 by Brian Juergens
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 17 members and 569 guests online.
|
TCA Update: NBC's Silverman on hiring Isaiah
The news that Isaiah Washington has been hired for at least 5 episodes of NBC's Bionic Woman "reimagining" is pretty much all over the place -- and to be honest, we weren't going to make more than passing comment on it, as the guy has pretty much said all he can say about what happened on Grey's (read: absolutely nothing of note or substance) and is now pretty much out of our scope, God bless him. But AfterEllen.com's Malinda Lo just reported in from the NBC panel at TCA, and NBC co-chair Ben Silverman had a kind of disappointing response to a question regarding the matter: "He's a wonderful actor and a great performer and he became available and we thought he would be [laughter] ... I started talking to him before he was available ... and when he told me he was available I was like, "You are? I don't understand, what do you mean?" I didn't quite understand ... but the bottom line is he's a wonderful actor and we think inside the Bionic Woman,the character that was created for him is really strong and one that he'll do a really good job at." Okay. We've already given up hope that we'll ever know the truth about what really went down in that situation anyway, so nothing new here. But when asked if he was worried about alienating an audience by casting Washington in Bionic Woman, Silverman apparently made a comment suggesting that people will tune into Woman regardless and said, "I think he is really talented." Silverman also noted, "He's put that behind him. Let's give him a chance to do what he does." People will tune in regardless, yes. But that's not the point. Did this network learn nothing from the fumble with Heroes? But hey -- the show was a hit, so who cares, right? I of course think Washington has every right to make a living, but NBC is a bit cavalier in thinking that what happened at Grey's is a thing of the distant past, either for viewers or for their new star. Submitted by on Mon, 2007-07-16 13:59. |
 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
NBC loves itself some Washington
TVGasm.com is also reporting that Silverman is giving Washington a development deal:
Not much of a surprise from anti-gay NBC
Didn't Out say that they were upset when they found out "Heroes" was going to have a gay character? None of their shows have gay characters. Their L&O shows have repeatedly had anti-gay stories, including an SVU episode which implied gay parents would molest their children.
How shocking that they would once again pander to their homophobic instincts. They are also desperate for publicity because they have no successful shows.
Time after time NBC gives gays reasons to avoid their network.
*beating dead horse*
i know the wound is still fresh with people seeing as IW had a hard time shutting up, but in a way...if people don't wanna see him, they won't tune in....simple as that. if they do, okay. nothing nobody can do about it.
...i really think everyone is just trying to move on....whether it is nbc, abc or cbs...*shrug*
So......
Washington said something stupid and paid for it by losing a major gig. He should never work again? He got what he deserved for his actions. But to wish him permanant unemployment is a bit much. Let him move on and the rest of us should too. We're not talking murder here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of his, but I think all this venom should be saved for the real evil in the world.
If NBC were upset about Heroes having a gay character then the show wouldn't have one. I know people want to blame NBC for the whole Dekker situation, but it seems to me they weren't the one with the problem.
As a big L&O fan I have never found the show (any of the flavors) as homophobic. They frequently deal with gay issues and the overwhelming message is that there's nothing wrong with being gay or that people shouldn't suffer/be killed because of it. They've also depicted from time to time the insidiousness of being closeted and how that hurts eveyone. Yes, they have presented gay people as villains from time to time. That doesn't bother me and I've never seen it as anti-gay. Who says gays can't be the bad guy? It's not as if gays are murderers on a regular and consistent basis because that simply isn't the case. Presenting gays as villians isn't necessarily anti-gay, IMO.
Clearly some folks can't forget it and move on. But if you're that bothered by it then don't watch whatever show he's on. Me, I'm looking forward to the Bionic Woman.
Anthony
L&O and gays
One SVU episode had a lesbian foster parent who was accused of child molestation. She was exonerated, and then at the end they had a shot of the little girl looking helplessly at Olivia. The implication was that people should look out for gay parents.
Another SVU episode was all about glorifying a man who went around killing gay men who have unprotected sex, with a big hysterical message about these people and what a threat they are to us all.
Then there was a CI episode about a gay firefighter who was killed by his partner.
