Jump to content

  • Home
  • Help
  • Contact
  •  

Photo

TV Showrunners vs. TV Fans: Who's really in charge?


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 pipergale

pipergale

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 1,450 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 05:32 AM

Where is the enjoyment of watching a show, if the producers are letting the fans write the script? There's no point in me watching something if I already know what is going to happen and how things are going to transpire. I'm not much of a writer myself to begin with, I would rather leave that up to the pros. Besides, these shows may be very important to the people who created them, this is their project, not yours.

 

You have a point. The writer's money went into these projects and they are without a doubt THEIR projects. But if you want to put a show out there, make sure that fans like it, otherwise there isn't much point. Skins s7 was the absolutely worst fuck up ever in the history of television. Yet again another lesbian character on television does. Yet again. And it was just completely and utterly gratuitous. I am not saying that as a fan. I am saying that as a TV critic, along with many other tv critics, who said that it was just cruel and uncalled for, especially considering the following that the character had. That character had stopped gay teens from killing themselves, because they saw themselves represented on TV. They were given some hope.

 

Either way, the lesson is never back or root for lesbians couples on TV. They NEVER LAST, and expect one of them to die, cheat with a man even though they are lesbians, pr go to prison.


  • 0

#22 korinna

korinna

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 209 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 02:53 PM


Where is the enjoyment of watching a show, if the producers are letting the fans write the script? There's no point in me watching something if I already know what is going to happen and how things are going to transpire. I'm not much of a writer myself to begin with, I would rather leave that up to the pros. Besides, these shows may be very important to the people who created them, this is their project, not yours.

 

You have a point. The writer's money went into these projects and they are without a doubt THEIR projects. But if you want to put a show out there, make sure that fans like it, otherwise there isn't much point. Skins s7 was the absolutely worst fuck up ever in the history of television. Yet again another lesbian character on television does. Yet again. And it was just completely and utterly gratuitous. I am not saying that as a fan. I am saying that as a TV critic, along with many other tv critics, who said that it was just cruel and uncalled for, especially considering the following that the character had. That character had stopped gay teens from killing themselves, because they saw themselves represented on TV. They were given some hope.

 

Either way, the lesson is never back or root for lesbians couples on TV. They NEVER LAST, and expect one of them to die, cheat with a man even though they are lesbians, pr go to prison.

 

I think you made some very valid points about the representation of sexual minorities in the media. As I see it, this doesn't really have to do with whether writers and producers should give in to fan demands concerning certain "ships" or storylines, but more about the legitimate demands that racial/ethnic or sexual minorities should have a truthful and fair portrayal in mainstream media. I found an interesting article that gives an exposé over how ethnic minorities have been portrayed on television, which I think it is relevant also for the portrayal of gay men/lesbians. The problem is that even in our day and age when characters who deviate from the White/Anglo/heterosexual norm DO appear on television, writers/producers are still caught up in certain clichés,  such as the fact lesbians always have to die. Here is the analysis:

 

Evolutionary Stages of Minorities in the Mass Media

 

Stage one: invisibility

 

In Clarks’ first stage, a given minority group is generally ignored by the dominant group’s media, not even acknowledged to exist. Gerbner and Gross (1976) coined the term symbolic annihilation noting that “representation in the fictional world [of massmedia] signifies social existence” while absence denotes non-existence  A prime example of symbolic annihilation is that recurring African-American characters virtually vanished from network television in 1953 and would remain extremely scarce until 1965. American Indians too have suffered periods of symbolic annihilation. In reaction to this, in1976, singer and activist Buffy Sainte-Marie joined the cast of Sesame Street  largely, she said, to prove to young people that “Indians still exist”.

 

Stage Two: Ridicule.

 

This is the stage in which minorities are lampooned and humiliated, which is ostensibly an improvement over being utterly ignored. A certain set of minority characters are portrayed as stupid, silly, lazy, irrational, or simply laughable. This was noted as early as 1920 by Du Bois. For centuries, he wrote, Europeans “have exhausted every ingenuity of trick ,ridicule, and caricature on black folk”. White minstrels’ performing burlesques “in blackface” is a prime example, and there are too many others to mention here. As to American Indians in film and television, they were often depicted as “simple, lazy, wasteful, and humorless; they are shown as lacking intelligence and English-speaking skills and as believing in heathenistic nonsense for religion”. 

