Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 24 members and 794 guests online.
|
Nuke on the backburner-trying to make fans lose interest?I have heard very recently that Jake and Van have not been in the studio to tape for the past couple of weeks. Has anyone heard anything about why their airtime has diminished completely. If the rumors are any indication, Luke and Noah will be not on in September-November! Afterelton did a good job with the kiss campaign. Now it is up to you to find out what they are doing to Luke and Noah now! Can you get the show to fess up to why Luke and Noah aren't even on one day a week?
Submitted by KoraKelly (8 points) (1 post) on Tue, 2008-08-12 18:13. |
 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
Do we want them anyway?
I'll admit that I've long since lost interest. Nuke are such a lame excuse for a couple, and their characters have been written so badly for pretty much all of this year, that I don't actually know that I would care if they vanished from the show.
Personally I don't see daytime TV as an important battleground for gay equality. It's a medium that I think is slowly dying as demographics shift and people's entertainment options begin to switch to downloaded programming and TiVo versus scheduled real time broadcast.
Honestly I think it's more important to focus on how we're depicted on higher-end programming. I don't love Nuke as a couple enough to think they're worth campaigning to keep. But that's just my view.
Yes I do want them & here is why
But if we compare apples to apples (American soaps to American soaps) then ATWT is certainly out of the shallow end of the pool.
I for one do enjoy watching Luke and Noah enough to campaign to keep them on canvas. In part because I think the actors are doing a fine job (even when the material is less than stellar) and also because I think this storyline is important in the larger scheme of things. I think it is great that we have a gay couple on daytime that we can discuss, even though I wish we had many more.
9 kisses, 2 shirtless scenes, a lot of hand holding, some sexy whispers and a few soulful looks might not rate up there on some people’s scales as progressive. However Luke and Noah’s romance is appealing even the unrealistic slow pace of their physical relationship is maddening. I think they are getting the emotions right if not the timing. ATWT is presenting Noah and Luke as two men in love, and by making that love more mainstream than controversial they may be accomplishing more than you might think.
Even if the demographics for soaps are falling, if some of that demographic gains a little more understanding then it is worth it to me. Luke and Noah’s first kiss has been replayed on YouTube for almost a million and a half people. Another poster talked about how the “kiss” campaign wasn’t successful, but the letter writing campaign that followed to certainly was—it made NPR and the New York Times to name a few of the 100’s of papers that ran the story.
My bet is that when Luke and Noah finally do have sex that it is newsworthy as well. I think ATWT will go the romantic route instead of the passionate one. But as long as there is no more jumping on the bed I think I will be okay with it. Who knows maybe I will be disappointed. But one thing I do know is that I will be watching.
And I want them to grow up or go away.
The "demographic" is being taught that there is nothing to fear about gay people because gay people are quite aware of how sinful and disgusting they are. And that there are some "normal" gay people out there -gay people who avoid kissing and sleep in separate beds. I'm am still weighing in on the "success" of the letter campaign.
"My bet is that when Luke and Noah finally do have sex that it is newsworthy as well." That's something I have discussed on these forums before. It's called exploitation. They've made a poor effort at including the couple into the show or treating them fairly. But sure, when they need to up the ratings they can exploit the gay angle.
"Who knows maybe I will be disappointed. But one thing I do know is that I will be watching." The Nuke fans are incredibly loyal to P&GP, and I have no doubt that some will watch the show and love Nuke no matter what P&G decide to do with the couple.
Agreement about Nuke
I don't enjoy watching them anymore myself. Actually, I find watching even just the clips on YouTube to be almost unbearable torture.
The characterizations are just so horrible now that I can't stand to see it. Now I know that this is partly because I've been spoiled by Verbotene Liebe and now have much higher standards than I did last year. But the fact is that Nuke are just not a wel-drawn "couple".
They both come across as very ambivalent about their relationship. Noah is so distant and reticent that it doesn't seem like he's really attracted to Luke at all. He actually had a higher level of sexual tension in some of his scenes with Ameera and he was depicted as much more sexual and romantic with Maddie.
