 by Brian Juergens
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 67 members and 1782 guests online.
|
Liveblogging "As the World Turns": Expelliarmus!!
Today we learn that, as a result of his underhanded campaign tactics and Noah's decision not to lie for him, Luke is expelled from Hogwarts Oakdale U. Looks like it's correspondence school for young Snyder! (Might I recommend Air Conditioner Repair?) How will Luke's shady politics and clear obsession with Kevin affect his relationship with Noah? And how exactly will his grandma's BFF Brian "Wheatables" Wheatley play into all this? Click on through the jump and refresh often to find out ... as it happens! Expecto dramatis! 2:55PM EST: Butters and Ali are skateboarding outside the high school. Boy, that's exciting! Maybe they'll get arrested for soliciting minors on top of it. Back at the Lily Pad, Lily goes off to tattle to Holden and Noah tells Luke that he couldn't lie. Luke is furious and screams at him that he didn't turn Luke in because it was "the right thing" but because he is jealous. Ouch! Lady Drumstick tells Wheatables that they shouldn't get physical until she gets her new breasts, and Wheats says "I'm interested in you, not your breasts" and hugs her. Nope, nothing wrong here! Noah and Luke get deep into an argument, with Luke blaming Noah for everything. He plays the "oh, why don't I just go enlist" card and Noah's all, "Whoa, low blow." Luke says he can't even look at him. Noah asks if Luke wants him to stay and Luke says "no", and as Noah is leaving Luke screams, "IF YOU DON'T WANNA BE HERE, NOAH, YOU SHOULD JUST GO!" Preview Time!: Luke gets trashed! Oh boy this is gonna be fun... 2:48PM EST: Alyssa Milano has a line of NFL wear for ladies?! Way to go, Samantha! Lady D and GLily come home to find Luke and Wheatables making hanging out and Wheats whisks Lady D away so Luke and Lily can have some time alone. Lily notices that Luke is distracted and he sits her down to tell her that he's a lousy cheat. He's clearly sorry about it, and when he tells her that he was expelled she's all, "your life is over". Ding-dong! It's Noah. Luke tells him that he doesn't want to speak to him and that he was expelled because of what he told the Dean. Ali and Butters whip out their shady pasts for a game of "I'm the bigger loser", with Ali besting Butters's "convicted felon" with her "meth addict porn star". Advantage Ali! Butters tells her that he was expelled along with Luke and she concedes the victory to him. Then she drags him off to "someplace fun and cool." Hey, they're leaving Oakdale? 2:37PM EST: Dusty just said "something tells me I'll never lose you, Emily." Maybe not, but once-a-day Valtrex can help with outbreaks. Oh, and Josie has worked her pussycat magic on some dresses for Mrs. Kardashian and finds one of Jennifer's designs. Then she picks up a picture of Jennifer's dad and is all "who's this?" This chick's got a way with digging up the wrong past ... it's like Audrey Rose for the Activia set! Wheatables tries to talk Luke down but he's not having it. He's all, "aren't you going to tell me how I effed up the Foundation?" and Wheats is all, "Mmm, no, you're doing okay on your own." 2:25PM EST: Lady D just said that Wheatables "isn't a male nurse or anything ... but he's detached." GLily assures her that she's not going anywhere. Drumstick tells her that her relationship with Wheats isn't romantic, he just doesn't have any sense of boundaries. Outside the Lily Pad, Luke runs into Wheatables, who tells him that his mom is off with Lady D. Wheats's Gay Teen Angst Senses start tingling, and he asks Luke what's wrong. Luke tells him that he just got expelled. Back at Dean Rayburn's, Butters barges in and tells the Dean that he was the one who fixed the election and that Luke had nothing to do with it. The Dean says that if that's the case he's expelled. That was easy! Emily just attacked Dusty like one of those face-huggers from Alien. Sexy! 2:18PM EST: Okay, the Playskool ad where the kid chases around the hot dad in khakis with the police motorcycle toy and throws him in jail? Put one of those things on my Christmas list. Josie is wowing us with her detailed knowledge of dress-making. Okay, where's my gays?! Wheatables leaves Lady D and GLily to not enjoy their drink together. GLily guesses that her mom's cancer is back. Back at Dean Rayburn's, he gives Luke a little pep talk about how he would have been a great leader if he weren't an election-fixing sack of crap. Meanwhile, Noah gets back to Java and Butters corners him and finds out that Noah talked to the Dean, and Butters flips out and brings up how Luke lied for Noah for months over the Ameera thing. Zing! The Dean tells Luke that Noah told him that he stuffed the ballot-box and asks Luke if it's true. This would be the perfect opportunity for Luke to point out that there hasn't been anything even close to box-stuffing going on between them, but Luke doesn't answer. 2:07PM EST: We start off with Ali having a Butters flashback (Butterback?) while deciding not to return his call. Meanwhile, Butters is at Java and he gets a coffee from the hunkadunk barista, who asks if he was caught up in "Snydergate". Heh! Back at Dean Rayburn's, Noah says to Luke, "I'm sorry..." and walks out, and the Dean calls Luke into his boudoir. Lady Drumstick and Wheatables are having dinner and I'm spotting a continuity error already: Lady D's martini glass is full, suggesting that it's been in front of her for at least a minute or two without being downed. As if! Lady D tells Wheats that she'll drop the cancer talk because the two of them are "good kissers" (eew!) and, on cue, he calls in Gilded Lily to take his place. Meanwhile, Dusty has taken Josie to get new clothes, where she asks for something a little sluttier, and Mrs. Kardashian comes up and kicks her out of the store. Emily has been poking around and tells Dusty that she can't find any background on the ginger nymph, and he tells her to butt out. Submitted by on Wed, 2008-11-12 14:55. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
Ugh
I can't believe that I just created an account to talk bout a frakkin soap opera. I will give props that the actors are actually able to act with this horrid and silly storyline. I get its an election season, but c'mon its a university student presidency, which if anyone understands does nothing.
