• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Predictions on what new network shows will be the first to be cancelled.

landtuna said:
"Hope for a quick cancellation"?

What? Because you don't like the show? Why not just not watch it?

Hoping it gets cancelled because the title "might be indicative of devil worship" or "it's too evil for me" seems like immature reasoning.
I decided to drop "666 Park Avenue". But if it becomes a hit I'm going to wonder what I missed. It just wasn't interesting enough to make up for all the evil stuff and the violence.

Now if Adrian Monk were solving these various murders ...
 
landtuna said:
only1moore said:
It looks like you might want to add CBS' "Partners" and "Made In Jersey" to that list. Both shows are in trouble based on their ratings alone.

Gee,,,,,who couldn't have seen that?

Am I the only one who feels like the networks are putting more and more gay-oriented shows on? I am not gay but don't have anything against them as a group but I also get tired of seeing the constant references to gays and their stereotypes. Even 'Survivor', which is not a scripted show, seems to publicize a gay participant in each season.

Yes, the door is open (no pun intended) And each season, it is opened wider and wider.
 
landtuna said:
only1moore said:
It looks like you might want to add CBS' "Partners" and "Made In Jersey" to that list. Both shows are in trouble based on their ratings alone.

Gee,,,,,who couldn't have seen that?

Am I the only one who feels like the networks are putting more and more gay-oriented shows on? I am not gay but don't have anything against them as a group but I also get tired of seeing the constant references to gays and their stereotypes. Even 'Survivor', which is not a scripted show, seems to publicize a gay participant in each season.

GLAAD just issued their latest report card, which showed that 4% of all primetime tv characters are gay. Given that the best estimate from sociologists is that anywhere from 3 to 5% of the population is gay- the representation of gay characters seems appropriate numbers wise.

It could just be anecdotal, your belief that gay characters are overrepresented in television, as maybe you don't personally have many or any gay friends or family members, so it seems like television overshoots the amount of gay people in America.
 
justpassingthough said:
GLAAD just issued their latest report card, which showed that 4% of all primetime tv characters are gay. Given that the best estimate from sociologists is that anywhere from 3 to 5% of the population is gay- the representation of gay characters seems appropriate numbers wise.

It could just be anecdotal, your belief that gay characters are overrepresented in television, as maybe you don't personally have many or any gay friends or family members, so it seems like television overshoots the amount of gay people in America.

I'm not sure it is realistic for "TV" to cast their shows according to the percentages in the real population. And that isn't what bothers me. No, what is bothering me is that gays, on TV and in real life, seem to purposefully publicize their "coming out" and other unique facets of their lives when those of us who are not gay do not. It is as if a gay person or character cannot exist without continually reminding everyone that they are gay. I, like most people, could care less.

I have yet to see or hear of a straight person announcing to the world that they are straight yet it seems a rite of passage to gays.

I fully understand that stereotypes of all manner make story fodder but it seems to me that who someone chooses to sleep with is inappropriate for public consumption. Unless the story being told expressly revolves around said bedroom why isn't it possible for gays to keep their sexual orientation transparent in the same manner as straights?

Compare the two gay characters in "Desperate Housewives" to the gay couple in "Modern Family". In DH, once they were introduced, there were some references to their situation (and the typical "redecorating" jokes) but the viewer wasn't beat over the head with it as with the MF storyline.

I wonder if GLAAD has taken a survey of the gay population in the film and TV industry and whether it is above that of the general population. I'd be willing to bet the numbers are significant.
 
landtuna said:
I have yet to see or hear of a straight person announcing to the world that they are straight yet it seems a rite of passage to gays.

I suppose you haven't seen the announcements page in any newspaper for the past 100 years. Or never noticed the ring finger on the dozens of people you encounter each week. Or stood up and applauded when your pastor announces a new "husband and wife". And I guess you missed the dating travails of nearly every teen-to-young-adult single person which have been documented on cinescope, videotape, and film. From the Andersons to the Cleavers to the Cunninghams to the Ewings to the Huxtables to the Dunpheys, characters have proclaimed their heterosexuality with every giggle, peck-on-the-cheek, full-blown affair, march down the aisle, anniversary celebration, and funeral.

You are just used to seeing it, which is why you don't notice it. Those of us who are gay have also seen it, every day of our lives. We notice it, mostly because so much of it has seemed impossible for us to participate for so long.

If a person is under 25, they don't notice it. That's the truly wonderful thing.
 
SanDiegoInExile said:
landtuna said:
I have yet to see or hear of a straight person announcing to the world that they are straight yet it seems a rite of passage to gays.

I suppose you haven't seen the announcements page in any newspaper for the past 100 years. Or never noticed the ring finger on the dozens of people you encounter each week. Or stood up and applauded when your pastor announces a new "husband and wife". And I guess you missed the dating travails of nearly every teen-to-young-adult single person which have been documented on cinescope, videotape, and film. From the Andersons to the Cleavers to the Cunninghams to the Ewings to the Huxtables to the Dunpheys, characters have proclaimed their heterosexuality with every giggle, peck-on-the-cheek, full-blown affair, march down the aisle, anniversary celebration, and funeral.

I have seen nuns wearing "wedding" rings and they are obviously not married to physical males.

As for the other examples you mention most are nothing more but displays of affection. When I was a boy it was common for female teens to walk hand-in-hand for the same reason yet are not telling the world what their sexual orientation is.

Tradition has marriage a union between a male and female so it is natural to display it in the same manner. It is also the natural order, not only among humans but also every species that mates.

It is not important to me whether or not any other person is gay or not and I don't need them publicly proclaiming it to the world. If it is part and parcel of a specific story then fine, it should be a valid topic but if not there is no point.

SanDiegoInExile said:
You are just used to seeing it, which is why you don't notice it. Those of us who are gay have also seen it, every day of our lives. We notice it, mostly because so much of it has seemed impossible for us to participate for so long.

While being gay is generally accepted more today than in years past I disagree that gays have not been able to "participate". If you are referring to a legal marriage then you have a point but it has always been possible for gays to live with one another - even if it wasn't publicly approved. I moved to S.F. in 1960 and saw a significant number of gays living with each other. It may not have been true in Jasper Junction but the big cities have been acceptable to gays for a very long time.

SanDiegoInExile said:
If a person is under 25, they don't notice it. That's the truly wonderful thing.

Do not mistake "notice" for "acceptance". Without being judgmental I see no significant difference in my children and their friends outlook towards gays than when I was a teen and young adult 40 years ago. They do indeed notice but it has become politically correct not to comment or display negativity. And I live in a generally liberal town.
 
landtuna said:
Do not mistake "notice" for "acceptance". Without being judgmental I see no significant difference in my children and their friends outlook towards gays than when I was a teen and young adult 40 years ago. They do indeed notice but it has become politically correct not to comment or display negativity. And I live in a generally liberal town.

Could not agree with you more. Even us older guys learned "acceptance" a long time ago.
I never had a problem having gays as neighbors, or co-workers. And I never thought the cops
should be kicking down their bedroom doors to see what is going on in there or raiding their favorite bars.
And almost everyone you know who has been in the military served with some gays, generally speaking well of them.
Adults in an allegedly free country. Freedom of association. Live and let live.

People my age however are far more reluctant to mess with the basic building blocks of society,
such as marriage. Messing with that would in my opinion have many negative effects on society that
would be bad for all of us, including gays. (and I will openly admit that we straights have done FAR
more to destroy the institution of marriage to this point than gays ever have).

Younger people do not see it this way though. They are almost completely ambivalent on the issue.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom