissing one convincingly is proof of the reverse.
Shirl
ravelation
rthr...@aol.com (Rthrquiet) wrote:
>But it's a separate issue from an
>actor/actress's refusing to kiss
>somebody from a particular group,
Do we know for a fact that the actor playing Rafe is gay IRL, or is his
character playing gay on Y&R?
Ravl
not sure it's relevant to the current discussion, but the question just
popped in my head...
MarkH
>
> Agreed. But *whatever* way it looks on screen -- convincing or
> otherwise -- is not automatically an accurate indication of the
> actor's actual, real life feelings on the subject.
>
> And that was one of my points in another post -- that refusing to kiss
> another man is not necessarily any better proof of homophobia than
> kissing one convincingly is proof of the reverse.
>
> Shirl
I basically agree. In retrospect, the reporting should not have gone
there or used those words.
The reporting should have said Chris Engen broke his contract and
refused to work. Maybe it could have said "alleged discomfort with
aspects of his story". And left it at that.
Viewers would have been left to draw their conclusions. And some
would have drawn that conclusion...but now I think we have the
prospect of serious jeopardy to his career on unfounded rumor.
In the end, though, I think this clarifies (if it wasn't already
clear...which it actually was, to me) that the era has changed. An
actor on a soap (or anywhere) can no longer make assumptions. If you
don't want to kiss someone of the same sex (or there is something else
you don't want to do), you better get that VERY CLEAR in your contract
up front. Because in 2009, there is nothing you might not be asked to
play...on a dime.
The Engen situation will serve, in the long run, as a warning shot
across the bow of actors. Make no more assumptions....
Shirl
> You have a good point and he could have been absolutely
> blind-sided by the turn of the role.
> But OTOH, this is not a "new and ground-breaking" plot
> twist anymore.
It may not be "new and ground-breaking", but it's still, and will
likely always be, a subject that people/actors/viewers have VERY
varying personal opinions about AND preferences that have ZERO to do
with any kind of "phobia".
> A hungry ambitious actor may enjoy the
> chance to put something like this on the resume.
> What a shame he has decided to move on.
> I enjoyed his acting.
They may or may not enjoy, or want, that chance.
I don't think he should be judged any more critically or negatively
about the decision (**IF** that's even his reasoning) than an actress
who refuses to do a nude scene. Nudity isn't "new or ground-breaking",
either, but there are still some who have walked away from those
roles, and nobody talks about what a shame it is because he/she is a
hungry, ambitious actor who might want it on their resume.
I don't mean that to sound snotty, but I honestly don't see the
difference. A young neurosurgeon who didn't consider becoming a
podiatrist because he really doesn't have an interest in working on
feet wouldn't be judged/criticized or be labeled homopodic (made-up
word, I realize!) because he won't has no interest in applying his
medical knowledge to feet!
I just don't see where the LEAP comes in that just because he's an
actor, that means if he has no interest in playing a role that
requires him to kiss another man, he's "homophobic" or that he should
do it regardless of his opinion about it JUST BECAUSE he's young and
hungry and could put it on his resume. If he has no desire to play
those roles, he may not want to include that on his resume.
Actors have preferences in what kind of roles they play, the direction
they want to steer their careers, and what they'd like on their
resumes just like any other profession.
Shirl
Shirl
> > Agreed. But *whatever* way it looks on screen -- convincing or
> > otherwise -- is not automatically an accurate indication of the
> > actor's actual, real life feelings on the subject.
>
> > And that was one of my points in another post -- that refusing to kiss
> > another man is not necessarily any better proof of homophobia than
> > kissing one convincingly is proof of the reverse.
MarkH:
> I basically agree. In retrospect, the reporting should not have gone
> there or used those words.
>
> The reporting should have said Chris Engen broke his contract and
> refused to work. Maybe it could have said "alleged discomfort with
> aspects of his story". And left it at that.
Even "discomfort" *may* not be an accurate label. Maybe it has NOTHING
to do with homophobia or discomfort ... maybe he simply doesn't want
to kiss another man, personally OR professionally, and if that's what
the role is going to require, he's okay with stepping away.
I realize that there may indeed be more to it than that. But think of
it -- if he WAS surprised by it and simply didn't want to play it, a
young, inexperienced guy COULD easily not know how to go about
conveying that without all these assumptions being made, since it *is*
such a "hot-button" topic.
> In the end, though, I think this clarifies (if it wasn't already
> clear...which it actually was, to me) that the era has changed. An
> actor on a soap (or anywhere) can no longer make assumptions. If you
> don't want to kiss someone of the same sex (or there is something else
> you don't want to do), you better get that VERY CLEAR in your contract
> up front. Because in 2009, there is nothing you might not be asked to
> play...on a dime.