It's just resume fodder.
Best liveblog joke ever!
"Dusty just said "something tells me I'll never lose you, Emily." Maybe not, but once-a-day Valtrex can help with outbreaks."
I literally spit up my Pepsi when I read that! Thank you!
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
Oh, I love this...
The angry LUKE is hot as hell (just like angry Olli). "maybe I should enlist in the military!" BURN!
Can you handle THE 80'S ACCORDING TO SNICKS?
A new UGH!
dump him. oh wait, you did.
Luke was willing to go to jail for ICE and stand by and watch Noah knoodle with Ameera.
Noah is unable to love a man with a tarnished reputation, or defend him when he makes a misstake. So, Luke is just a projection of Noah's loss of respect for his dad? I mean it isn't real love, just that Noah was and is vulnerable because of his over barring father. And by it I mean 'gay love.'
Ah, Activia. Will yogurt
Ah, Activia. Will yogurt that helps you poop ever stop being funny?
I sure hope not. ;Þ
Complain complain
This may not be the greatest story in the history of soaps, but it certainly isn't the worst one. I've noticed a lot of people just complain and complain every week about how lame ATWT's handle of Nuke has been, but the show has finally managed to create something believable and interesting, and I commend TPTB for doing so.
So far Luke has been the perfect little
doormatboyscout, from Noah's coming out, to Ameera, to Noah's daddy issues. But all of a sudden we finally get to see Luke's pitfalls and the tables have turned: Noah's now the one in the right (albeit getting a bit high and mighty considering his past decisions). Kevin was bang on when he said Luke has appealed to a single group of the students, the gays, and not really any other one. His motivation for entering the election was entirely to fight homophobia (arguably to get back at Kevin too), and while that is indeed a noble intention, it is not the only one that should concern the future president of a student government. Finally, I'm gonna venture a guess, if this spoiler http://www.afterelton.com/node/21359 proves to be true, that it'll only get crazier for Luke.So for all you nay-sayers that are all "please make Nuke have sex or kill Nuke now rather than drag it out", at least the show has finally come up with a believable reason for the ix-nay on the ay-gay ex-say.
I agree
.
In our next episode Luke becomes an alcoholic
This show needs to be cancelled. Uppity gays rule!!!!!
Luke and Noah are pathetic, but at this stage only marginally more so than the rest of this circus. While they don't get to have sex, they are just like all the other couplings on the show. Luke is the uppity fag/woman who disappoints her judgmental man, and Noah (like all the other men) get to pass judgment and be perceived as the"prizes" in a warped battle of the sexes.
This show used to be so much fun, but for so long I kept watching out of a sense of misguided duty. If I want to watch a sick circus, I've already found a freaky/fun one in True Blood. 1 campy hour of lunacy served cold once a week versus this daily judgment fiesta. I can only hope that Luke runs into Carly sometime and they can start a bad girls club and really have a blast. Lucinda can visit and camp it up for yucks if she continues being a hip chick :-)
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Yow!
soap fight
The writers decide what kind of fight is appropriate. Luke and Noah could have had an adulterous fight but instead are fighting over the fact that Luke cheated on the election because of gay issues. The moral of this fable is that uppity fagots will be punished. There are a million things Luke could have done to piss Noah off or even tarnish his own reputation and get kicked out of school and create "the good old fashioned soap fight." They could have punished him for cheating on a test (moral of the fable: cheaters never prosper.) They chose instead to punish him for being an uppity faggot.
I just don't see it.
I just don't see it. Rather than an uppity faggot, he's a deceitful faggot, or a cheating faggot, or an insecure faggot, or.... But not an uppity faggot. The analogy would be to those people (and they're out there, as hard as it is to believe) who see Barack Obama as an uppity black man, going where he has no business going. Luke could be seen by some as an uppity faggot if he won legitimately, just for going where their homophobic asses don't think he should go. But stealing an election is certainly not being uppity.
I'm very surprised how little scorn Luke has gotten here for what he did, which was truly despicable in every way. Instead, people want to blame Noah even more! Which seems bizarre. As a related aside, Karl Rove (or was it Lee Atwater?) got his start in dirty tricks and political malfeasance by cheating in a college election. Or so I'm told by a friend who saw Frontline last night.