Instead of a great romance we have Luke and Noah being really dull and embarrassing. Luke just looks like he's scared to go find another boyfriend and Noah looks like he doesn't want to be gay. I'm in agreement with Nukely that their relationship is being depicted as something so shameful that just it's existence alone is controversial. This is at the same time that even teenagers on the show are casually having sex.
Personally I think the game is over here and it's time to move on. If P&G opts to get rid of Nuke or make them vanish into the background I'm okay with that, since I really don't find them watchable now.
I don't agree with the shameful part
I honestly don't think the characters are ashamed of their relationship. I found the back drop of the teenagers unwisely having sex is in sharp contrast to the over-thinking and playing by the rules they are using for Luke and Noah. It is a mystery why they decided to play it that way. But I am almost glad that it was the young heterosexual couple that the writers decided to use for the yearly safe sex talk.
I too have enjoyed watching Olli and Christian on Verbotene Liebe. But I hated watching all the vitriol from Axel and the promoter. I hated that everyone, including Olli, thought it was better to have Judith pretend to be Christian's girlfriend than to tell the truth. (the only fun part there was having Judith punch Axel in the stomach). I was thrilled that Christian kissed Olli at the end of his fight, but so disappointed that the writers felt the need to keep the hatred alive by having Axel viciously attack Olli. I much preferred how they handled Olivia finding out (hysterical) and even Gregor’s reaction to Christian being gay which was to be mad that he didn’t trust him with the truth.
Maybe it is the nature of the soap medium that lends itself to tantalize as well as disappoint. In many cases I would much prefer to watch Torchwood where by the end of the second season every character had at least kissed someone of the same gender. (I think John Barrowman can kiss a paper cut out and make it look good.) Europe does seem to be ahead of us on this issue. Thank goodness for BBC America and YouTube, or I would still be missing out.
it's shameful
"But I am almost glad that it was the young heterosexual couple that the writers decided to use for the yearly safe sex talk."
That comment is so full of b.s. even if you aren't. I find that sentement disgusting in a world where many gay kids are denied the safe-sex education that they should have.
Luke and Noah are just barely teens (Luke 19, Noah 20?) and legal while a 14 year old Parker could be arrested in several of the 50 states.
I like transitory stories. I know how to write them. ATWT doesn't. They still have no excuse for their shabby treatment of the gay characters.
Safety is universal
One of the myths that I constantly had to battle was the presumption that HIV/AIDS is a gay disease. So my comment was relating to the fact that I was glad that they didn't use Luke and Noah to have the first talk. For Liberty they talked about birth control pills, condoms, and the HPV vaccine, for Parker they totally dropped the ball by not talking about it with the assumption that he was too young. With all the bed hopping the adults are doing I wish STD’s and protection had been addressed by them too. For Luke and Noah I hope that it is still part of the discussion.
With Luke and Noah as the only gay characters on daytime they are bearing the brunt of my expectations. If there were other characters on other US Soaps maybe I wouldn’t feel as disappointed with where things stand now. To be honest maybe I am having them compete for the gay merit badge that Noah mentioned to Luke. ATWT started so promisingly with them and then it was if they didn’t know what to do with them. I am not endlessly optimistic and would rather them end the storyline then keep them as sexless tokens.
So why am I still supporting them? First I am really a fan of the actors who have done a great job despite the storyline or lack there of. Then if we assume that ATWT did put a halt on a more realistic advancement of the physical relationship, I don’t think all the writers or even the actors were on board with that.
The writers have put in some digs at homophobia especially from Luke’s little sister Faith whose acceptance is all I can hope for in the next generation. Further for all the things I can find fault with I am still finding things that I am glad are being addressed. I am glad they discussed gay marriage in California and Massachusetts, held a Gay Pride day, and even the direct and indirect digs at the DADT policy. Without having Nuke on canvas those things don’t get an audience. And lastly I want them to do the right thing with Luke and Noah on the physical side, and if I abandon ship and don’t try to hold them accountable then they have no incentive to comply.