 

Stage Three: Regulation.

 

Minority characters are presented as enforcers or administrators of the dominant group’s norms. This is the stage Clark seemed to focus on, noting that after centuries of Ridicule, black characters suddenly began appearing in regulatory roles during a period( beginning about 1965) when their “integration” into the larger society became the dominant paradigm. Part of the process of assimilation is a sort of rite in which minorities must, at least symbolically, serve as enforcers—or, as Clark called them, Regulators: police officers, soldiers, public-school teachers, administrators, and government functionaries. As a precedent, Clark posed the case of Irish immigrants, who in the late 19th century “took to the streets to violently protest the injustices perpetrated against [them]”. Irish Americans, he said, demonstrated that “they were no longer willing to tolerate being ridiculed and thus were grudgingly awarded a new stereotype.” The Irish American “suddenly found himself portrayed... instead as that super-guardian of the established order, the Irish cop.”

 

Clark suggested that an analogous process occurred in the late 1960s with African Americans once they demonstrated that they would no longer tolerate being ridiculed in the media, and indeed, the conclusions of the Kerner commission supported this. Thus African Americans were suddenly “raised” to the role of enforcers. Offering a table of characters from the 1969 television season, Clark showed how his Regulator theme applied to African American characters. He  identified 15 recurring African American characters on U.S. network television programs in 1969, 14 of which he said conformed to his Regulation stage: these were  police officers, private detectives, spies, military officers, military nurses, and public-school teachers.

 

Stage Four: Respect.

 

The fourth and presumably final stage, Respect, occurs when the minoritygroup in question ceases to be portrayed differently from the dominant group, and intergroup/interracial relationships are no longer deemed significant.

 

The article itself deals with how American Indians are portrayed in the media, and for those interested in reading it, I will give the link:

 

http://www.academia....Representations

 

My impression is that the situation has changed for the better in later years, and that the portrayal of African-Americans and other minorities has reached stage four. Another poster mentioned "Grey's anatomy", which I think is a good example of this, with its "color blind" casting. However, I think it's still quite common that POCs and American Indians are cast as "side-kicks" to the more important white protagonists, what Spike Lee has called the Magical Negro stereotype:

 

http://tvtropes.org/...in/MagicalNegro

 

The same somehow unrealistic or inauthentic portrayal seems to apply to lesbians, who for some reason (as you note) fall in love and cheat their partner with a man, a behavior that I find very odd, since the lesbian women I know are simply not interested in men at all!

 

This post veered away a bit from the original topic, hope that's OK!


Edited by korinna, 26 August 2013 - 03:07 PM.

  • 2

#23 pipergale

pipergale

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 1,450 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 07:43 AM

 


Where is the enjoyment of watching a show, if the producers are letting the fans write the script? There's no point in me watching something if I already know what is going to happen and how things are going to transpire. I'm not much of a writer myself to begin with, I would rather leave that up to the pros. Besides, these shows may be very important to the people who created them, this is their project, not yours.

 

You have a point. The writer's money went into these projects and they are without a doubt THEIR projects. But if you want to put a show out there, make sure that fans like it, otherwise there isn't much point. Skins s7 was the absolutely worst fuck up ever in the history of television. Yet again another lesbian character on television does. Yet again. And it was just completely and utterly gratuitous. I am not saying that as a fan. I am saying that as a TV critic, along with many other tv critics, who said that it was just cruel and uncalled for, especially considering the following that the character had. That character had stopped gay teens from killing themselves, because they saw themselves represented on TV. They were given some hope.

 

Either way, the lesson is never back or root for lesbians couples on TV. They NEVER LAST, and expect one of them to die, cheat with a man even though they are lesbians, pr go to prison.

 

I think you made some very valid points about the representation of sexual minorities in the media. As I see it, this doesn't really have to do with whether writers and producers should give in to fan demands concerning certain "ships" or storylines, but more about the legitimate demands that racial/ethnic or sexual minorities should have a truthful and fair portrayal in mainstream media. I found an interesting article that gives an exposé over how ethnic minorities have been portrayed on television, which I think it is relevant also for the portrayal of gay men/lesbians. The problem is that even in our day and age when characters who deviate from the White/Anglo/heterosexual norm DO appear on television, writers/producers are still caught up in certain clichés,  such as the fact lesbians always have to die. Here is the analysis:

 

