Welcome to AfterElton.com!

Enter your AfterElton.com username.
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
Home » Blogs » Michael Jensen's blog » Defamer outs gay character on NBC's "Kings"

Defamer outs gay character on NBC's "Kings"

by
Michael Jensen

We've been buzzing about NBC's new alternate-reality show Kings for a while now due in part to the fact that it includes a major gay character. We've actually seen the first four hours (which premiere March 15th) and I even chatted with Kings' creators about the show as well as the gay character with the understanding that we wouldn't reveal anything beforehand.

But thanks to Defamer.com that isn't a problem anymore although I still won't be saying which character is gay. So if you really want to have the fun taken out of that particular reveal, you can go read it here. 

Frankly, I think it was really bad form of Defamer to post the info without so much as a spoiler warning. Most Internet users are sophisticated enough to know this info is often floating around out there, but with Defamer's post there is no warning at all. You start reading this post about a gay character and before you know it, bam! But whatever, as long as you get the page views — right, Defamer?

As for Kings, I have high hopes for the show if folks can get past the rather unconventional first two hours of this modern day retelling of the David and Goliath story. Don't get me wrong — I loved the first two hours, but it's not much like your typical TV show and I worry the average viewer might not get it right away. After the premiere episode the show settles into a more conventional format, but I still think it works quite well.

As to the gay character, we're a little divided here. Brent found him to be a stereotype and unsympathetic while I think they are doing something interesting and that it won't be going where it might appear to be headed. 

Here is hoping NBC gives us a chance to find out by letting Kings have the time it needs to find an audience.

Feel free to discuss in the comments, but if you know who the gay character is, please don't give anything away in the subject line of your comments or without a spoiler warning in your comments. After all, you don't want to be as thoughtless as Defamer, do you?

  • Michael Jensen's blog
  • Login or register to post comments
    • Submitted by
    Michael Jensen
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 13:09.
    TAGS :: 
    netogeno's picture

    Yep, bad form.

    Submitted by
    netogeno (3117 points) (857 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 13:32.

    I stumbled upon the post through my RSS, the title lured me. I even didnt have to read the article, as soon as I saw the picture I knew what it was about, then I just did not care and read the whole thing.

    They give away the plot too, so dont click if you really do not want to know. Bad Defamer, Bad.

    Looking forward to this show.

    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Jonathan's picture

    I may be wrong --spoiler--

    Submitted by
    Jonathan (915 points) (191 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 13:33.
    I haven't, and probably won't, read the defamer article, but you've outed the character as well. As far as I know, there's only one prince on the show.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Michael Jensen's picture

    Nope, we posted about the show

    Submitted by
    Admin
    Michael Jensen (2510 points) (7121 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 13:46.
    and let folks speculate, but we didn't out the character. In fact, when that post was written I hadn't seen the show and didn't know myself.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Ed Kennedy's picture

    Michael, I think he means this article

    Submitted by
    Ed Kennedy (6354 points) (1181 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 13:53.
    You pretty much outed the character in this article, in the third paragraph, next-to-last sentence.  There's only one of those characters in the show, so this article tells almost as much as Defamer.  At this point, I think that cats pretty much out of the bag, but I see his point.  And I went out of my way not to repeat it from above here.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Michael Jensen's picture

    Okay, I feel stupid!

    Submitted by
    Admin
    Michael Jensen (2510 points) (7121 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 13:57.
    I totally meant to use the word character not prince! Thanks for the catch guys! This is what happens when you know too much and aren't trying to give it away. Sorry to everyone for that goof!
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    IAmATVJunkie's picture

    And now you did it again ...

    Submitted by
    IAmATVJunkie (95 points) (21 posts)
    on Mon, 2009-03-09 13:23.

    But it's okay. I'm just gonna sit down right now and watch so much TV that I will actually force the information out of my head in lieu of newer fresher information.

    'Cause that could work, right?

    I'm the guy who blogs at http://IAmATVJunkie.com, and I would love for you to visit.

    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Jonathan's picture

    Tricksy

    Submitted by
    Jonathan (915 points) (191 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 13:59.

    Changing words on me. I'll edit my original comment and remove the spoiler warning.

    Oops, edit to say you can't edit your own posts once someone has replied.

    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Michael Jensen's picture

    You don't need to edit. You should get

    Submitted by
    Admin
    Michael Jensen (2510 points) (7121 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 14:19.
    credit for spotting my goof!
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Ed Kennedy's picture

    I'm actually fascinated

    Submitted by
    Ed Kennedy (6354 points) (1181 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 13:38.

    by the concept of the show, and the chances being taken in it - which I wasn't expecting from NBC - with this Defamer post on the character, I'm even more intrigued, since it was who I hoped but didn't expect - that's way too prominent for a character on an NBC show, in my opinion.  Maybe they woke up?