No good punishment goes un-deeded
Ballot stuffing is despicable, but not life threatening. And being expelled, Luke's college career is over. What did Noah gain from all that?
My point is that the writers built Luke up as a gay activist, only to punish him for it. Yes, ballot stuffers should be punished. So should bank robbers (why didn't Luke rob a bank? which could have caused the same effect?) So, why did Luke stuff the ballot box. Is it in his character? Not until he got all uppity, it wasn't.
The Barack Obama example actually supports the uppity theory
Unfortunately, no building of any kind is allowed for Luke. He wanted to live in the dorms, but Noah preferred the wonderful family atmosphere of the farm so game over. Noah makes a decision that he has to marry Iraqui Dora and Luke has to accept that Noah is just being a good guy. Luke helps Noah get rescued from his madman father and Noah gives him the cold shoulder and blames him for his death. Luke gets pissed off about the "gay" film festival (which is never shown) and the writers come up with a 4 or 5 episode "storyline" that has Luke running for student body president. When Luke got ridiculed by the viral video, Noah did nothing to face Luke's attackers, actually told him to QUIT, and had a hissy fit thus leaving Luke even without a even shoulder to cry on.
The the show shifts mode as to why Luke is really running for office. That uppity fag... His reasons for running are almost irrelevant. Who cares if he just wants to beat Kevin? Is a one-issue pony? He has as much right to run as kegger-happy Kevin. Is any one going to town on him on why he wants it. Luke even has to defend whether he has unresolved feelings for Kevin from eons ago.... What if he just wanted to beat him just because. Good enough for me.
Do we hear Luke still asking Noah why he boned Luke's best friend Maddie or harping why he's never been intimate with him?
Luke is the "uppity fag" modeled after the modern Oakdale "woman" profile because if it were not for his sexual orientation, he could be as cold, judgmental, delusional as all the men in Oakdale have become. Luke, like the women (esp. the tough women) gets punished whether they are behaving badly or even being annoyingly saintly.
Ballot stuffing is a bad thing, but who even wants a ballot stuffing story? Yawn... As a fan of the genre, couples need to have ups and downs. Luke gets nothing but downers. It's as if every instinct that he has has to be curbed even more than when he was closeted. At least when he was "single," he did not have someone telling him that he needs to change/chill/accept. If that works for Noah, great, but it's his way or the highway. Hit the road Luke.....
My reason for ending my love-affair with this show occurred when I could not take another day of a moralistic cartoon that to me has all this great women and the would-be gay bottom (in the gross simplistic way that has straight people thinking that there is a "man" and a "woman" in gay relationships) having to behave like saints in order to be tolerated or deemed worthy of getting to be with these dullard (Holden, Jack, Noah, and even Dusty) men. BTW, some of these guys (excluding Noah) used to be fun and fell in love with women who were just as complicated as the men used to be. No more for either sex. Instead of creating couples and giving them compelling challenges, these scribes are satisfied to keep all the couples walking on egg-shells and this member of the audience bored to tears.
Is there one super-couple of this show basking in love? The more basking, the more compelling the obstacles when they arrive. Luke and Noah need to bask and while they will always have their differences, their lust, alleged friendship, empathy, and sexless time together should have at least created an "us against the world" vibe that then could be milked by bringing in real obstacles. Maybe Luke still has a thing for Kevin? Or he gets hit on by a transfer student who pushes his own boundaries?.... Drama at its best.... Just my take. Like Obama, Luke is presented as the uppity man. Obama had to run the perfect campaign at a time when the country is perceived as falling apart in almost every respect, to do accomplish what seemed impossible. Unlike Obama, Luke ran a lousy campaign, but at least seems to have gained a buddy in Casey.
I am not sure if any have considered that the writers created this storyline and had full creative license to run with it as it is fiction. How about giving the gay guy a victory when say the nerds in the chess club learned of the nasty video? A nerd/gay alliance is the new Ohio for Snyder. Or maybe he loses by a few votes, but maybe it brings him closer to Noah and ..... Silly I know, but what is silliest is that no matter what Luke does, he's miserable. Noah is already in serious need of Abilify. Luke only experiences joy when he gets to pal around with Casey, hang with with Lucinda, and once in a blue moon he's given a moment with mopey Noah.
Lesson to all the women and bottoms of Oakdale under Jean Passanante and Chris Goutman: Move to Lesbos with your "sisters" or be weighed down by the boredom and judgement to be found in being "uppity." Those women who are mothers should send their kids first as those are the first ones who will be taken from you when you are naughty. Carly, start packing! What a rant ;-) I am all hot air, so take me with a grain of salt...
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Brilliant G
I dont' see it either...
Since Luke and Noah have so little story line to go on, there was no other thing to fight over. Yes, yes, I know, they *should* have had more substance but whatever. Now, they are fighting and it's leading to Luke falling off the wagon, a split (probably temporary) for the boys, an older character making a pass at a younger one....