Evolutionary Stages of Minorities in the Mass Media

 

Stage one: invisibility

 

In Clarks’ first stage, a given minority group is generally ignored by the dominant group’s media, not even acknowledged to exist. Gerbner and Gross (1976) coined the term symbolic annihilation noting that “representation in the fictional world [of massmedia] signifies social existence” while absence denotes non-existence  A prime example of symbolic annihilation is that recurring African-American characters virtually vanished from network television in 1953 and would remain extremely scarce until 1965. American Indians too have suffered periods of symbolic annihilation. In reaction to this, in1976, singer and activist Buffy Sainte-Marie joined the cast of Sesame Street  largely, she said, to prove to young people that “Indians still exist”.

 

Stage Two: Ridicule.

 

This is the stage in which minorities are lampooned and humiliated, which is ostensibly an improvement over being utterly ignored. A certain set of minority characters are portrayed as stupid, silly, lazy, irrational, or simply laughable. This was noted as early as 1920 by Du Bois. For centuries, he wrote, Europeans “have exhausted every ingenuity of trick ,ridicule, and caricature on black folk”. White minstrels’ performing burlesques “in blackface” is a prime example, and there are too many others to mention here. As to American Indians in film and television, they were often depicted as “simple, lazy, wasteful, and humorless; they are shown as lacking intelligence and English-speaking skills and as believing in heathenistic nonsense for religion”. 

 

Stage Three: Regulation.

 

Minority characters are presented as enforcers or administrators of the dominant group’s norms. This is the stage Clark seemed to focus on, noting that after centuries of Ridicule, black characters suddenly began appearing in regulatory roles during a period( beginning about 1965) when their “integration” into the larger society became the dominant paradigm. Part of the process of assimilation is a sort of rite in which minorities must, at least symbolically, serve as enforcers—or, as Clark called them, Regulators: police officers, soldiers, public-school teachers, administrators, and government functionaries. As a precedent, Clark posed the case of Irish immigrants, who in the late 19th century “took to the streets to violently protest the injustices perpetrated against [them]”. Irish Americans, he said, demonstrated that “they were no longer willing to tolerate being ridiculed and thus were grudgingly awarded a new stereotype.” The Irish American “suddenly found himself portrayed... instead as that super-guardian of the established order, the Irish cop.”

 

Clark suggested that an analogous process occurred in the late 1960s with African Americans once they demonstrated that they would no longer tolerate being ridiculed in the media, and indeed, the conclusions of the Kerner commission supported this. Thus African Americans were suddenly “raised” to the role of enforcers. Offering a table of characters from the 1969 television season, Clark showed how his Regulator theme applied to African American characters. He  identified 15 recurring African American characters on U.S. network television programs in 1969, 14 of which he said conformed to his Regulation stage: these were  police officers, private detectives, spies, military officers, military nurses, and public-school teachers.

 

Stage Four: Respect.

 

The fourth and presumably final stage, Respect, occurs when the minoritygroup in question ceases to be portrayed differently from the dominant group, and intergroup/interracial relationships are no longer deemed significant.

 

The article itself deals with how American Indians are portrayed in the media, and for those interested in reading it, I will give the link:

 

http://www.academia....Representations

 

My impression is that the situation has changed for the better in later years, and that the portrayal of African-Americans and other minorities has reached stage four. Another poster mentioned "Grey's anatomy", which I think is a good example of this, with its "color blind" casting. However, I think it's still quite common that POCs and American Indians are cast as "side-kicks" to the more important white protagonists, what Spike Lee has called the Magical Negro stereotype:

 

http://tvtropes.org/...in/MagicalNegro

 

The same somehow unrealistic or inauthentic portrayal seems to apply to lesbians, who for some reason (as you note) fall in love and cheat their partner with a man, a behavior that I find very odd, since the lesbian women I know are simply not interested in men at all!

 

This post veered away a bit from the original topic, hope that's OK!

 

Very nice post here : :)

 

it said a lot of things that I didn't have time to say in my previous post. I am a lesbian, and I would have done anything for lesbian representation on television when I was a teenager. It was a a difficult time for me and seeing other characters who were like myself on Tv really would have helped.