>
> The Engen situation will serve, in the long run, as a warning shot
> across the bow of actors. Make no more assumptions....
Agreed. And that goes both ways ... writers/producers shouldn't make
assumptions, either. If they want that option, they should also have
to spell it out the same as, when nudity may be required in a role,
the actor/actress is made aware of it before he/she signs the
contract.
Shirl
MarkH
>
> Agreed. And that goes both ways ... writers/producers shouldn't make
> assumptions, either. If they want that option, they should also have
> to spell it out the same as, when nudity may be required in a role,
> the actor/actress is made aware of it before he/she signs the
> contract.
>
> Shirl
The new "Engen" clause. I don't think, on either side, this is gonna
fall through the cracks again.
Shirl
> The Engen situation will serve, in the long run, as a warning shot
> across the bow of actors. Make no more assumptions....
I have a friend with a 29-yr-old, heterosexual son who is an aspiring
actor. He's done some work in NY and CA, but nothing significant yet.
I've asked him to pose the question of this scenario and ask what he
would do. People have alluded to the idea that a "hungry, young,
ambitious actor" should be willing to do whatever the script requires,
regardless of any personal opinions he/she may have.
I'm curious what an ACTUAL hungry, young, ambitious actor would say
about being in that situation. Not that ONE opinion reflects anything
conclusive, just curious. Will let ya know what he says.
Shirl
queenie
<mark...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 23, 10:42�am, queenie <quee...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> No, I'm saying if they are hot for a gay storyline, they have the
>> writers and GR. �Leave Adam Wilson, the hot heterosexual we know and
>> love, alone!!! �
>
>What is your source that they are "hot" for a gay storyline?
You. You've been jonesing for Adam to be gay even before he came to
GC. I was against it then and I am against it now. You were hot for
Adam to be Victor Newmann's gay son. Oh the HORROR! It's not like
TGVN is going to be a homophobe and Adam was practically a stranger to
him and to us so what was the point? We've had this conversation
before, remember?
>Your pinging gaydar notwithstanding, both GR and Leblanc are playing
>straight men.
They're doing a crummy job of it, IMO.
> I have read no indication that there is intent to have
>them do otherwise. While that could always change, it it probably
>time for you to drop it.
I think it's time for you bite me, Mark. I'm going to say what I want
to say and if you don't like it...well, you know what to do.
>There is only one gay (recurring) character (Rafe). That provides no
>evidence that anyone is "hot" for a gay storyline. (I gather if
>someone WERE "hot" for a gay storyline, you might not be happy? or
>would you be happy?)
If it's Adam, I'd be pissed because it's so obviously contrived. Why
take away a hot heterosexual man we women can get excited about when
he's involved in one of his exquisite love scenes? When CLB and GR in
love scenes is as exciting as eczema.
>I see no scenario, whatsoever, that Adam will be gay. Much more
>likely is that the ruthless Adam will get 'discovered' doing something
>bad by Rafe...and Adam will exploit Rafe's attraction by kissing (or
>more) him. This has been exactly his MO with Heather too. That
>doesn't make Adam gay. It makes him ruthless, opportunistic, and
>maybe even a little psychopathic. I'm not sure an activist audience
>would like that...but I totally see it going in that direction.
After the lecture you all gave me about Kevin being a gay man of bad
character or mental problems, I agree.
And isn't Adam depraved enough...tormenting an emotionally fragile
woman who has been nothing but kind to him?
>Now, there has been other speculation, but NONE of it is confirmed.
>Is P3 (played by the openly gay Thom Bierdz) gay? (Unlikely, though I
>think it could be written plausibly, since the 1980s P3 was
>"straight"). Is P4 (the soldier offspring to be played by John
>Driscoll) gay? Who knows.
More important, who the fuck cares? He's a stranger to me. For me to
care, he has to form a relationship someone already living in GC that
I know. And I'm not talking about those Johnny Come Lately, Rafe and
Raul. And wouldn't Phillip be too old to play a gay love interest to
a young man?
>Don't confuse wanton speculation with anyone being "hot" for gay
>storylines.
Since you are the one who seems to initiate these discussions, the
ball is in your fucking court.
>And let it go with GR and CJL. Not happening.
Too bad. But as long as "gay storylines" are discussed here, I will
continue to scream "What wrong with GR...what about CLB?!!!!!"
queenie
wrote:
>queenie:
>> A heterosexual man who refuses to kiss another man is not necessarily
>> homophobic in the sense "hate" but in the sense of the word "phobic"
>> which means fear.