When you think about the awful things the straight characters have done...sex in a church, a man making internet porn with a teen girl young enough to be his daughter, a woman marrying her son's brother who is young enough to be her son....I don't get why you think this story of Luke and Noah is making the gays look bad. I think they look pretty damn good. Luke made a mistake due to his trying to counteract an act of hatred, Noah trying to be upstanding in the face of truth and lies but ends up messing up his boyfriend's life, and a sad and lonely older man going for a young gorgeous guy in a moment of vunerability (yet to be seen and judged, though).
I think these are very soapy stories, if totally out of character for the rest of the cast. Quit saying they are uppity faggots being punished. Some one from middle America out there might read it and go "oh, I hadn't thought of that". (I mean, you can say what you want, but you know, think about it)
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
I didn't write this stuff
.
Just shrug it off
...because someone is obviously missing the point. People simply don't understand the undercurrent of homophobia that exists w/ these s/ls (and they never will so piss in the wind). The problem is...neither do the writers. They can't see it because they're too stupid. They don't think about it. The rest of the show and the rest of the s/ls make that incredibly obvious.
I totally agree with what you're saying. The whole point is that Luke is being punished...for being some kind of fag (whether it's uppity, cheating, etc.). Only puritans would suggest that Luke should stay sweet and innocent and BORING. I would've welcomed a nasty Luke. But why couldn't the writers have made this a non-fag thing? Why couldn't he have decided that he was going to do something wicked that didn't involve him "trying" to be an activist for his community (although a shortsighted one)? He could've hacked into the university's system and stolen an exam, he could've blackmailed a professor b/c he was getting a shitty grade, etc. THIS I could buy. THIS would be okay. He is Damian's son and Lucinda's grandson. The apple doesn't fall far. But when they tie it back into his wanting to elevate his community...it jumps the shark.
Awesome post Lo!!!
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Thanks!
Man...I would completely rip this mother open if I were writing this s/l. But, I'm logical, not stuck in 1945, can think of 2,000 different s/l for all the characters that don't rely on outdated and moronic stereotypes and that might actually be something new, and think that gays should have a great s/l. Therefore, I'm not qualified to be a writer on ATWT.
You would have been perfect for the 1980s and 1990s when the
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Maybe *someone* else is missing the point...
They are using a "gay" storyline for Luke because it's the only storyline they have for him. Dumb? yes, I'm not disputing that. But, you are so sure that he is being punished for being gay, when actually he is being punished for breaking the law while being cornered. He is not being a stupid gay guy, he is just a stupid guy. How would you have read it if Kevin had been the one stuffing the ballot box? He would have been punished for breaking the law, not for being...something else. That is the double standard here. Not everything is an anti-gay conspiracy although I can certainly see how you would jump to that conclusion considering the world we live in today. Just remember, his life is probably not ruined by being expelled. Dusty's life was not ruined by being KILLED for pete's sake. This is not the end of the story and Van has a contract. Next week, a whole new stupid will be revealed and....Nukely, you and I will be arguing about that! (you know I love you, right?)
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
Very well put. I don't
Very well put. I don't want to insult anyone, but it does seem to me that some people are almost going out of their way to perceive slights that don't really exist. I still don't get the "uppity" part. Generally, you call someone uppity when they try to rise above their "assigned" station somehow. In other words, when they try to act like they're better than you really think they are. I'm not seeing how stooping to deceit and cheating is somehow rising above your assigned station.
Janet - You just penned one of the funniest lines of the year: "Dusty's life was not ruined by being killed"!!! I laughed out loud!Luke ran
I am not looking at this as a slight. I am looking at this from a writers standpoint. I don't know if I wrote this here or in the essay I was working on a couple months ago. They have been developing Luke and Noah into the "Good Gay" and the "Bad Gay". Noah is the God fearing gay, who seems destined to be celibate his entire life. Luke is the "Out" gay, who is destined to be punished for it for his entire life. The AFA types will immediately relate to the characters and embrace one and click their tongue at the other. Likewise, I thing they expect gay rights activists to do the same in reverse.
Except I'm having a hard time playing the game when the uppity gay is being punished for it, which makes me think they don't want me to play at all.
Hissy
I'm not picking sides in the great debate because I think they're both wrong. But gotta love the hissy fit Luke threw at Noah. So passive-aggressive there at the end. Go!! You're not staying? Loved it.
Lovin' It!
I'm loving where this storyline is going. It was boring for so long, or silly, or unbelievable. It's getting much more interesting, and if what I've heard about where they're going with Wheatables is true, I'll be loving it even more. Think about it: instead of just arguing about the sex/no sex issue, we're passionately arguing about what the actual characters are doing, who's wrong and who's right, the point where lying is OK vs. where it isn't, etc. And the boys are having a legitimate fight about a legitimate issue. It's terrific! And it's what soap operas do at their best. And who knows, maybe this will all end with makeup sex!!!! (I know, I know, but a boy can dream....)
I'm loving the prospective Wheatables angle too. I'm very surprised that they decided to go there....where no soap has gone before. It's unconventional, a little daring, anything but safe, and downright scandalous. I can't wait!