 

One of the main shows that is ridiculous as far as lesbians visibility goes is Glee. That claims a forward-thinking lgbt kind of shows, that is written by people in the lgbt community, and yet they completely jacked up Brittany's bisexual visibility. When she was with Santana, she never spoke, and hardly had any scenes. The only scenes she did have were of a sexual nature and were not serious at all, refraining from depicting a normal and healthy loving relationship between two women. We also had to wait two seasons before their first kiss.

 

THE MOMENT she got with a boy, she was talking all of the time, and finally was allowed to be shows without that sex symbol of a cheerleader's uniform. They also kissed in the very first episode in which they got together. They even made a joke about how brittany didn't speak when she was with Santana, and then brittany's character broke the fourth wall and addressed all of the angry lesbians bloggers who were going to be pissed about brittany being with a boy, and no longer being with a girl.

 

At that point, I was like fuck Glee and Ryan Murphy, but this is a show where a female character gets nowhere unless the male character is somehow involved.

 

We were not angry because brittany was with a boy now. We were angry because of the major differences in how brittany behaved when she was with a girl and how she behaved when she was with a boy. Then the actress who plays brittany came out and said that brittany and Santana were just close friends who had sex, and trivialized the entire thing down to sex, as if lesbians do not face enough of that.

 

The fact of the matter is that most of the media is denoted trough the perspective of a white male, which is why lesbians are only ever good for sex, and never have a true loving relationship. Sooner or later there has to be a penis in there somewhere, or a death. A senseless death. The message is clear. Lesbians are only ever good for the fetishism of men. They are incapable of having true relationships.

 

The only roles that black characters get is joker, or the hostile one. Not much more than that. But I am used to that, as I am also black.


Edited by pipergale, 27 August 2013 - 07:44 AM.

  • 1

#24 korinna

korinna

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 209 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:31 AM

Wow, thanks for the reply! You know, my very best friend since childhood is lesbian/bisexual (she had a few long relationships with men before she met "the love of her life") and I know that she and her partner liked the "L-word" a lot, because it was not just about "the token gay person" in a cast of heterosexuals. I didn't watch it myself, so I can't say if it gave a truthful representation of gay women. I do think the situation for ethnic and sexual minorities has improved a lot when it comes to mainstream media, but as you wrote, it is still the male perspective that dominates. The example from "Glee" was very telling-it's as if the writers wanted to show how much better it is for a woman to be with a man! The other thing that I could rant about for several pages are all the fan created "fake gay" slash couples like "Sterek" or "Johnlock". Lots of people seem to think that the shipping of such pairings is something that's positive for the LGBT community, but I have the impression that the majority of slash shippers could care less about LGBT issues....in fact, I suspect that most of them are straight fangirls who just like to see two gorgeous men together and fantasize or write fan fics about all the erotic stuff that doesn't happen on screen. The writers are well aware of the popularity of such pairings and then you get the "queer-baiting", with ambigious scenes that could be interpreted as mildly erotic if you put on your slashy "shipper goggles". In fact, I would say that this is about the worst kind of fan pandering, because the writers never give the viewers the real thing or acknowledge that they are portraying a gay relationship. That's probably why I loved the Agron/Nasir relationship on "Spartacus"...the showrunners weren't afraid to present the viewers with a REAL gay love story involving two very manly men, with everything it entails (including steamy sex scenes!) They might have done it solely for commercial reasons, but at least they didn't beat around the bush with "subtext" and ambiguous scenes that could be interpreted both ways.

 

Anyway,it was interesting to get your perspective on these issues! 


Edited by korinna, 27 August 2013 - 10:31 AM.

  • 1

#25 pipergale

pipergale

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 1,450 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 05:16 AM

You are welcome, and I am glad that someone else understands :) But even with The L Word that ended in a ridiculous  death. it was just so stupid in the end. I could not believe how it started out to how it finished, in just utter complete ridiculousness.

 

Yes, I mean lesbians and the lgbt community are so desperate for a real and true representation, that they are seeing subtext between characters who are heterosexual but these people ship them together romantically. That is how desperate people are, and it is sad. it shouldn't be like that. Skins was the only show to ever really get it right,and then the show ended and the lesbians couple were happy, both of them alive and no one had cheated with a man. Then to celebrate the Skins series, they came back and did three films, focused on three of the characters. The lesbians were broken apart by cancer, and death ensued. They barely had any scenes together, until emily discovered that her girlfriend had cancer and was going to die.