Usually when gays are on the L&O shows it's in the worst possible light, and often a statement about gays in general, not just that character.
I Saw Those Myself And....
One SVU episode had a lesbian foster parent who was accused of child molestation. She was exonerated, and then at the end they had a shot of the little girl looking helplessly at Olivia. The implication was that people should look out for gay parents.
Another SVU episode was all about glorifying a man who went around killing gay men who have unprotected sex, with a big hysterical message about these people and what a threat they are to us all.
Then there was a CI episode about a gay firefighter who was killed by his partner.
Usually when gays are on the L&O shows it's in the worst possible light, and often a statement about gays in general, not just that character.
Wow. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here because I saw both of those SVU episodes and I don't think that's the message the show was sending at all. In the lesbian mother case, the message wasn't that we should look out for lesbian mothers but that it's unfair for her to be punished and lose her child because she was gay, could not marry her lover or adopt the child (they lived in Florida) and therefore had no legal connnection to the child (the bio-mother was the murder victim). IIRC, Olivia was not happy about that child being taken away from one of her parents.
And if I'm right about the guy who was killing gays having unprotected sex, he was played by Brian Bloom (who had a very memorable scene with Chris Meloni in OZ). I don't recall him being glorified. He was some kind of misguided activist. He tried to glorify himself and his defense was some such nonsense about trying to save others and he used scare tactics about gays and their sexual behaviors to help in his case. But it didn't work because the prosecution made the jury see him as a murderer and a bit of wack job at that.
I didn't see the CI episode so I'll give you that. I gotta say the L&O series haven't gone out of their way to depict gays as bad people. I can think of several episodes off the top of my head that sent positive messages about gays and gay people. I think one reason why I loved the character Lennie Briscoe was one episode where one of the suspects was gay and Rey Curtis (this was when Benjamin Bratt was on the show) made a homophobic comment (his character was very conservative). Lennie shot him down and made him feel a little foolish. It was a small moment, but one I always remember.
Anthony
Anti-Gay NBC???
Hey Jon,
You must know something I don't.
On the Heroes thing, it was pretty clear that the management of the forgettable actor (?) - who shall remain nameless because I've forgotten his name - were the ones bitching and biting and demanding changes. The producers, not the network, folded.
Regardless of that, I find it really hard to understand calling out the parent network of Bravo as "anti-gay." Call them "lame" and I'm cool. Call them "Imagination damaged" and I cheer. Call them "Bottom of the Barrel" and I'll hand them a scraper. But "Anti-Gay." Ain't gonna fly.
Bravo is not a great example
I do remember hearing about a story in Out from last summer, before "Heroes" premiered, that said NBC was unhappy about having a gay character.
The people who run Bravo have said they do not want to be known as a "gay network". All of their shows just use gays for people to look down on (look at the most recent seasons of Project Runway) while straights are almost always the winners. There was a rumor that the PR producers tried to get some of the gay men in season 2 to stay in the closet. Their other shows like Top Chef and Top Design rarely have any prominent role for gays, and if they do, they still don't have any real shot at winning. Then there's Boy Meets Boy, which was a pathetic attempt to appeal to straight people by gutting the whole concept of gay dating.
Just look at how many gay characters have been on NBC shows. Look at how they handled gays on Will & Grace (asexual, hung up on straight women, nasty stereotypes). Now they're hiring Isaiah Washington, praising him to the skies, and giving him a development deal.
When I saw that Isaiah Washington ...
... was going to be on "Bionic Woman", my first reaction was: oh great, I wanted to watch that and now I can't. But then I thought, wait a minute, I do want to watch, who cares if he's on it. (It did help that he is only on it for 5 episodes.)
If you start censoring what you watch for every person that may be involved in it who has a different view then you (now matter how small or extreme), then pretty soon you'll have nothing to watch. (And frankly, I like watching movies and TV and don't really want to stop.)
Sure, there are blatent examples of shows, movies, etc. that I won't watch because their content offends me ("The Jerry Springer Show", The Ringer, anything having to do with Paris Hilton), but I'm not going to, as someone mentioned elsewhere, throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- Kirby, moviedearest.blogspot.com