Discussion in 'Dynasty 2017 Episode Threads' started by Snarky's Ghost, Oct 12, 2017.
I'm a minority in a minority, and only attracted by the same. Doesn't make things easy.
And he was, although he was also living his life in constant turmoil. He was being oppressed in his own home by his father and most others, weather or not they showed it explicitly. And the eyes of the world looked down on him. Those that did show support for him did in a way that 1980s television allowed and no more. This Steven is just much more comfortable in his own skin. He doesn't self edit himself or have to affect a role in order to pass in his father's world. Al Corley's Steven seemed to have been doing that for forever prior to the pilot and had just reached breaking point. This nuDynasty has chosen to not deal with any of that, and I think that was a wise choice.
Among those who publicly identify as such, then, yeah.
But there's an entire world out there of non-hetero activity practiced by non-sterotypes (not to get into "0ne six-pack away from a BJ" exaggerations) but I tend to think that most publicly proclaimed gays folks don't seem to see past the straight-world's comfortable stereotypes of what "gay" is anymore than straight people do.
... although, I realize, Steven has publicly proclaimed.
I'm glad they don't write Steven that way anymore either. But why does that mean he has to go back to the queeny thing? It's not any more honest.
And if anybody wonders, the producers' handling of Steven in the '80s was seen as regressive even then. This was done not just because ABC wanted Steven "cured" but because Aaron Spelling was, as Doug Cramer said later, "very uncomfortable with it."
Gee. Wonder why, Aaron.
I've read a lot of reasons, but this is new to me!
And handsome, very handsome for 1981. So I'd call it characteristic-pretty.
No, of course a gay character doesn't have to be pretty to be interesting. But since he's the only gay character (besides Sammy Jo) in a world of "money, power and lust"...I mean, we're not talking about a gay diversity here.
I don't think he's queeny. Not at all. Sammy Jo is much more so - in spite of the stubble and leathers. Or maybe because of? I don't know...
Not even his voice?
It was a major issue muttered about by the public, and ostensibly straight men, but rarely found its way into the blogs or the media, I guess. (Maybe that's why nobody on the left except Michael Moore predicted Donald Trump's horrific victory in 2016 -- that kind of Trump-votong male, not that I have any respect for them per se, mutters and mumbles and the media ignores it, sometimes to our peril).
NuDALLAS seemed very contemporary in tone, but not in a good way, because it had that daytime "for women and gay guys" flavor to it (to say nothing of nuDALLAS' narrative problems, and it forcing the Ewings into being secondary characters in their own show).
And while it's hard to believe people didn't think of oldDYNASTY back in the '80s as "that gay show" (it was just a huge hit everybody seemed to keep up with, but then '80s pop and MTV seems very gayish in retrospect) the elements which made it that way (and which almost worked) aren't quite here in nuDYNASTY. It's just about vocal fry.
So nuDALLAS was "too gay" and nuDYNASTY isn't "gay enough."
Not that I condone any of that, of course.
No, he sounds Australian trying to be American. The queeniest thing about him was his wrist wear which seemed a little excessive but then he is Alexis's son.
I find how most people on contemporary American shows speak to sound the same. It's kinda Valley Girl sassy and it's awful. I guess when men speak that way it comes off worse. Solution? Less American cast which is fine for Dynasty I think. lol
OZ and Six Feet Under had some great gay characters. Handsome (but not too pretty) manly (but not too hunky) and still very believable as being a gay character.
You mean, people who look like you? Is it uncommon to be attracted to people with similar features and traits?
Yes, a post-post Valley Girl thing. And indeed it is awful. We hear it more from the women, because it's more part of female culture nowadays.
That was a key flaw in MAD MEN for me. Only Christina Hendricks, who was perfect, didn't do it. All the other women, the regulars at least, dispensed vocal fry with every line, ripping their scenes out of the '60s decade the show tried so desperately to reproduce and placing those scenes unmistakably into the 21st century.
When men do it, like Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser), it almost comes off as something different. A quaver that reads as something else. Matthew Broderick did it long before vocal fry became an acknowledged trend.
But when women do it -- and it's almost universal now -- there's this horrible (and this has been said by other observers of such trends, not just by me) infantilized authoritarian thing about it. It assumes a woman's correctness topically, while revealing a childishness emotionally, albeit an entitled childishness which can not be questioned.
Which tells us buckets about the state of them pesky womenfolks today.
It's womansplaining. Although no one would dare admit that that's a thing.
Worse, it's childwomansplaining.
No, not look like me. It's more the attitude, the expressions, the behaviour overall.
For example, i do often have to explain myself, when i say i'm gay. I normaly do get commets like "YOU GAY?! but you don't look like", "but you don't talk like", "but you don't walk like"... and so on. It's like i have to defend myself of not being queer, just because i'm gay.
And that's what i want as a mate too. But that has nothing to do with the looks ... unless we're talking make-up and such stuff.
Maybe that's why I'm not fond of sexual orientation labeling. Not that I don't do it myself.
Yes, sometimes i feel like an Outsider even in the Gay capital of Europe.
But I'm just a man that behaves like the majority of men. And i like men who are like that as well. But then i still have to defend myself.
I like labels they make it easy to find what I want. I mean I don't want to grab me some paprika when I'm looking for cinnamon. But that's just me, a place for everything and everything in it's place.
That's easy as long as you belong to a majority in a minority, but not the other way around.
Weirdly I never even think of myself as belonging to a minority.
Because you don't!
Separate names with a comma.