 

After the GARGANTUAN praise and following that naomi and emily got, they treated them like that. gave them 5 minutes together and then killed one of them off in the most senseless and cruel way possible. The entire story was for absolutely NOTHING!! after all of that, it was all for absolutely nothing.


Edited by pipergale, 28 August 2013 - 05:16 AM.

  • 1

#26 OhioTom76

OhioTom76

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 132 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 01:05 PM

 

 


Where is the enjoyment of watching a show, if the producers are letting the fans write the script? There's no point in me watching something if I already know what is going to happen and how things are going to transpire. I'm not much of a writer myself to begin with, I would rather leave that up to the pros. Besides, these shows may be very important to the people who created them, this is their project, not yours.

 

You have a point. The writer's money went into these projects and they are without a doubt THEIR projects. But if you want to put a show out there, make sure that fans like it, otherwise there isn't much point. Skins s7 was the absolutely worst fuck up ever in the history of television. Yet again another lesbian character on television does. Yet again. And it was just completely and utterly gratuitous. I am not saying that as a fan. I am saying that as a TV critic, along with many other tv critics, who said that it was just cruel and uncalled for, especially considering the following that the character had. That character had stopped gay teens from killing themselves, because they saw themselves represented on TV. They were given some hope.

 

Either way, the lesson is never back or root for lesbians couples on TV. They NEVER LAST, and expect one of them to die, cheat with a man even though they are lesbians, pr go to prison.

 

I think you made some very valid points about the representation of sexual minorities in the media. As I see it, this doesn't really have to do with whether writers and producers should give in to fan demands concerning certain "ships" or storylines, but more about the legitimate demands that racial/ethnic or sexual minorities should have a truthful and fair portrayal in mainstream media. I found an interesting article that gives an exposé over how ethnic minorities have been portrayed on television, which I think it is relevant also for the portrayal of gay men/lesbians. The problem is that even in our day and age when characters who deviate from the White/Anglo/heterosexual norm DO appear on television, writers/producers are still caught up in certain clichés,  such as the fact lesbians always have to die. Here is the analysis:

 

Evolutionary Stages of Minorities in the Mass Media

 

Stage one: invisibility

 

In Clarks’ first stage, a given minority group is generally ignored by the dominant group’s media, not even acknowledged to exist. Gerbner and Gross (1976) coined the term symbolic annihilation noting that “representation in the fictional world [of massmedia] signifies social existence” while absence denotes non-existence  A prime example of symbolic annihilation is that recurring African-American characters virtually vanished from network television in 1953 and would remain extremely scarce until 1965. American Indians too have suffered periods of symbolic annihilation. In reaction to this, in1976, singer and activist Buffy Sainte-Marie joined the cast of Sesame Street  largely, she said, to prove to young people that “Indians still exist”.

 

Stage Two: Ridicule.

 

This is the stage in which minorities are lampooned and humiliated, which is ostensibly an improvement over being utterly ignored. A certain set of minority characters are portrayed as stupid, silly, lazy, irrational, or simply laughable. This was noted as early as 1920 by Du Bois. For centuries, he wrote, Europeans “have exhausted every ingenuity of trick ,ridicule, and caricature on black folk”. White minstrels’ performing burlesques “in blackface” is a prime example, and there are too many others to mention here. As to American Indians in film and television, they were often depicted as “simple, lazy, wasteful, and humorless; they are shown as lacking intelligence and English-speaking skills and as believing in heathenistic nonsense for religion”. 

 

Stage Three: Regulation.

 

Minority characters are presented as enforcers or administrators of the dominant group’s norms. This is the stage Clark seemed to focus on, noting that after centuries of Ridicule, black characters suddenly began appearing in regulatory roles during a period( beginning about 1965) when their “integration” into the larger society became the dominant paradigm. Part of the process of assimilation is a sort of rite in which minorities must, at least symbolically, serve as enforcers—or, as Clark called them, Regulators: police officers, soldiers, public-school teachers, administrators, and government functionaries. As a precedent, Clark posed the case of Irish immigrants, who in the late 19th century “took to the streets to violently protest the injustices perpetrated against [them]”. Irish Americans, he said, demonstrated that “they were no longer willing to tolerate being ridiculed and thus were grudgingly awarded a new stereotype.” The Irish American “suddenly found himself portrayed... instead as that super-guardian of the established order, the Irish cop.”