This point is very important
Maybe Growing Up will mean going away
Actually your title is something I have thought about and commented on. I would rather them ride off into the sunset than get caught up with some of the storylines that other soap couples have faced.
I disagree with you in what is being taught to the audience. I suspect that the most vocal of us here were past ready to see a gay male couple represented on daytime. I feel those that were most offended have already left leaving the average viewer to choose to fast forward, not watch (like some here), or perhaps be caught up despite their prior inclination. It is that group that I would love to hear from and that I have the most hope about.
I will have to think about your view on exploitation. My first reaction is that it isn’t. But maybe it is. Almost all entertainment could be classified that way and certainly soaps are no different. But if ATWT can gain in the ratings because of a gay couple, I think that only helps encourage other soaps to do the same. But ratings are dipping for most soaps and if the storylines aren’t compelling people aren’t going to watch. My biggest fear isn’t that Luke and Noah won’t have sex but that they get blamed for a slide that was already happening. It is like blaming the specter of gay-marriage for Kerry’s loss in 2004.
As a Nuke fan I am supportive of the effort but not blind to the faults. In my opinion I think it is grossly unrealistic that these two have not had sex. But I know very few gay couples that walk hand in hand down the streets of my city let alone any kissing. I hate the homophobia represented by Noah’s dad but cheer in total acceptance from Luke’s family, especially his little sisters.
Fast forward the whole show?
"I would rather them ride off into the sunset than get caught up with some of the storylines that other soap couples have faced."
With this "fast forward" group you seem to be seeking, well you seem to looking for people who really couldn't give a damn about gay rights and only want some boy on boy action. You, like ATWT, seem to be desperately seeking that audience and want to corral them. Galvanize them.
Can anybody explain to me this new marketing niche of straight women who want to believe in gay guys in love but don't want to be bothered by gay rights? They seem to be out there in droves.
All of Day time is down in ratings, not just the soaps. Dropping below 2 puts your head in the chopping block for sure in prime time. The soaps are doing fine. If it helps you to get into the show, then do believe that soaps are going to be extinct like I heard 20 years ago. The soaps are here to stay. If P&G can't produce a decent soap... chop.
"Fast forward" group...
Nukely, I understand your frustration. Gay rights (actually human rights) should be first in everyone's mind. But, I also think you might be stating it backwards. When people are first horrified, then grossed out, then uncomfortable, then barely tolerant, then neutral, then accepting, then interested in watching same gender love and affection, this is an important process of evolution. When, someone has dropped their prejudices and can actually enjoy this type of story, then fighting for the rights of the parties involved follows. If "she" (the marketing niche) first accepts and welcomes the gay boys on tv, it only follows that she will begin to notice the gay couple in her neighbourhood, and then perhaps speak out in their behalf when she has the opportunity. How many people fought for black rights that lived in an all white city up north, how many fight for animal rights that could care less about pets? How many people in high rise inner city appartments fight for conservation of wet lands? You fight for what you know. And the knowing is starting.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
The problem is...
This only works if the story is worth watching, which quite frankly Nuke really hasn't been. If I find their scenes too dull to even bother watching the YouTube clips half the time, and I'm looking to watch gay characters on TV, then what exactly do you think a viewer that isn't eager to see gay characters is doing?
Indeed, aspects of this storyline have made it seem like Noah wouldn't be "falling into the homosexual lifestyle" were it not for Luke. There's a lot to the way they've been handled that suggests that Noah could have really been with Maddie, or even Ameera, if Luke hadn't led him astray. At least that's what I see when I twist my head a little and try and imagine what this looks like from the point of view of someone who listens to Focus on the Family on the radio.
If the Nuke storyline were being written well then my opinion would be different. But it isn't. It's being handled very poorly and I don't think it does us much good as it is being handled to date. Young people are watching much better done gay storylines on shows elsewhere on the channel spread. People who are well-disposed towards gay, including gays ourselves, are scratching their heads wonder why this storyline sucks so badly. Anti-gay folks aren't seeing anything that is likely make them want to watch, or sympathize with gays.
I strongly suspect that Grandma uses Nuke's scenes to go fetch herself some tea. That way she doesn't miss any commercials.