    I'm going to give the show my time, and hope it turns out to be as interesting as it sounds.  I just wish it wasn't on Sunday nights and forcing me to make DVR choices with other shows I like - my favorites seem to be concentrated on Sun, Monday, and Thursday, and a DVR can only handle so much.

    I figure NBC will give this thing several episodes to find its feet and audience - it looks in the clips like it cost a fortune to build sets and shoot, so they have an investment to recoup.  Anybody know if this is an in-house production, or is it by an outside studio? 

    no votes
    see individual ratings
    nordic balance's picture

    I guessed a long time ago

    Submitted by
    nordic balance (not verified)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 13:58.
    Since the show is supposedly a modern take on the story of King David, the gay character was probably going to be either David or Jonathan (King Saul's son in the original. Is that the character's name here?). Scholars have discussed whether David and Jonathan were just best friends or lovers. Since the show's creators weren't likely to have David be gay, the prince was the next logical alternative.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Dave's picture

    I agree...

    Submitted by
    Dave (2088 points) (433 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 18:24.
    The first time I heard that Kings was based on the Old Testament story I wondered if they would pursue the David/Jonathan dynamic. When I heard later that one character was going to be gay, it was obvious to me that it would be one of these two.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    davidm's picture

    russell tovey and friend

    Submitted by
    davidm (170 points) (40 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 14:17.

    Since you were the first site to draw my attention to Russell Tovey I thought this photo was interesting. I came across it doing a search for the guy Defamer says is playing the boyfriend of the main gay character on Kings.

     

    Are they just friends?

    photo @ this link:

    http://images.broadwayworld.com/upload/19840/New%20Folder%207/MICHAEL_S_CAMERA_228.jpg 

    no votes
    see individual ratings
    rem581's picture

    I guess it was bad form, but

    Submitted by
    rem581 (416 points) (86 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 14:19.
    I guess it was bad form, but I can't stay mad at Richard Lawson. He's wonderful. I don't think it was all that hard to figure out who's gay anyway, especially if it's one of the 3 main characters.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Craig Young's picture

    I will wait to see what it's like

    Submitted by
    Craig Young (1247 points) (350 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 14:21.
    The premise can either lead to something really bad or something good with regard to the gay character. Basicaly, if the father is portrayed as the villian rather than the son, and, then fine. If the son lacks the ability to lead, then I am not interested. If it's more of gays are airheads or villians, then I am not interested. I am already a little concern from the premise that the straight man has to save the gay man because only the straight man is tough enough.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Brent Hartinger's picture

    The gay character...

    Submitted by
    Admin
    Brent Hartinger (345 points) (1130 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 14:46.
    is a complicated villain, with genuine motivations and such. But he's still a villain, and a really negative character. I LOVED the first four eps, but the gay character seemed pretty stereotypical--pretty, cowardly, jealous, resentful, Machivellian, etc.--although, like I said, it's a rich, complicated character, not simple at all. I suppose it depends "where they go with it," but it seemed pretty clear they were setting up a "light" (good) versus "dark" (evil) son thing, where they fight for the affections of the kingly father.

     

     

    Check out my new fantasy website: TheTorchOnline.com. It's like AfterElton.com for fantasy geeks! And I Twitter

    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Craig Young's picture

    Yeap does not sound like my cup of tea

    Submitted by
    Craig Young (1247 points) (350 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 15:05.
    I would like to see a character who is neither the villian or hero. I'd love to see an anti hero with his or her own agenda. In a way, what you describe sounds very cliche. The typical way gays are viewed by straights. We are good for fashion, image etc. We are smart. But we lack strength. There's never any toughness.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Craig Young's picture

    PS

    Submitted by
    Craig Young (1247 points) (350 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 15:09.
    Strength for me means internal strength rather than one of being macho. It means that a character may do bad things, but there is something in side them that we see that's redeeming. For example, the cheerleader's father on Heros is to me- if you are going to use a gay character- the way to go. I know he's straight, but still, as a villian or sometimes villian he's interesting because of what he's willing to do when he thinks he's doing something for the right reason. But, anyway, i will wait to see.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Brent Hartinger's picture

    It's cliche in some ways

    Submitted by
    Admin
    Brent Hartinger (345 points) (1130 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 15:30.
    But I'd STRONGLY suggest you watch the show, because he, like all the characters, is very well-rounded. And it's just a GREAT show...