>
>That, too, is a big assumption. Maybe he just *doesn't want to kiss
>another man*, period. That doesn't have to automatically mean
>*ANYTHING ELSE* other than that, by itself.
I was addressing the label, "homophobic".
>
>> An actor who is a racist but who can still convincingly kiss a person
>> from a race he detests or a homophobic actor who can convincingly kiss
>> a person of the same sex deserves an Emmy/Oscar.
>
>Agreed. But *whatever* way it looks on screen -- convincing or
>otherwise -- is not automatically an accurate indication of the
>actor's actual, real life feelings on the subject.
True. Unless an actor announces that he doesn't like to kiss people
of color or the same sex, we don't really know. This tread started
because of *alleged homophobia* and *that* is what my post addressed.
queenie
wrote:
>I've asked him to pose the question of this scenario and ask what he
>would do. People have alluded to the idea that a "hungry, young,
>ambitious actor" should be willing to do whatever the script requires,
>regardless of any personal opinions he/she may have.
For some reason, the phrase "casting couch" comes to mind.
MarkH
> I'm curious what an ACTUAL hungry, young, ambitious actor would say
> about being in that situation. Not that ONE opinion reflects anything
> conclusive, just curious. Will let ya know what he says.
>
> Shirl
Oooh, that's great. Let us know. I assume the guy is straight?
If you could ask him not only what his opinion of "kissing a dude"
is...but how (if) that relates to his general perception of gay rights
issues, that would be even more interesting.
I'd like to find examples of they guy you and I are both theorizing
about: Some one who is NOT a homophobe (i.e., not anti-gay), but also
someone who is NOT gay (i.e., not really comfortable kissing a
dude...even for a role).
Cheri
news:ho6g15h4kpera2qdu...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT), MarkH
>> I have read no indication that there is intent to have
>>them do otherwise. While that could always change, it it probably
>>time for you to drop it.
>
> I think it's time for you bite me, Mark. I'm going to say what I want
> to say and if you don't like it...well, you know what to do.
Don't you really hate it when people say what they want to say, going on for
months at a time even, and then tell others to drop it? I do. Geez, I'm with
you on this queenie. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
Cheri
MarkH
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT), MarkH
> >What is your source that they are "hot" for a gay storyline?
>
> You. You've been jonesing for Adam to be gay even before he came to
> GC. I was against it then and I am against it now. You were hot for
> Adam to be Victor Newmann's gay son. Oh the HORROR! It's not like
> TGVN is going to be a homophobe and Adam was practically a stranger to
> him and to us so what was the point? We've had this conversation
> before, remember?
Well, if I were "hot" for a gay storyline, that would not mean THEY
(TPTB) are. But, moreover, I can't say that I have been "hot".
When Adam first came on, I will admit, I thought it would be
interesting to see TGVN deal with a gay child. When it became clear
he was not going in that direction, I dropped it.
Then, when they introduced Rafe, it was clear to me that he would be
matched with someone else. More on this below in response to your
later question.
> >There is only one gay (recurring) character (Rafe). That provides no
> >evidence that anyone is "hot" for a gay storyline. (I gather if
> >someone WERE "hot" for a gay storyline, you might not be happy? or
> >would you be happy?)
>
> If it's Adam, I'd be pissed because it's so obviously contrived. Why
> take away a hot heterosexual man we women can get excited about when
> he's involved in one of his exquisite love scenes? When CLB and GR in
> love scenes is as exciting as eczema.
Again, I do not believe Adam is 'gay' or even 'bi'. I believe,
however, that he is now ruthless enough to play on the affections of a
nice gay lawyer who works as a public defender. That does NOT make
Adam gay Indeed, if Adam is suddenly gay, I might be as pissed as you
are. RH said the same.
> >I see no scenario, whatsoever, that Adam will be gay. Much more
> >likely is that the ruthless Adam will get 'discovered' doing something
> >bad by Rafe...and Adam will exploit Rafe's attraction by kissing (or
> >more) him. This has been exactly his MO with Heather too. That
> >doesn't make Adam gay. It makes him ruthless, opportunistic, and
> >maybe even a little psychopathic. I'm not sure an activist audience
> >would like that...but I totally see it going in that direction.
>
> After the lecture you all gave me about Kevin being a gay man of bad
> character or mental problems, I agree.
>
> And isn't Adam depraved enough...tormenting an emotionally fragile
> woman who has been nothing but kind to him?
Exactly. If Adam hooks up with Rafe at some level, it's about
ruthlessness, not sexuality, IMO. And, yes, I agree, it is as
unproductive a "message" as Kevin being gay. That said, Adam using
other men and women to achieve his ends....that's fascinating soap
opera. That's what JR Ewing did all those years ago. That's what
Abby Cunningham did all those years ago. So, if Adam takes it further
than those classic villains -- now even using people of the same sex
-- that pushes some interesting dramatic boundaries, IMO.