Well since my remarks....
...were aimed at Nukely's comment on straight women and gay rights, whether or not this particular show is worth watching is beside the point. Perhaps those that feel as you do have stopped watching completely, AFA nutballs see only what they wish to see, and grannies as you say, are ignoring the whole storyline. But, still, there are obviously a number of others that are still watching this show in it's entirety, and those folks are the ones my comments are about.
I don't debate the fact that this show is a very piss-poor representation of young gay men. But I also suspect that the opinions of worldly, articulate gay men such as yourself and the 20 to 40 straight female middle america soap viewer are radically different. I think the FotF type is in the minority. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
Janet - Very well
Janet - Very well put. I've always felt that the Nuke story was not meant to be entertainment for queer folks, and that we shouldn't interpret it as such. It will NEVER rise to a level where we want to watch it for the gay entertainment level. And the show will never aspire to that.
However, the storyline is valuable for exactly the reason that you so eloquently expressed. By far the most important thing that we can do as a group and as individuals is to come out and live open, quality lives. That's the main reason for all the improvements that have been made the past few years. It's easy to hate or misunderstand something you're not exposed to, that is represented by strange "others" who live elsewhere. It's not so easy when your brother is gay, or your son, or friend, or neighbor, or co-worker. The value of Nuke is that it provides that exposure to many people who otherwise wouldn't have it. Grandmothers in Nebraska now know gay people for the first time, and hey, they're not so scary and so "other" after all. To me, that exposure to people is worth every bad storyline.
Face it -- this story -- and
Janet's cool
"the Nuke story was not meant to be entertainment for queer folks... It will NEVER rise to a level where we want to watch it for the gay entertainment level."
What the hell does 'Gay Entertainment Level' mean? That is SO condescending. Basically, as I see it, the show has been reaching for the 'Bigoted Entertainment Level', if you want to put it like that. And yeah, that seems to be what P&G have always been aiming for.
Everybody is fully aware of gays in America, even the grandmothers in Nebraska, now. For anybody who is able to follow the ATWT story-lines, they have the capacity to understand the many and verious issues of gay rights that we've all been exposed to and, hopefully, they are aware of honest gay love. Perhaps that's the BIG message that the media have skipped. It's what P&G have denied us.
I commend any story that shows gay people as proud and worthy members of a community. Or even that show gay love as honest love. ATWT has also failed to do that with Luke and Noah.
.
Anger
Nukely - I'm sorry you still have such anger about this subject. We just have completely different viewpoints about it.
Yes, everyone is aware of gays, but MANY people don't know any. They are strange creatures who live "out there" somewhere. Many see us as immoral, as predators, as sex-obsessed, or worse. The only way we'll ever get to where we want to be is to gradually show all of those people with our lives what being gay really means. ATWT is truly serving that function for many people who don't actually know gay people.
I reiterate my point that the Nuke story was not developed to be entertainment for gay people. That simply was not the goal. And it makes no sense for us to actually look to it to obtain our gay entertainment fix (except through Brian's hilarious live blogging!). If we do look to it for that we will be forever disappointed. But it still serves the useful purpose that I and others have recognized.
Don't Be Sorry
You keep forgetting that the
Is support welcome, regardless from where it comes from?
"Can anybody explain to me this new marketing niche of straight women who want to believe in gay guys in love but don't want to be bothered by gay rights? They seem to be out there in droves."
How about the straight woman who has been working on gay rights her whole adult life who is thrilled to see any sign of progress? I tried to explain my position a little more clearly in my earlier post today, but I have obviously missed the mark. My awareness of gay rights is not limited to knowing the abbreviations for DADT, and activism has many forms including this conversation.
I guess there could be a group of straight women that are okay with gay guys in love, but don't think they have any friends in that category, don't put their money toward local gay rights efforts, don't speak out as an advocate when faced with homophobia. But I am not in that group. And if that group exists I agree with Janet in that it doesn't have to be a bad thing. And cynically the timid acceptance you see by this group can be expolited from a marketing standpoint then all the better. Take their money, work on their understanding, tell stories that are worth watching, and you will garner their support and maybe eventually their activism.