Wheatables, not so innovative
One Life to Live used the "closeted gay guy marries beloved soap heroine" storyline a few years ago with Nora (who is played by a former Margo, btw, and whose character was involved with a character played by Laurence Lau who is now playing Wheatables--small world).
Unfortunately, that storyline ended up with the closeted gay guy murdering anyone who stumbled onto his secret.
My point, although it is taking forever to get to, is that the Wheatables/Lady Drumstick/Luke storyline is not really "where no soap has gone before."
That's not what I meant....
Possible Spoiler
Are you talking about the intergenerational thing, or the unwanted advances? I'm probably not the one to discuss the first, because I wasn't watching OLTL during either of their major gay storylines, but my understanding is that both had intergenerational aspects (the first had an Episcopal priest accused of being involved with Ryan Phillipe's character, the second had the closeted psycho-killer involved with a college-age student, I believe).
But the unwanted advances aspect is definitely new to soapdom. Gays, like blacks before them, have so few representatives, that TPTB are afraid to use them as villains (see the huge backlash when OLTL revealed its last gay character as gay and a psychokiller). It would be refreshing to have a gay character who isn't exclusively noble and long-suffering.
I'm interested in where this storyline goes.
Preview Time!: Luke gets trashed! Oh boy this is gonna be fun...
I agree!!!!!
The writers remember Luke is Damian'son and Lucinda's grand child, at last.
I would love to see an evil Luke, but a drunk Luke would be fine.(He was an alcoholic after all).
Perfect Luke and Noah were so boring, it's a soap, not "Little House on the prairie"!!!
Van's hissy fit
I can't decide if I care for the storyline or not - it almost seems like they're providing an excuse to exit Luke from the show - he can't go to Oakdale U., but some college in Switzerland will take him or something. That bothers me, I mean what else is going to occupy his life without school at this stage (well, he is rich).
The one thing about his hissy fit - I couldn't help thinking as I watched it - Van is a stage actor - and it showed. The hystrionics just struck me as that over-the-top way stage actors often play that style of scene to slap the live audience in the face with the immediacy. It didn't play like television or film, it felt like a stage performance. Random thought...
Noah = Bad Boyfriend Because?
So, I've been really trying to understand something here that has been bugging me for months and months and I've ranted and raved and really tried to listen to folk with opposing opinions.
I think Noah is a good boyfriend and I think Luke is impatient when he's not getting his way but I think they make a great couple because they balance each other out.
But with this whole election thing it seems clear that folks just have it in for Noah. He can do no right. He is suppose to blindly follow Luke wherever Luke goes because he loves him.
Under any other circumstance, I can't image most reasonable folks thinking cheating in an election for University student body president wasn't a big deal for the students.
It might not matter if you're not a student at that university, but if you are a student, the student body president has all the power about how your college activity fees are spent and can dictate what the political and social climate on a campus is like. When I was in college, my whole world was school so I would have been completely invested in how my student government was run (particularly as an out lesbian very involved in lgbt issues on campus)
It seems like the folks who are mad a Noah for being "high and mighty" are mad because they don't think Noah should have married Ameera AT ALL, under any circumstances, regardless of his reasons for doing so and that because he did so, nothing else he does will ever make him a good boyfriend.
Obviously, I don't agree. I think he made a quick decision because he believed he was saving her life and he felt guilty about his father. He was very careful about the ICE outside of their apt but when they were inside, I feel like he tried every way he could to show Luke that he loved him, he did not want to be with Ameera, he was not affectionate towards her and he was very clear with her about his love for Luke. I don't know what else he could have done to prove he loved Luke. He wanted Luke to move in with him, sleep with him in the bedroom and he even said he didn't care if it upset Ameera.
It doesn't matter that Luke (and his entire family) agreed to the marriage of his own free will.
It doesn't matter that Noah asked Luke repeatedly if he was okay with the decision.
It doesn't matter that Noah told Luke he wouldn't go through with it if Luke was opposed to it.
However (and I don't know if this is just a guy thing so somebody let me know) It's like the very fact that Noah made the decision to marry Ameera was some kind of betrayal or affront to Luke. Somehow Noah "fake" marrying Ameera was like cheating on Luke?
Marrying Ameera made Noah a bad boyfriend. Period.So that was like his second strike (after he allowed his father to shoot and paralyze Luke which was his first strike)
So I'm guessing the third stike must have been Noah's deciding to join the Army?
I'm really trying to understand it because I feel like there is this kind of understood hatred of Noah and I've watched every episode of this storyline at least twice and I didn't come to the same conclusion that Noah is a bad boyfriend.
There also seems to be some kind of gendered thing going on where folks think Noah is "the man" and Luke is "the woman", which is weird because folk on AE are always saying how much they hate when folks treat gay men like "women".
But back to the central issue,
Here's what I want to understand. Do folks feel Noah is a bad boyfriend because
1) His father shot Luke (which is somehow Noah's fault?)
2) He married Ameera (so that's like cheating?)