     

     

    Check out my new fantasy website: TheTorchOnline.com. It's like AfterElton.com for fantasy geeks! And I Twitter

    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Ed Kennedy's picture

    Why does he have those characteristics? (SPOILER-ish)

    Submitted by
    Ed Kennedy (6354 points) (1181 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 16:13.

    I mean everything you've said about him - pretty, cowardly, jealous, resentful, Machivellian - that would, to me apply to anyone with his birthright, regardless of being gay or straight.  Granted, you've watched the show and I haven't (and I've read your article on TheTorchOnline), but that sounds like anyone born to his position, not necessarily those of a gay man.  Don't we need to consider the fact that we want characters that are who they are, good or bad, and oh, yeah, they sleep with men, too?  

    Nothing any site has leaked about the show yet tells me that he's a bad gay stereotype, but a lot of it says he's a bad stereotype of a prince.  Nightclubbing with the boyfriend instead of presenting a kingly image?  Princes William and Harry have stumbled out of quite a few clubs after having partied too much and flirted inappropriately with girls (and a few boys, in Harry's case).  Prince Harry, for all his ginger hotness is a hell of a case of a prince who's not likely to be king acting like an entitled prick.

    Just a thought from some who's seen less than 4 minutes of tape.  I just don't want the gay media (and with the number of posts I make here, I might have to count myself a part of soon) to get their underwear in a wedgie about it being a bad gay stereotype, which the MSM will latch onto as fact (do you guys realize that every article you write gets picked up on IMDB's coverage of shows?), and it becomes a gay issue when it's really a spoiled brat/homophobic father issue.

    /end soapbox. 

    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Craig Young's picture

    Both the princes in great Britian

    Submitted by
    Craig Young (1247 points) (350 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 16:21.
    have been involved in a) charity causes (heavily) and b) one has went off to the military to fight in a war abroad. More importantly, while I will wait to see, the idea that you expouse- regardless of gay or straight- is not particularly interesting. Namley, that this is just the way the character "should be." Maybe. But that's a big boring and an easy out.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Ed Kennedy's picture

    You have a point (speculative spoilers)

    Submitted by
    Ed Kennedy (6354 points) (1181 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 17:18.

    In retrospect, my own comment came across a lot more belligerent than I meant it to be when I started writing.

    I've just read, in the last 4 hours, the take on the character on 5 different gay blogs, which ranged from Michael giving it credit for maybe being more complex than we might expect to for the first couple episodes, to Brent (who I usually agree with) leaning toward gay stereotype, to Queerty headlining "NBC Kings has at Least 2 Queens" and I have to wonder, do we toss these stereotypes up ourselves to have shots taken at us?  We say we want complicated characters that, oh, by the way, happen to also sleep with men - but that's just a part of them, not what defines them.  The words used to describe the prince seemed more like words to describe a person of privelage who knows no consequences (maybe a Hilton?), not necessarily a bad gay stereotype.

    I used the English princes because I'm most familiar with their antics.  I know they do a lot of charity work, and both do their military service, sometimes in a war zone - and good for it, seriously.  But they've also had their very public stumbles, particularly Harry, who's not likely to take the throne (like our gay here in the show).  If I were older, I probably could have used Prince Albert of Monaco as an example, since his refusal to marry and produce a legitimate heir threatened the future existence of his country until 2002.  But I couldn't easily document the details of his public stumbles.

    I'm actually hoping that the show makes this complicated like it should be.  You got a Kingdom, pretty obviously steeped in tradition.  Maybe one of the traditions says only a straight guys gets to sit on a hereditary throne (kinda makes sense with the whole hereditary business).  Like any monarchy, they're probably been some gay guys on the throne in the past, but hey, it was easier to keep quiet back in the olden days.

    This guy serves his kingdom in the military (commoner rescues him from war), but he also parties with his boyfriend in clubs when he's home.  Shining hero who saved him seems to get too much attention from daddy (who knows heros make good political capital), bringing into play "court politics" that mattered so much in old monarchies, with all the scheming.  King daddy must reconcile tradition with his love for his son, stability of his reign, modern times with olden. Actually serves up a lot of dramatic tension, all without making the gay guy the villian because he's gay, but maybe because like a lot of people of power and privelage, as much as they seem untouchable, they're actually also quite trapped by history and expectations.

    Wow, that was a lot of speculation on my part - just a lot of guessing.  I'm just trying to give the show the benefit of the doubt about what it could be, before I label it.  It has so much potential, execution will matter.  I just see so may of the gay blogs labelling it so quickly, it bugged me.  I'm certainly not trying to argue with you or Brent, or heaven forbid, downplay the good the Royal family does - I've actually always been kind of jealous of Brtain and Commonwealth states - they're something cool about looking to that history and continuity. 