But if this story isn't cutting it for you I get it. I was just trying to tell you why I wasn't ready to give up on it quite yet. I see flaws, but they may be different than what you see, but I do see them. I wanted to express the positives that I was seeing as well, but understand that those might not weigh the same on someone elses scale.
support is always welcome
The trend that I tried to reference (poorly) was to a marketing niche with the objectification of gay men and the struggle for gay rights. Where the gay buddy is worn like a piece of jewelry or Paris Hilton's chiwawa. At the fan sites I've observed a fanaticism, an obsession which I can only relate to a kind of fetishism. To those fans, the "new niche" I mention, they are unconcerned if ATWT or anyone gets the story right or even shows gay men fairly.
But there is also the objectification of the struggle. Where the association allows you to karma brag. I am thinking about posts I have read at the Nuke fan sites. Women who were tickled that their fascination for Nuke confounded their husbands and the people they work with or who giggled when they over heard their 5 year old boy, who isn't allowed to watch the show, say, "Mommy's watching that show where boys kiss, again." And she doesn't know where he heard that from and she doesn't want to have to talk to the kid about it. Are these converts or simply fashion statements?
What some people see as baby steps, I see as reenforcing a world view that we should "love the sinner but hate the sin." Some gay men themselves believe in that sentiment. That doesn't make it any less bigoted. And it seems clear to me that many people are blind to it, or perhaps they see it as a compromise, a step forward from "God Hates Fags" which in reality is the exact same sentiment after it's been run thru the spin cycle.
I am still remembering the big Nuke fan sites, where they routinely shut down or limit any descent. I can't cheer lead for this show. But, Lara, I am glad that you are able to believe in and support them. And also, that you are able to address and weigh in on the issues. Because I believe that viewers like yourself may have a larger impact on how the producers handle the story in the future.
I don't expect anyone else to know what it is like or what it means to grow up gay, just like I could never know what it's like to grow up non-Caucasian. Only you know the struggles you have faced. I know my own. I am sorry if I have shaken your resolve toward gay rights, I didn't want to appear ungrateful.
Another we'll cut the show or else rummor?
When After Elton has interviewed the producers they have gotten nothing but stoic babel. Try writing SOW. I don't know what you want to find out? Perhaps if you were able to quote the source of the rumors.
You aren't the first one to report that TPTB are going to cut Nuke unless we do something. I always feel like these rumors are a desperate attempt by ATWT to raise their ratings and get viewers to return to the show. Buy letting it leak that they might cut thier gay eunuchs (but keep the 15 year old father to be.) That's no way to keep viewers or fans. They need to write a decent story; one that is inclusive of their gay characters, not belittling to them and the audience.
Myself, I don't really care why "Luke and Noah aren't even on one day a week?" If I were to make an intelligent guess, it would be that P&G told the producers that they didn't want to see Nuke on air again until they could come up with a decent story line. I mean, that would make sense. If that were true, we could be waiting a long time.
.
oh, hell...
A lot of fans have already lost interest. I think the TPTB are still a bit unsure how to go about with Luke and Noah. They probably thought nobody would get all up in arms over them not kissing and now sex is a new topic that i am sure has them...well, shaking in their boots. at the same time, they know they can't avoid it, but aren't sure how to really go there. I think that's why we are seeing less of them. the less we see, the less to tell....or something like that.
Oh, Hell II...
Doubtful the only ones watching this gay couple farce are the die hards that are members of Loretta's and the Dimwit's web sites. I would be curious as to how many of them have FINALLY abandoned this poor excuse of an American gay male couple.
No one needs to be reminded of the crappy writing, ridiculous cock-blocking, stupid bed jumping, or any of another hundred things that have turned the audience completely off with this neutered couple.
As stated, many think that Van and Jake are doing a fine job with what they have. I do not agree completely with that observation. Watching the clips on YouTube and here, I somehow detect that even they are fed up with what they have to work with and it's beginning to show.