But I would never have written it this way. For me, Adam would have
been a morally conflicted guy...the true product of Hope and
Victor...always wanting to do the best, but sometimes unable to
control his temper.
> >Now, there has been other speculation, but NONE of it is confirmed.
> >Is P3 (played by the openly gay Thom Bierdz) gay? (Unlikely, though I
> >think it could be written plausibly, since the 1980s P3 was
> >"straight"). Is P4 (the soldier offspring to be played by John
> >Driscoll) gay? Who knows.
>
> More important, who the fuck cares? He's a stranger to me. For me to
> care, he has to form a relationship someone already living in GC that
> I know. And I'm not talking about those Johnny Come Lately, Rafe and
> Raul. And wouldn't Phillip be too old to play a gay love interest to
> a young man?
Per se, nobody cares. It's just that having Rafe on the scene as
openly gay tells us there WILL BE a partner of some sort. Now, due to
the news this weeks, it seems it will be Adam. That sets in motion
the "user" scenario from above.
As for P3 and P4...yeah...you can care or not. P3's portrayer (Thom
Bierdz) said a few years ago that he'd only want to come back to
daytime as a gay character. But that was a few years ago. I agree,
he might be too old for Rafe...on the other hand is Jack too old for
Sharon? Is Victor too old for Nikki? So, what's age got to do with
it? P4...I doubt he'll be gay...but several major soap sites
(DaytimeConfidential, WeLoveSoaps) have floated that speculation. So
SOMEBODY cares.
> >Don't confuse wanton speculation with anyone being "hot" for gay
> >storylines.
>
> Since you are the one who seems to initiate these discussions, the
> ball is in your fucking court.
Okay. I started this thread (about Engen's firing). I'm not sure
that makes me "hot" for a gay storyline. But if it did...that doesn't
mean TPTB is "hot" for a gay storyline. But this feels circular....
record hunter
>
QUEENIE:
> >> No, I'm saying if they are hot for a gay storyline, they have the
> >> writers and GR. Leave Adam Wilson, the hot heterosexual we know and
> >> love, alone!!!
MARK:
> >What is your source that they are "hot" for a gay storyline?
QUEENIE:
> You. You've been jonesing for Adam to be gay even before he came to
> GC. I was against it then and I am against it now. You were hot for
> Adam to be Victor Newmann's gay son. Oh the HORROR! It's not like
> TGVN is going to be a homophobe and Adam was practically a stranger to
> him and to us so what was the point? We've had this conversation
> before, remember?
ME (RH): Mark, you were the first one to suggest the possibility, and
I have to say, I was hoping you were right. And here's another thing:
you go to all these other websites, and have started a soap blog, so
you are now perceived, at least by moi, as having more, or better,
information than most of the rest of us. You've become Donna B the
Second, kind of, so when you suggest a character might be gay, I think
you may be basing your suggestion on far more "inside" info than I
have available to me.
MARK:
> >Your pinging gaydar notwithstanding, both GR and Leblanc are playing
> >straight men.
QUEENIE:
> They're doing a crummy job of it, IMO.
ME (RH): Oh, if *only* they were playing gay boyfriends. IF *ONLY*.
But it really only exists between your ears, Q. Nowhere else. IF
***ONLY***.
MARK:
> > I have read no indication that there is intent to have
> >them do otherwise. While that could always change, it it probably
> >time for you to drop it.
QUEENIE:
> I think it's time for you bite me, Mark. I'm going to say what I want
> to say and if you don't like it...well, you know what to do.
Biting (from either direction) to the side, Mark, you do seem to
present your possibilities with a whiff of ex cathedra at times.
I am signing off now rather than explicating repetitive backbiting.
queenie
<mark...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 23, 12:34�pm, queenie <quee...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 May 2009 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT), MarkH
>
>> >What is your source that they are "hot" for a gay storyline?
>>
>> You. �You've been jonesing for Adam to be gay even before he came to
>> GC. �I was against it then and I am against it now. �You were hot for
>> Adam to be Victor Newmann's gay son. �Oh the HORROR! �It's not like
>> TGVN is going to be a homophobe and Adam was practically a stranger to
>> him and to us so what was the point? �We've had this conversation
>> before, remember?
>
>Well, if I were "hot" for a gay storyline, that would not mean THEY
>(TPTB) are. But, moreover, I can't say that I have been "hot".
You just play one in a soap group.
>When Adam first came on, I will admit, I thought it would be
>interesting to see TGVN deal with a gay child. When it became clear
>he was not going in that direction, I dropped it.