 

Clark suggested that an analogous process occurred in the late 1960s with African Americans once they demonstrated that they would no longer tolerate being ridiculed in the media, and indeed, the conclusions of the Kerner commission supported this. Thus African Americans were suddenly “raised” to the role of enforcers. Offering a table of characters from the 1969 television season, Clark showed how his Regulator theme applied to African American characters. He  identified 15 recurring African American characters on U.S. network television programs in 1969, 14 of which he said conformed to his Regulation stage: these were  police officers, private detectives, spies, military officers, military nurses, and public-school teachers.

 

Stage Four: Respect.

 

The fourth and presumably final stage, Respect, occurs when the minoritygroup in question ceases to be portrayed differently from the dominant group, and intergroup/interracial relationships are no longer deemed significant.

 

The article itself deals with how American Indians are portrayed in the media, and for those interested in reading it, I will give the link:

 

http://www.academia....Representations

 

My impression is that the situation has changed for the better in later years, and that the portrayal of African-Americans and other minorities has reached stage four. Another poster mentioned "Grey's anatomy", which I think is a good example of this, with its "color blind" casting. However, I think it's still quite common that POCs and American Indians are cast as "side-kicks" to the more important white protagonists, what Spike Lee has called the Magical Negro stereotype:

 

http://tvtropes.org/...in/MagicalNegro

 

The same somehow unrealistic or inauthentic portrayal seems to apply to lesbians, who for some reason (as you note) fall in love and cheat their partner with a man, a behavior that I find very odd, since the lesbian women I know are simply not interested in men at all!

 

This post veered away a bit from the original topic, hope that's OK!

 

Very nice post here : :)

 

it said a lot of things that I didn't have time to say in my previous post. I am a lesbian, and I would have done anything for lesbian representation on television when I was a teenager. It was a a difficult time for me and seeing other characters who were like myself on Tv really would have helped.

 

One of the main shows that is ridiculous as far as lesbians visibility goes is Glee. That claims a forward-thinking lgbt kind of shows, that is written by people in the lgbt community, and yet they completely jacked up Brittany's bisexual visibility. When she was with Santana, she never spoke, and hardly had any scenes. The only scenes she did have were of a sexual nature and were not serious at all, refraining from depicting a normal and healthy loving relationship between two women. We also had to wait two seasons before their first kiss.

 

THE MOMENT she got with a boy, she was talking all of the time, and finally was allowed to be shows without that sex symbol of a cheerleader's uniform. They also kissed in the very first episode in which they got together. They even made a joke about how brittany didn't speak when she was with Santana, and then brittany's character broke the fourth wall and addressed all of the angry lesbians bloggers who were going to be pissed about brittany being with a boy, and no longer being with a girl.

 

At that point, I was like fuck Glee and Ryan Murphy, but this is a show where a female character gets nowhere unless the male character is somehow involved.

 

We were not angry because brittany was with a boy now. We were angry because of the major differences in how brittany behaved when she was with a girl and how she behaved when she was with a boy. Then the actress who plays brittany came out and said that brittany and Santana were just close friends who had sex, and trivialized the entire thing down to sex, as if lesbians do not face enough of that.

 

The fact of the matter is that most of the media is denoted trough the perspective of a white male, which is why lesbians are only ever good for sex, and never have a true loving relationship. Sooner or later there has to be a penis in there somewhere, or a death. A senseless death. The message is clear. Lesbians are only ever good for the fetishism of men. They are incapable of having true relationships.

 

The only roles that black characters get is joker, or the hostile one. Not much more than that. But I am used to that, as I am also black.

I knew just from the commercials that Glee wouldn't be my kind of show either. Gay here too. I remember a while back I think the producers got into a bit of a war of words with Dave Grohl because he declined to have his music covered on their show, and I could totally side with him on that. Why would he want them to do some corny cheesy Kidz Bop style rendition of his work? It's childish and trivializes his music and homogenizes it into the "Glee" brand. Dave and the Foo Fighters are big supporters of the gay community - one of the founding and current members of their band is gay. I think the producers were trying to play the "homophobic" card with him on that and they were dead wrong. Does every gay guy have to be some home decorating guru, fashion savvy aspiring fashion designer, capable of busting into showtunes at a moments notice, complete with witty pop culture quips and sexual double entendre one liners, and impeccable grooming? Its either that or you're a two faced despondent closet case that can't accept yourself, "broke backing" it and on the brink of an alcohol and drug induced suicide.