Perhaps this is just another way to kill the remaining fans, if any are left, who grab at what scraps TPTB throw at them concerning Puke.
In reference to Psionycx's post above, I think daytime TV is slowly dying due to the tremendous drop in the audience and the alternative entertainment of cable TV. Soaps are a medium that by today's standards seem a little on the ridiculous side. How many times have some of the more famous leading female characters been married, divorced, raped, kidnapped, drugged, died to later resurface, etc.? The audience for these soaps is slowly disappearing.
Soaps are a relic of the past
We're talking about an entire genre that was created for housewives (once the only group of people at home during the day) with the intention of getting them to pay attention to the TV long enough to hit them with advertisements.
Now it's a different era. There are fewer and fewer housewives. There are more and more TV channels. Younger audiences are as likely to watch TV on the web or download shows to iPods as they are to even record shows now.
But I think that's the acidic challenge the producers of the soaps are facing. Their core audience is aging and shrinking. But that core audience is also the most resistant to change and hostile things like homosexuality. Meanwhile, the younger crowd would be just as happy to watch some reality show on MTV that includes actual gay people.
The desperation to retain core audiences is never more evident than when they bring in new actors and actresses to play existing characters when the previous incumbent leaves for some reason. For example, I think that Gilded Lily on ATWT is almost comical. But the producers are just too scared of losing viewers who've been attached to Lilden as a supercouple for years and years to actually just write Lily out and move on.
The soaps are a sinking ship and I say let them sink. Something new will come to replace them. If people end up wanting more modern content but still in a soap format then shows like the ones Europe will eventually replace the current tired U.S. lineup. If they choose not to go out on a limb to reach new audiences then that's their own fault.
Replace them?
Oh, my! You've made a lot of good points Psionycx, but I'm actually horrified at the idea of them taking soaps out and trying to replace them? What would we get? Game shows? Talk shows? More reality TV? I shudder at the thought! The only reality TV I watch now is American Idol, and that's only begrudgingly. Soaps are wonderful in their ongoing storylines. If you watch them regularly, it's far easier to get attached to the character on them then on some primetime show that's only got 6 - 20 episodes, only one aired each week.
And what about the inbetween viewers. When I was growing up my mom wasn't a housewife, and I'm certainly (unfortunately) not, but I'm also not of a generation which will just watch any old reality tv they happen to slap together. Where does my generation fit in? Or don't I have one? ... I'm a man alone...with no generation to call my own...! *Breaks into soap tears*
8)
What format to replace soaps
If you look at the rest of the world, I think there is a decent chance that the telenovela format as well as hybrids between telenovelas and soaps might be what replaces soaps.
UK and Germany shows that soaps can make money if put on later, just before primetime (6pm to 7.30pm).
But Germany for example also has a hugely successful sort of soap on at 1.30pm (though naturally skewing older) but it also is a telenovela.
There are also experiments like Nightshift on soapnet. Maybe once soaps go down there will be cable soaps to replace them and the soap lovers have to subscribe to a particular cable channel.
Asian tv has something like an even more hardcore telenovela format, with so doramas or j-dramas or k-dramas (depending on what country they are from). These are like soapy miniseries, with high production values, and between 10 and 20 episodes. But when they are on then there is a new episode on every day till the story is over.
Interestingly what all these money making telenovela formats stress is exactly what psyionx talks about. Stories that have an ending. Couples that are written off and replaced by other stories rather than trying to come up with stories for the same character for all eternity and entering in a never ending carousel of partner switching. Actors being hired to act in a specific storyline with a specific ending and therefore no need to switch them out.
They need to make a choice
The producers of the soaps have to decide if they really want to remain in business or not. Like I said, the main problem here is their desperation to retain their shrinking core audience. The competition that they face nowadays isn't just soaps on other channels, it's the boundless programming on other channels. Factor in the changes in people's viewing habits and the problem just gets worse.
First, they need to accept that they're going to have to piss off a few Midwestern grandmas and update their storylines and casts. Plus the whole look and feel of the shows themselves.
Secondly, they need to change their distribution model. How about subscription downloads from iTunes or something? Work with the fact that the viewing audience is not timeslot based like it used to be.