    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Craig Young's picture

    It doesn't really matter where the stereotypes

    Submitted by
    Craig Young (1247 points) (350 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 18:46.
    derive. The problem is that they are stereotypes about a group. I have gay friends who regularly try to push what they believe gay should be onto me. I don't accept their attempts to do so not because I am trying to be political but because I like my individuality. A character does not have to be anything in particular to me. But, when EVERY character is some guy who loves fashion and clubing or whatever and is lacking in moral strength (even evil moral strength- ie, Christian conservatives beleive they are right so they could make for an interesting character because of the evil they can commit related to that belief) or a gay character who reacts poorly justifiably to his father's treatment, etc. All of that would be interesting if presented with that complexity involved. I will wait to see what it's like. The devil, as they say, is in details.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Knickie's picture

    Actually, I read an

    Submitted by
    Knickie (4010 points) (818 posts)
    on Tue, 2009-02-24 17:04.
    Actually, I read an interview with Ian McShane that pretty much outed that character, albeit indirectly. But it was clear who he was talking about. Also he was making all the David/Jonathan parallels so that if you knew anything about that story it would be patently obvious.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Aloe's picture

    Why is the gay character a secret anyway?

    Submitted by
    Aloe (739 points) (150 posts)
    on Wed, 2009-02-25 07:02.

    I mean really. If the show wasn't treating this character as such a big scandalous secret then it wouldn't be a problem.

     

    It's time that TV shows and movies got over that crap.

    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Dennis Mpls's picture

    That's an excellent point! 

    Submitted by
    Dennis Mpls (560 points) (119 posts)
    on Wed, 2009-02-25 10:48.
    That's an excellent point!  We're trying to get to the place where being gay is no big deal to people, and just another characteristic, and where no one feels the need to hide their identity.  When that becomes reality, the idea of a TV character's gayness being a secret or a "big reveal" will seem ludicrous.  Why should that be a secret to be held?  We're not there yet, but we can in some small way push the process along by not playing into the "who's the secret gay" game.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Aloe's picture

    David and Jonathan loved EACH OTHER

    Submitted by
    Aloe (739 points) (150 posts)
    on Wed, 2009-02-25 07:07.
    I guess I should wait until I see the show before I comment on how closely they follow the Bible. I do know that the love between David and Jonathan was instantly mutual. I'm not saying they were lovers. Maybe they were maybe they weren't.
    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Psionycx's picture

    D & J

    Submitted by
    Psionycx (7941 points) (1611 posts)
    on Wed, 2009-02-25 10:16.

    It's pretty strongly implied, given both Jonathan's father's reaction to their "friendship" and David's statement at Jonathan's death.

    However, this is one of the most controversial pieces of the Bible (and David did much else controversial besides). Conservative Christians and Jews alike have been known to react with amazing degrees of outrage to the suggestion that David and Jonathan might have been lovers. In one instance an Orthodox legislator in the Israeli parliament had to be carried out he became so hysterical when another legislator mentioned the idea during a debate.

    In ancient cultures, including in what became Israel, bisexuality was fairly normal and a lot of men had intimate relationships with close male friends in addition to with women.  In fact, because of the perceived inferior status of women on an intellectual and emotional level, a lot of "bromances" not only flourished, but also became sexual.

    Judaism obviously had a prohibition against this, but like any culture in history what was legal and what was really going on were two different things. And David was hardly a rigorous devotee of religious laws as it was.

    no votes
    see individual ratings
    Insideguy's picture

    Not sure I can support the show

    Submitted by
    Insideguy (2490 points) (496 posts)
    on Fri, 2009-02-27 11:48.

    Sebastian Stan and Michael Arden are both hot but this show outright, based on Defamer's article, predicts a homophobic future.  Call me overly sensitive but It says all the work we are doing will come for naught in their future.  Since the true nature of the relationship between David and Jonathan will never be known we can at the very least say they were supportive friends.  We can hope that will take some of the edge off the stereotypical gays-are-always-villians of the show.  I will take a wait and see position but it doesn't look good.

    That's all I am saying... 

    INSIDEGUY

    no votes
    see individual ratings
    nordic balance's picture

    I like you Michael, but

    Submitted by
    nordic balance (not verified)
    on Fri, 2009-02-27 13:33.

    I like you Michael, but don't you think posting the headline "Defamer outs gay character on NBC's "Kings" and opening a link to the site are ALSO about getting page reads?  You seem to be sharing in the spoils of Defamer's "bad form".

     I am excited about the show.

    no votes
    see individual ratings

    Home » Blogs » Michael Jensen's blog » Defamer outs gay character on NBC's "Kings"