 

I won't blame it entirely on mainstream media though, because even lower budget independent movies produced by and for gay audiences adhere miserably to these same stereotypical tropes.


  • 0

#27 pipergale

pipergale

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 1,450 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 04:49 AM

There have  been a few music artists who have declined to have their music on Glee now. Justin Timberlake being another one who they have a few run ins with because he won't let them desecrate his hard work with some cheesy crap story line, and believe me the story lines are absolutely ridiculous at best. There is ZERO continuity or anything like that. It is just one load of crap to the next. My shows need to at least not insult me or my intelligence, and being called an angry lesbians blogger and being called heterephobic is just not flying with me. Ryan Murphy is gay himself; he should know what this is like but he is insulting his own community. Lesbians were not angry about Brittany being with a guy. It was that she got to have everything with him in the same episode that they hooked up, when we had to wait years for santana and her to even have a first kiss and talk to one another onscreen. 

 

I think that low budget movies perpetuate these same stale stereotypes because they are looking to make it into the mainstream media? it is kind of like throwing up the all seeing eye if you are an aspiring singer, kind of agreeing that you will adhere to the mainstream agenda if they pick you up and make you big.


  • 0

#28 VTEC 91244

VTEC 91244

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 08:21 AM

I watched a few episodes of Glee and I've found myself more interested in the singing and dancing than the plot so I didn't continue it. I personally do not care about what ships are shown onscreen or to be offscreen but still there, as long as the plot is good, and the episodes are well written, I'll watch it. I also don't care to label other peoples sexuality, nor my own. After all, who really cares?

 

Yes, I agree about the low budget movies. Also, some of those just starting out haven't yet found their own creative vision and are just combining things they've seen and liked and found were successful from other movies. Hopefully, things will change.


  • 0

#29 pipergale

pipergale

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 1,450 posts

Posted 20 June 2014 - 01:06 AM

I watched a few episodes of Glee and I've found myself more interested in the singing and dancing than the plot so I didn't continue it. I personally do not care about what ships are shown onscreen or to be offscreen but still there, as long as the plot is good, and the episodes are well written, I'll watch it. I also don't care to label other peoples sexuality, nor my own. After all, who really cares?

 

Yes, I agree about the low budget movies. Also, some of those just starting out haven't yet found their own creative vision and are just combining things they've seen and liked and found were successful from other movies. Hopefully, things will change.

 

I am not one for musicals. They are unrealistic and it makes it hard for me to get into anything that a show has to offer. Nobody just breaks out into song. How am I suppose to take characters and stories seriously lo?? But even if you don't like musicals I would have thought that the story would have been enough but sadly it wasn't. Some sexist shit went down in Glee, though very covert if you don't know what you are looking for.


  • 0

#30 AllBuffedUp

AllBuffedUp

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 29 December 2014 - 08:56 PM

If you make something for the public, you're making entertainment. It could still be considered art, but it's harder, because you are moving in the directions of what is expected and "correctedness" and all. If you don't listen or pay attention to your fans, then you might be closer to what is generally called art; can be obscure, can evolve in different and sometimes opposite directions, complex and a somehow challenging and not quite what you expected. But not everybody spends a day at work and wants to come home to watch some artsy and challenging and a bit frustrating TV, so entertainment usually wins out! (Unless you're Arte, but the name has to stand for something!)

 

That said, if you from the start just want to tell a story to deliver to a public on TV in multiple episodes, then all the more will to cater to what they would like. You want that they come back for the next episode. It's a bit unfortunate when it makes writers and directors less risky and more conventional, but overall understandable, and it does not have to be a bad thing to listen to the fans. I mean, they are fans because they love the show, so it's not like taking advice from completely clueless people.


  • 0

#31 FanGirl

FanGirl

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 29 December 2014 - 10:56 PM

I think the thing that controls Television is the advertisers. If they, the shows, can not get sponsers to advertise it is not going to last long. I am very happy to finally see all these new shows appearing on internet TV and other sources besides cable. Crackle TV is wonderful, you do not have to watch 40 commercials in a half an hour, they have some really good series and they run older shows and movies.