3) He broke up with Luke when his father died (so he abandoned Luke?)
4) He decided to join the Army (he abandoned Luke again?)
5) He admitted to the dean that Luke stuffed the ballot boxes (he's a hypocrite because of the whole ICE thing?)
The no-sex thing seems to be pretty evenly both of their faults.
Everyone implies that somehow Noah is not has hot or Luke as Luke is but that just doesn't really read with what has happened in the story so I think there is some weird kind of analysis going on.
It's like because Noah slept with Maddie, he has to PROOVE that he's really gay and that he wants to have sex with Luke. Luke doesn't have to proove that he's gay because Luke has never slept with a woman?
I don't believe this to be true but from what folks are saying, I'm assuming this is where all the stuff about Luke finding a boyfriend who is WILLING to have sex with him is coming from.
As far as I can see, everytime Noah brings up sex or moving out, Luke brings up his family and Emma's rules. Luke freaked out once when he found out Holden was cheating but other than that, Noah's been the most vocal about wanting to have sex (he thinks about it all the time he says) and he's made most of the first moves (not all, but most)
Luke wants to keep them on the farm which seems to be the main impediment (if we go along with the story as written) and Noah seems more that willing to move into an apt with Luke.
Okay, so I'm genuinely interested.
Is this why folks think Noah is a bad boyfriend and are therefore being so hard on him with regard to the whole cheating thing?
Granted, must of us are not college age so maybe we've forgotten how important that school stuff is when you're actually in school. But I also think that what Luke did is as much about "where he's headed" as it is about the actual election.
I don't even think it's a moral issue.
Luke made a decision. On his own and with Casey
Luke wanted to win the election by any means necessary and he was willing to cheat if that's what it took.
Noah from the very beginning was not about cheating or lying or using any of the dirty tricks Kevin pulled and he believed that if that's what it took to win the election, Luke should drop out.
I think each individual has to draw their line in the sand.
Luke has every right to cheat if that's what he wants to do. But by telling Noah that he intended to do so, he made him an accomplice to something that Noah didn't approve of and wouldn't have gone along with.
Stuffing the ballot boxes was a crime within the confines of the school and that's just not fair to do to someone you love. You can't use love as a weapon and expect people to just go along with everything you do because they love you.
Noah told the truth because he didn't think cheating to win was right and he didn't think the fact that his love did the cheating was more important than the truth.
Just like Luke marched into the hotel against Noah's wishes and outted Noah to the recruitment officers (which he really had no right to do, boyfriend or no boyfriend) because HE didn't belive that Noah joining the Army was the right thing for him to do.
The difference is, Noah didn't deny being gay, he didn't act like Luke had betrayed him for outting him, he didn't throw a fit and kick Luke out of his hotel.
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorthy Parker)
A lot of questions
There also seems to be some kind of gendered thing going on where folks think Noah is "the man" and Luke is "the woman", which is weird because folk on AE are always saying how much they hate when folks treat gay men like "women".
Like I said - a lot of questions so I'll hit two. I don't think it's "a guy thing" or even a gay thing to feel deeply hurt or, yes, betrayed when the one you love marries another. No matter how noble the cause. It's a "relationship thing." After all - who should come first? As I remember it Noah didn't pay much attention to all the little signals that Luke was giving off. That bothered me. And he didn't give him much time to get used to the idea either. So it wasn't cheating IMO. It was about putting Luke in a damned if you do and damned if you don't position. And maybe because Noah was so recently out of a relationship with a woman the whole nobility thing was somewhat in question. It didn't play out that way but it hit me as suspect at the time.
As for that old canard about who acts the boy and who acts the girl. It's a stereotype that most of us find offensive because it's usually framed from a straight POV. One has to be the catcher and the other receiver. That crap. It knows nothing of the nuance of gay male relationships. And it doesn't take into account the different expressions of masculinity that exist. So, there is something subtle about the - forgive me - gender performance of the two actors. That's not unrealistic. Maybe I'll get slammed for this but most of my friends can tell you which is the butcher one in any given couple. Nothing wrong with that. From my experience it doesn't neccessarily extend into the bedroom and it isn't static.
Last thing and this is purely conjecture. Maybe a bit of the anti-Noah vibe you sense comes from it being an open secret that Van Hansis is gay. Maybe some are consciously or not rooting for the home team.
Oops
soap roles
Soaps can project very sexist viewpoints. That may have developed because they were originally written for an audience of one sex, making the viewpoints more obvious. In the classic soap story line, the women are either schemers or martyrs and the men are flat out clueless. On ATWT the women tend to be week and self defeating, and as Guillermo has pointed out, they are constantly disappointing their judgmental menfolk. It seems like the shows writers only have a couple of archetypes to draw from, even less so for the gay couple, who fall into the same hack relationship traps, to the point where we can identify which one they are writing as "the man" and which one they are writing as "the woman.".
But is it crafted or just percieved to be this way?
I can totally see how it comes off this way. Especially, given the trend.