It took a while before you did though. Of course, since CE was so
good in his role as a heterosexual lover, it would have been stupid to
continue championing him to be a homosexual.
>
>Then, when they introduced Rafe, it was clear to me that he would be
>matched with someone else. More on this below in response to your
>later question.
It should have been, yes I'm going to say it, KEVIN who is lousy and
clearly uncomfortable playing a heterosexual love scene.
>
>> >There is only one gay (recurring) character (Rafe). �That provides no
>> >evidence that anyone is "hot" for a gay storyline. �(I gather if
>> >someone WERE "hot" for a gay storyline, you might not be happy? �or
>> >would you be happy?)
>>
>> If it's Adam, I'd be pissed because it's so obviously contrived. �Why
>> take away a hot heterosexual man we women can get excited about when
>> he's involved in one of his exquisite love scenes? �When CLB and GR in
>> love scenes is as exciting as eczema.
>
>Again, I do not believe Adam is 'gay' or even 'bi'. I believe,
>however, that he is now ruthless enough to play on the affections of a
>nice gay lawyer who works as a public defender. That does NOT make
>Adam gay Indeed, if Adam is suddenly gay, I might be as pissed as you
>are. RH said the same.
Still, I don't want to see a hot hetero male I like to see in a love
scene go with a man regardless of the reason. If he did that, I would
not enjoy seeing him in a love scene with a woman ever again.
>> >I see no scenario, whatsoever, that Adam will be gay. �Much more
>> >likely is that the ruthless Adam will get 'discovered' doing something
>> >bad by Rafe...and Adam will exploit Rafe's attraction by kissing (or
>> >more) him. �This has been exactly his MO with Heather too. �That
>> >doesn't make Adam gay. �It makes him ruthless, opportunistic, and
>> >maybe even a little psychopathic. I'm not sure an activist audience
>> >would like that...but I totally see it going in that direction.
>>
>> After the lecture you all gave me about Kevin being a gay man of bad
>> character or mental problems, I agree.
>>
>> And isn't Adam depraved enough...tormenting an emotionally fragile
>> woman who has been nothing but kind to him?
>
>Exactly. If Adam hooks up with Rafe at some level, it's about
>ruthlessness, not sexuality, IMO. And, yes, I agree, it is as
>unproductive a "message" as Kevin being gay. That said, Adam using
>other men and women to achieve his ends....that's fascinating soap
>opera. That's what JR Ewing did all those years ago. That's what
>Abby Cunningham did all those years ago. So, if Adam takes it further
>than those classic villains -- now even using people of the same sex
>-- that pushes some interesting dramatic boundaries, IMO.
Indeed. "A Talented Mr. Ripley" type on daytime TV might be
delicious but I think they'd just fuck it up by making him soft as
soon as the special interests started to scream. After all, it's not
like this is a movie, it's a soap with long term consequences.
>But I would never have written it this way. For me, Adam would have
>been a morally conflicted guy...the true product of Hope and
>Victor...always wanting to do the best, but sometimes unable to
>control his temper.
For me, it would be what you said but a straight guy feeling that way.
>
>> >Now, there has been other speculation, but NONE of it is confirmed.
>> >Is P3 (played by the openly gay Thom Bierdz) gay? �(Unlikely, though I
>> >think it could be written plausibly, since the 1980s P3 was
>> >"straight"). �Is P4 (the soldier offspring to be played by John
>> >Driscoll) gay? �Who knows.
>>
>> More important, who the fuck cares? �He's a stranger to me. �For me to
>> care, he has to form a relationship someone already living in GC that
>> I know. �And I'm not talking about those Johnny Come Lately, Rafe and
>> Raul. �And wouldn't Phillip be too old to play a gay love interest to
>> a young man?
>
>Per se, nobody cares. It's just that having Rafe on the scene as
>openly gay tells us there WILL BE a partner of some sort. Now, due to
>the news this weeks, it seems it will be Adam. That sets in motion
>the "user" scenario from above.
Yuck, P U, and an waste of a wonderful actor, CE. I am really angry
with this turn of events!
>As for P3 and P4...yeah...you can care or not. P3's portrayer (Thom
>Bierdz) said a few years ago that he'd only want to come back to
>daytime as a gay character. But that was a few years ago. I agree,
>he might be too old for Rafe...on the other hand is Jack too old for
>Sharon? Is Victor too old for Nikki?
And older man and a younger woman is very common.
>So, what's age got to do with
>it? P4...I doubt he'll be gay...but several major soap sites
>(DaytimeConfidential, WeLoveSoaps) have floated that speculation. So
>SOMEBODY cares.