 

Advertisers need viewers so creators are always looking for whatever they think will keep people watching. I can't say all shows are wonderful, Frankly I am surprised that things like Survivor have lasted this long. I wonder what ever happene to the TV Variety shows, and wish that classic TV had better mixes to choose from. I really am sick of things like Dragnet and Adam 12, there are so many other great shows, but in the end someone is watching it right?  Ad dollars speak if you doubt that wait till the Superbowl


  • 0

#32 TVismyfriend

TVismyfriend

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 302 posts

Posted 14 January 2015 - 04:37 PM

I think it depends on the show runner in question. The Walking Dead creators don't seem to cater to fans. They care about their fans, but they don't let them influence the writing.
People on Twitter were so angry about Beth's death that it became a trending topic.
It didn't make the writers change the story. They have a vision and they stick with it, even if it upsets some people.
  • 0

#33 Lushlala

Lushlala

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 26 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 09:32 AM

This is very interesting! I'm not sure where I got the idea from, but I've always thought the creators relied in part on ratings as an indicator as to whether or not to continue with a show. I've had so many shows cancelled on me like 4400 (I don't know if people will remember it) and The Event, both of which I thought had great potential. Wikipidea usually points to them being cancelled because of low viewer numbers. I doubt these numbers are very accurate because how many people still follow their favourite shows on a weekly basis? My husband and I don't watch our shows on TV, we tend to wait for the boxset to come out so we can watch the shows back to back :) So for me these figures are distorted, inaccurate and misleading!


  • 0

#34 Sefarad

Sefarad

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 152 posts

Posted 15 February 2015 - 08:00 AM

Either way, the lesson is never back or root for lesbians couples on TV. They NEVER LAST, and expect one of them to die, cheat with a man even though they are lesbians, pr go to prison.

 

Man, I totally hated it when I watched that!  That ruined the TV show for me, and I couldn't agree more with you... lesbian couples on TV never or rarely last... at least not the couples we get to see often in the TV show!  I'm not a lesbian, but when they make a lesbian character cheat on their partner with a man I can't help but to feel somewhat offended. 

 

I mean, a real lesbian would never do that! But those people want us to believe inside every lesbian woman there is an hetero woman waiting to come out and play, lol.  I find that so darn offensive!  My aunt is a lesbian and only likes women... she'd never do such a thing. She and her partner have been together for years!  Sadly lesbian couples never last this long on TV...


Edited by Sefarad, 15 February 2015 - 08:02 AM.

  • 0

#35 sammien94

sammien94

    Cordial

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 16 February 2015 - 07:21 AM

I think it reaaallyyy depends on the show. I don't think there's any show where the writers completely pander to the fanbase (except maybe Glee with this final season). There's HIMYM where the writers SHOULD have listened to the fans because that ending was just horrible. I personally think shows like person of interest is doing a good job with balancing keeping their vision and keeping the fans happy (by that I mean the whole Root/Shaw storyline was beautifully handled)


  • 0

#36 pafjlh

pafjlh

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 718 posts

Posted 26 February 2015 - 04:41 PM

I think that a balance is definitely in order.  I agree that showrunners should be in charge, but they also need remember who they are doing the show for and that would be the fans.  That doesn't mean let the fans run everything where the show is concern.  But if fans want more balance and use of characters in general.  If fans aren't too fond of a current storyline if fans would like to see a direction changed, then maybe its a good idea to listen to what they have to say. Othere wise a show could suffer, especially if a majority of the fans aren't happy.  After all, it is the viewers who keep the show on the air, and maybe listening to them to a certain degree is essential especially if the outcry is loud.


  • 0

#37 Sefarad

Sefarad

    Friendly

  • Members
  • 152 posts

Posted 13 March 2015 - 06:26 AM

I think it reaaallyyy depends on the show. I don't think there's any show where the writers completely pander to the fanbase (except maybe Glee with this final season). There's HIMYM where the writers SHOULD have listened to the fans because that ending was just horrible. I personally think shows like person of interest is doing a good job with balancing keeping their vision and keeping the fans happy (by that I mean the whole Root/Shaw storyline was beautifully handled)

 

Glee stopped being a great show when they tried to squeeze more money out of it with that ''contest'' TV show, that was when I thought: ''Ehh, not cool at all''. If they wanted to introduce more characters... fine do a casting! No need to be so greedy and cheap... enough to make a contest out of it.  I know some people liked, but others like me didn't.  I actually lost my respect for the show after that, plus a lot things changed for the worse right after that.


  • 0