Carly/Jack
Janet/Jack
Lily/Holden
Emily/Dusty
Allison/Everybody and their Chihuahua
However, I don't think its as insidiously sexist/gender-specific as one might think. The writers definitely use this device as a crutch for crafting conflict, but I think it has more to do with the given characters' traits as opposed to their genders (or, proclivities as it were).
Unless, we are to assume that they're intentionally writing Brad as the "woman" and Katy as the "man," as well. ;Þ
Yes it is crafted that way
I wouldn't call it so much insidious as tried and true. This is a genre that's been around for a very long time. Saying any of the obvious parts are accidental, is like saying Hitchcock pausing the camera on a ringing phone for 10 seconds wasn't 'intended' to work your nerves.
Brad is the classic clueless man, katey the scheming woman who has had just about every man in Oakdale, that archetype goes back to the 1930s and probably before.
.
What??
Last thing and this is purely conjecture. Maybe a bit of the anti-Noah vibe you sense comes from it being an open secret that Van Hansis is gay. Maybe some are consciously or not rooting for the home team.
I know the most hardcore of NUKE fans (some of whom insist on discussing Van's sexually) and even they have never had this thought. I have never seen anyone who equates their dislike of Noah to their desire to "root for the home team" as it relates to Van.
I think most of the anti-Noah sentiment comes from the fact that he is written so poorly (and perhaps Jake's acting can also be called into question here). I enjoyed his coming out story and that felt, and was, true and believable. I could've even been okay with his marrying Ameera b/c it would've been interesting to see something about immigration and perhaps the treatment of women in Arab countries. But no...ATWT writers f*cked it up out of the gate. Instead of making Noah seem noble for his attempts to help, they made him seem like a douchebag who was still tethered to the hopes of being straight (and that s/l had already been played so it made no sense). The way it was played and written had Noah paying more attention and caring more about his fake wife than Luke or his relationship. He constantly belittled Luke for being upset about it and seemed completely oblivious as to why this would hurt him so much. It also didn't help that Jake just couldn't hide his attraction to the actress who played Ameera and that came across on screen. It confused a lot of people and made them pretty angry because they had waited so long for Luke to find love...and this is what he got. A selfish jackass who just can't step outside of himself to view anything from Luke's POV. And Luke just bends over backwards to do/say anything to keep Noah, which is dreadfully unhealthy and not very sexy or romantic. So you will have a lot of fans (maybe including myself) who would rather see the writers scrap Luke/Noah all together and start over w/ someone else. Someone who challenges Luke in a healthy way and is not so wrapped up in himself. Of course that would call for also scrapping the writers and EP and get some ppl in there who knew how to tell a damned story. We know it can be done (look at General Hospital Night Shift).
The bottom line is that the relationship is played so unevenly that any sense of realness and/or chemistry that was developed in summer 2007 is now mirred in bad storytelling, bad character development, and (quite frankly) bad acting. When you jump the shark that much, it's hard to get it back.
Mea culpa
Hell, I knew I'd be stepping in it when I posted but I did modify the statement by saying "a bit" and indicating it was pure conjecture. But you don't see even a possible correspondence to the tendency on AE and other like sites to be more supportive of or sympathetic to gay or perceived to be gay actors and by extension the roles they play? Couldn't that translate into, consciously or unconsciously as I said, a kind of bias? It's not so important I want to really argue the point. Just an observation. I guess I trespassed the don't even hint they might be if the haven't outed themselves yet rule. Mea culpa.
I like gay actors
I still think that Van is a hell of an actor and was disappointed in my gaydar when at first it was strongly suggested that he was straight. Do I like him more now? Not really.
Jake? I think his acting has improved and after hearing him interviewed I really appreciate him more. Probably more than certain gay actors. I am glad you pointed that out, because it made me pause and think
Missed the point
Hell, I knew I'd be stepping in it when I posted but I did modify the statement by saying "a bit" and indicating it was pure conjecture. But you don't see even a possible correspondence to the tendency on AE and other like sites to be more supportive of or sympathetic to gay or perceived to be gay actors and by extension the roles they play? Couldn't that translate into, consciously or unconsciously as I said, a kind of bias? It's not so important I want to really argue the point. Just an observation. I guess I trespassed the don't even hint they might be if the haven't outed themselves yet rule. Mea culpa.
Uh...I think you missed my point entirely. This is not about the implied rule of let's not talk about it (which AE doesn't follow very well). I suppose if you were on vh.net that would be true but not here. Not even close. And if you recall, there was a huge (and stupid if you ask me) article on AE about Perez Hilton outing a well known "male soap opera star with a gay s/l" that they wouldn't name because of his privacy. Which made me laugh b/c how many other male soap opera stars do we know w/ a gay s/l? Everyone and their monkey knew who they were talking about. They do the same thing with Anderson Cooper. It's clear they want to talk about it. So they disguise it as a sort of disgust and pointing of fingers when others actually do and do so loudly. I personally could care less, although I'm not down with people talking about it as though he has to come out or else he's denigrating the community. I think that's bullshit. Given how psycho some of his fans are I can totally understand why he keeps his private life private. But I've talked about it, seen photos of him w/ the SO, etc. I just don't make that big a deal out of it.