And old gay man and a hot young gay man? No way. Unless it's for
purely mercenary reasons. My gay friend tells me gay men are even
more shallow about relationships then heteros. Of course, my friend
is a bit warped--that's why I love him. But that would work for old
man Phillip and a young and mercenary Adam.
>> >Don't confuse wanton speculation with anyone being "hot" for gay
>> >storylines.
>>
>> Since you are the one who seems to initiate these discussions, the
>> ball is in your fucking court. �
>
>Okay. I started this thread (about Engen's firing).
You also started the thread*s* about a gay Adam visiting GC.
>I'm not sure that makes me "hot" for a gay storyline. But if it did...that doesn't
>mean TPTB is "hot" for a gay storyline.
Really? So you are just the trial balloonist?
record hunter
MARK:
> Again, I do not believe Adam is 'gay' or even 'bi'. I believe,
> however, that he is now ruthless enough to play on the affections of a
> nice gay lawyer who works as a public defender. That does NOT make
> Adam gay Indeed, if Adam is suddenly gay, I might be as pissed as you
> are. RH said the same.
ME (RH): I do agree. Adam is NOT turning gay. He is simply using his
dick to get Rafe to do what Adam wants, presumably to help him keep
his secret. We can call it dickmail.
I DON'T KNOW WHO WROTE THIS:
> > >I see no scenario, whatsoever, that Adam will be gay. Much more
> > >likely is that the ruthless Adam will get 'discovered' doing something
> > >bad by Rafe...and Adam will exploit Rafe's attraction by kissing (or
> > >more) him. This has been exactly his MO with Heather too. That
> > >doesn't make Adam gay. It makes him ruthless, opportunistic, and
> > >maybe even a little psychopathic. I'm not sure an activist audience
> > >would like that...but I totally see it going in that direction.
I won't mind if Adam "dickmails" Rafe. I will mind if they suddenly
"turn" him gay. You don't put up the rainbow flag all of a sudden
because it's in some dumbass headwriter's interest for you to suck
cock. That bothers me more than anything about this story, that
*anyone* would assume Adam could be gay at this point.
> > After the lecture you all gave me about Kevin being a gay man of bad
> > character or mental problems, I agree.
Kevin may have a "bad character" or "mental problems," BUT THE KID
DOES NOT LICK DICK. No amount of Q's ranting and raving is going to
make him gay. There's just no point in dragging out the non-discussion
any further.
> > And isn't Adam depraved enough...tormenting an emotionally fragile
> > woman who has been nothing but kind to him?
>
> Exactly. If Adam hooks up with Rafe at some level, it's about
> ruthlessness, not sexuality, IMO. And, yes, I agree, it is as
> unproductive a "message" as Kevin being gay. That said, Adam using
> other men and women to achieve his ends....that's fascinating soap
> opera.
Adam is a monster. Monsters manipulate. Sometimes they use their
penises to get what they want.
queenie
He may not "LICK DICK" but that doesn't mean he does not WANT to.
>> > And isn't Adam depraved enough...tormenting an emotionally fragile
>> > woman who has been nothing but kind to him?
>>
>> Exactly. If Adam hooks up with Rafe at some level, it's about
>> ruthlessness, not sexuality, IMO. And, yes, I agree, it is as
>> unproductive a "message" as Kevin being gay. That said, Adam using
>> other men and women to achieve his ends....that's fascinating soap
>> opera.
>
>Adam is a monster. Monsters manipulate. Sometimes they use their
>penises to get what they want.
Then I'm glad CE left the show because if this "monster" falls into a
trash compacter, I will be very happy to see him die.
Shirl
> Adam is a monster. Monsters manipulate. Sometimes they
> use their penises to get what they want.
A character similar to Grace, using sex as a tool to help achieve the
goal-of-the-moment vs. a genuine, intimate expression of love/
affection/whatever-emotion-you-prefer-to-call-it
Shirl
queenie
wrote:
Thank you, Cheri. Who is he to decide when what direction
conversations about gay storylines have to go?
queenie
<record...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Biting (from either direction) to the side, Mark, you do seem to
>present your possibilities with a whiff of ex cathedra at times.
I don't know what that means but it sounds like something that stinks.
Dave
"record hunter" <record...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> ME (RH): I do agree. Adam is NOT turning gay. He is simply using his
> dick to get Rafe to do what Adam wants, presumably to help him keep
> his secret. We can call it dickmail.
Heh!! Best laugh I've had so far today.
> Kevin may have a "bad character" or "mental problems," BUT THE KID
> DOES NOT LICK DICK. No amount of Q's ranting and raving is going to
> make him gay. There's just no point in dragging out the non-discussion
> any further.