Anyway, what I was trying to say is that Van's sexually doesn't really have a whole lot to do with disliking Noah. Perhaps you forgot to read the paragraph which explained why he's a douchebag? I'm not saying that I particularly like Luke either and have gotten slammed on this and other sites for saying he's a co-dependent ass who needs to get a backbone. But we have more vested in Luke as a character than Noah b/c Luke is a part of a core family of ATWT so it would make sense to be more involved. Luke has a LONG history and it's easy to put his actions/story into context (if the writers didn't smoke crack on the day they wrote a particular scene). Because the writers of ATWT are mentally challenged, we have yet to get any sort of real history and/or background on Noah (except for the Colonel) and he has no real ties to Oakdale, except for Luke. So our interest in Noah lies soley in the fact that he's there to be a love interest for Luke and to make him happy, which is going oh so well. And if his character is not doing what his sole reason for being on ATWT is in the first place, why should we really care? So...that alone puts more emphasis on Snyder. And because Van plays this role, and has been nominated and generally celebrated for his portrayl and everything he does in the gay community (The Laramie Project, Die Mommy Die, fundraising, etc.), it also makes sense for people to talk about him and what's he doing. Kathy Griffin isn't gay but she's an ally so we talk about her. Do you see what I'm saying?
It's pretty implicit that AE and other gay media talk about things/people that are gay and/or gay friendly so it would be natural to be more supportive, since that's what their mission is. That makes sense for some fans too, although I don't traffic that way. There are a lot of gay morons out there and it doesn't make them anymore worthy of praise just b/c they swing on the same tree. But that could go back to the question of "do we have to support anything and everything that's gay even if it's shit?" I think AE tries to strike a balance, but it's pretty hard given that a lot of what we see (including ATWT IMO) is pure crap. So it isn't bias when they state implicitly in their mission that this site is about "News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media." So...does that clear it up?
test
WTF Paper Ballots!
The whole ballot stuffing storyline is stupid. First, no college is using PAPER ballots to run an election in 2008 - The small town high school I went to had voting machines brought in for student elections.
Second, college elections are not going to be held on the same day as national/state elections because the students who are interested in politics are going to be involved in "bigger" political events.
Third, if 98% of the student body voted and they used PAPER ballots then the results would not have been annouced 10 minutes after the polls closed.
Fourth, who gets suspended from college? You get expelled! Granted that is what eventually happened but how exactly did Casey get into the polls without a valid college ID or how did he even on campus for that matter.
I really thought they were going to reveal that after Alli talked to Casey, he just couldn't do the deed, and dumped the ballots. The dramatic results could have been virtually identical but with the added advantage of Noah having to deal with the guilt of having betrayed his boyfriend who had not actually done anything wrong.
Why would the Dean call Noah's cell phone? I can't imagine a Dean even knowing a students boyfriend's name let alone his cell number. I certainly don't see him questioning Noah after Luke's questioning.
On a side note, who thinks Casey is a better boyfriend than Noah? At least he tries to fight for him. Emily is an idiot for dumping this guy to go chasing the Dusty Zombie. Who I think they must have paid to much money to return which explains why the cast has been cut.
I agree with all the flaws
Ruined??
Seriously people,
Beyond all the other arguments, Luke is a rich white young male who wants to be a writer, an occupation that does not require any type of degree or indeed even a formal education. He has a very influential grandmother and his own frickin' foundation and an apparently idyllic farm life to fall back on if necessary. Not to mention he lives in soapland where you can be broke and without prospects one minute and running your own company the next.
I wish my life were that ruined.
some of the things you can not be
Short list of some of the things you can and can not be by virtue of it's a soap.
1) you can not be killed, that includes, gun shot, asphyxiation, over-dose and especially drowning.
2) you can not be born, as in you can not have real parents, your parentage can change at any moment and most likely will and you can turn out to be related to anyone years after the fact, or have an unknown child or sibling show up at any moment. That's why characters always jive a little twitch whenever someone rings the door bell or calls them on their land line.
Life and death are figures of speech in places like Oakdale.
That doesn't stop the particulars from being dramatic when it happens. In that same way you can't really ruin somebody's life for very long. But that doesn't lessen the dramatic impact.
3) you don't need to be a surgeon to remove a brain tumor, any old doctors license is good enough for you to cure or analyze any disease.
So, you are completely right. What the hell was that kid doing in college in the first place? He should have written his first award winning novel, like his grandmother, by now
yeah, and...
...4) being 18 years old doesn't mean you have been alive for 18 years since it it likely that you were born 12 years ago and the writers got bored and needed an older character.
5) if you are an even remotely popular character you have been married 11 times, 5 of those marriages to the same person that you keep cheating on, betraying, pissing off but that keeps forgiving you because you are the "super couple".
6) you will most certainly own a multi-million dollar company or have a job that gives you the financial freedom to, at any given moment, get someone to cover your shift for you so that your endlessly interesting social relationships can advance exponentially in regards to your current popularity.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.