Kevin has always had bad chemistry with women on-screne (though there is a
bit of spark between him and Amber). I think turning him gay at this point
would be a mistake. Making anyone gay after they've only been shown as
hetero since day one is a mistake (very unrealistic but that's merely my
opinion). It would have worked out far better if GR/Kevin was portrayed as
gay on the canvas from the start (or at least shown to have repressed sexual
issues somehow). However, that being said, I see no reason for anyone to
dictate to anyone else for posting about it. This is usenet. People should
be allowed to post thier opinions freely.
> Adam is a monster. Monsters manipulate. Sometimes they use their
> penises to get what they want.
Agreed. I just wish they hadn't written Adam as a monster these last few
months.
Dave - Toronto
queenie
<nomore...@infinity.net> wrote:
>
>"record hunter" <record...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> ME (RH): I do agree. Adam is NOT turning gay. He is simply using his
>> dick to get Rafe to do what Adam wants, presumably to help him keep
>> his secret. We can call it dickmail.
>
>Heh!! Best laugh I've had so far today.
>
>> Kevin may have a "bad character" or "mental problems," BUT THE KID
>> DOES NOT LICK DICK. No amount of Q's ranting and raving is going to
>> make him gay. There's just no point in dragging out the non-discussion
>> any further.
>
>Kevin has always had bad chemistry with women on-screne (though there is a
>bit of spark between him and Amber). I think turning him gay at this point
>would be a mistake. Making anyone gay after they've only been shown as
>hetero since day one is a mistake (very unrealistic but that's merely my
>opinion). It would have worked out far better if GR/Kevin was portrayed as
>gay on the canvas from the start (or at least shown to have repressed sexual
>issues somehow).
If you think Kevin has always had bad chemistry with women on-screen,
he would be the *perfect* person to take in the direction of a gay
character. Instead of people saying "Where the hell did that come
from...they're rewriting history", they would probably say, "Oh, that
explains everything".
record hunter
> > Adam is a monster. Monsters manipulate. Sometimes they use their
> > penises to get what they want.
>
> Agreed. I just wish they hadn't written Adam as a monster these last few
> months.
>
> Dave - Toronto
I liked Adam at first. What a truly sympathetic character, rendered
simply pathetic by the bullshit they've made him do. What a waste of a
character. Whoever did this should stop calling himself a writer. The
way these douchebags have ruined Adam is far worse than anything LML
did, IMO.
Dave
"queenie" <que...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>Kevin has always had bad chemistry with women on-screne (though there is a
>>bit of spark between him and Amber). I think turning him gay at this
>>point
>>would be a mistake. Making anyone gay after they've only been shown as
>>hetero since day one is a mistake (very unrealistic but that's merely my
>>opinion). It would have worked out far better if GR/Kevin was portrayed
>>as
>>gay on the canvas from the start (or at least shown to have repressed
>>sexual
>>issues somehow).
>
> If you think Kevin has always had bad chemistry with women on-screen,
> he would be the *perfect* person to take in the direction of a gay
> character. Instead of people saying "Where the hell did that come
> from...they're rewriting history", they would probably say, "Oh, that
> explains everything".
I understand your pov here. However, while Kevin has been shown to have
many repressed issues...none of them have been shown to be sexual. I know
he's gay IRL...and he did look a bit fruity with that scarf he was wearing
for awhile. However, bad chemistry with women aside, he's never been shown
on screen to have any desire what-so-ever for men. I suppose some people
switch teams in their adult lives but to do it suddenly (and without any
sort of anguish or sexual repression what-so-ever) would seem a bit
unrealistic (to me at least). As noted though, I agree with you that he
would have been the perfect candidate to be gay on screen (but I think at
this point they missed the boat there).
Dave - Toronto
Dave
"record hunter" <record...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> I liked Adam at first. What a truly sympathetic character, rendered
> simply pathetic by the bullshit they've made him do. What a waste of a
> character. Whoever did this should stop calling himself a writer. The
> way these douchebags have ruined Adam is far worse than anything LML
> did, IMO.
>
Word up!! There was so much potential there at the beginning (and even a
few months afterwards). But, like you said, they completely ruined the
character at this point.
Dave - Toronto
MarkH
>
> Biting (from either direction) to the side, Mark, you do seem to
> present your possibilities with a whiff of ex cathedra at times.
>
> I am signing off now rather than explicating repetitive backbiting.
Hmmm.. What does "ex cathedra" mean?
But seriously, a year ago or whenever Adam was introduced, there was
nothing anywhere suggesting Adam was gay. That was just me focusing
on Braeden's reaction. But I'll look up ex cathedra and see if that
is a bad thing.
MarkH
Play one what?
>
> It took a while before you did though. Of course, since CE was so
> good in his role as a heterosexual lover, it would have been stupid to
> continue championing him to be a homosexual.
>
Exactly.
>
> It should have been, yes I'm going to say it, KEVIN who is lousy and
> clearly uncomfortable playing a heterosexual love scene.
>
Well, regardless, at that point it became clear it would be SOMEONE.
>
> Still, I don't want to see a hot hetero male I like to see in a love
> scene go with a man regardless of the reason. If he did that, I would
> not enjoy seeing him in a love scene with a woman ever again.
Okay, that's a different deal. I didn't realize THAT was the
issue...that it would be a huge turnoff for you. Now that's a whole
other deal. I'm sorry.
>
> Indeed. "A Talented Mr. Ripley" type on daytime TV might be
> delicious but I think they'd just fuck it up by making him soft as
> soon as the special interests started to scream. After all, it's not
> like this is a movie, it's a soap with long term consequences.
Well, I do speculate (and no...not based on ANY info...that this is
where it is headed).
>
> For me, it would be what you said but a straight guy feeling that way.
>
Yeah, I have no issues with "straightness". At this point, I would
not expect Adam to be remotely gay.
>
> Yuck, P U, and an waste of a wonderful actor, CE. I am really angry
> with this turn of events!
CE's gone...his choice. I'm over it.
>
> And old gay man and a hot young gay man? No way. Unless it's for
> purely mercenary reasons. My gay friend tells me gay men are even
> more shallow about relationships then heteros. Of course, my friend
> is a bit warped--that's why I love him. But that would work for old
> man Phillip and a young and mercenary Adam.
P3 is hot though. He looks 20 years younger than he is. But we'll
see. It is all open now.
I got lambasted for this somewhere else, but I view this soap
viewership stuff as being a "passenger"...at least when a story is
building. So, I'm open to where it goes...and then I'll judge in
retrospect. That's why I started in a different place from many of
you on the Reliquary story...but I ended up in the same place.
> Really? So you are just the trial balloonist?
?? I speculate, I play fantasy football. Is that what you mean? Yes
I do speculate. I'm sorry if that is a problem.
MarkH
> I won't mind if Adam "dickmails" Rafe. I will mind if they suddenly
> "turn" him gay. You don't put up the rainbow flag all of a sudden
> because it's in some dumbass headwriter's interest for you to suck
> cock. That bothers me more than anything about this story, that
> *anyone* would assume Adam could be gay at this point.
>
>
> penises to get what they want.
Bingo.
The only interesting wrinkle...his father and new "family" and Jack
created this monster.
MarkH
> Then I'm glad CE left the show because if this "monster" falls into a
> trash compacter, I will be very happy to see him die.
But who knows if "dickmail" is where it is headed. The story is still
untold.
MarkH
Wow. Good insight.
I hated when they ruined Grace. Initially, Grace loved her friend,
and got Cassie for her. But then, I guess like Adam, she turned.
Jealousy and acquisitiveness was at the route of Grace's
transformation too.
Terrific link!
MarkH
>
> Agreed. I just wish they hadn't written Adam as a monster these last few
> months.
>
> Dave - Toronto
Many of us agree with you.
MarkH
>
> I liked Adam at first. What a truly sympathetic character, rendered
> simply pathetic by the bullshit they've made him do. What a waste of a
> character. Whoever did this should stop calling himself a writer. The
> way these douchebags have ruined Adam is far worse than anything LML
> did, IMO.
My understanding is that this is a Sheffer trademark.
If you turn on ATWT, most of the characters are like Adam.
MarkH
>
> I understand your pov here. However, while Kevin has been shown to have
> many repressed issues...none of them have been shown to be sexual. I know
> he's gay IRL...and he did look a bit fruity with that scarf he was wearing
> for awhile. However, bad chemistry with women aside, he's never been shown
> on screen to have any desire what-so-ever for men. I suppose some people
> switch teams in their adult lives but to do it suddenly (and without any
> sort of anguish or sexual repression what-so-ever) would seem a bit
> unrealistic (to me at least). As noted though, I agree with you that he
> would have been the perfect candidate to be gay on screen (but I think at
> this point they missed the boat there).
>
> Dave - Toronto
EXACTLY. I agree with every word here.
MarkH
>
> Word up!! There was so much potential there at the beginning (and even a
> few months afterwards). But, like you said, they completely ruined the
> character at this point.
>
> Dave - Toronto
I can't agree with that part.
Victor kept people in dungeons.
Kevin did statuatory rape, internet predation, arson.
Michael was a harrasser, and tunneled through a closet to kill Cricket
and Nina
This show has a long history of redeeming vile, awful boys...at least
enough to keep 'em viable.