Change or die boys and girls!
Replace Soaps with?
Hard to say. All of daytime is in the doldrums. I don't believe any daytime program can compete with out expanding their audience. Several are trying to do that, with the internet and several air times.
It will be interesting to see the first soap to be cut in the next couple years, bound to happen, and what they replace it with is likely to do worse in the ratings.
Why would anybody try to create another bad game show (too, many to list) Freak show (Opera, Dr. Phil), Courtroom show (etc.) or home shopping show? Any new daytime program is a hard one to make happen. I am sure that each and every single soap producer is hopping that some other soap bites the bullet first, so they can rope in their wayward fans. That's the game they seem to be playing. Nobody is trying to reinvent the form.
So, if you love soaps, you have nothing to worry about, Soap are going to be aroud for years to come and will blossom again. If you only love one soap you may be SOL (Soap Opera Lost) if that show get's cancled.
As Lola mentioned
The telenovela format is proving rather successful elsewhere in the world. My personal sense is that soaps also need to look at their format as well.
Anyone remember when Luke first met Noah while interning at the TV station? And they did that little media piece for delivery to cell phones? There's irony there because I think that part of what needs to happen to the soaps.
They are in some ways ideally suited to a modern streamining media market place. They produce updated content on a regular basis to extent that primetime programming does not. This makes them attractive to viewers watching via stream or downloading to an iPod.
The main problems are simple ones:
1) Episode length. Would need to come down substantially. One hour soaps are too long for this format and would need to be broken into more readily viewable bits. Thinking about your person watching stream on their phone during lunch break for example.
2) Storyline management. Like I said before, some of the characters on these shows are positively ancient. In some cases so much so that they have been played by more than one actor over the course of their existences. While this may appeal to some long-time viewers, it can be a turnoff for newer ones. Going back to my smaller segments statement above, if I'm a young viewer interested in the younger characters, as opposed to say Holden and (Gilded) Lily then I probably don't want to have to sit through their 79th marital crisis. This feeds into...
3) Character management. In order to fill one hour slots a lot of these soaps have absolutely huge casts. In order to keep them all onscreen we inevitably either go through periods where we don't see our favorite characters at all, or else where we see them only in maddeningly brief increments. Viewers whose favorite characters aren't getting much air time may drift away out of general apathy.
4) Storyline relevance. To Grandma from Idaho the soaps may seem racey. To teenie bopper from SoCal they can seem positive dull compared to what's on MTV. As soaps need to start segmenting their storylines better they also need to start thinking about who the audiences are for given storylines. One issue with Nuke is that a gay couple is a major stretch to gain acceptance from older traditionalist viewers. Younger viewers who've watched MTV Undressed and countless other such programs wonder what the big deal is. Indeed, countless fangirls probably want to see Nuke in bed together! Storylines need to be relevant to different viewers.
I think that they have the base platform in place for the mobile media age, being able to produce lots of content quickly. But they need to modify how they're handling what they have.
Don’t they have vacations?
I mean, are they expected to work all year long without stop? May be they taped some parts beforehand so they can have a couple of weeks on vacation. Logically it would imply some scarcity for a while.
I don’t think ATWT is dropping the story out, if so they wouldn’t had made the Cyndi Lauper special. And they wouldn’t mind showing the guys kissing.
So, lets see.
Nuke's absence has nothing to do with the actor's vacations
This has often been speculated, but the times off for Van and Jake are well known, and their current drop from infrequent appearances to the current non-existence are not related to vacations.
It's clear to me, after a year of this drivel, that the show has run out of inane plot devices to keep Nuke from having sex, so they have moved on to the only available option, dropping them from the show. Since Jake is not on contract, they literally have to pay him nothing when he is not filming. It is no coincidence that Van's already infrequent appearance have recently been without Jake. Van is a contract player who is very popular and well regarded and has to be paid, so they are using him in his solo eunuch persona to prop other characters (Lily and Holden), and the upcoming Lucinda s/l. I doubt if we will see very little of Noah (if at all) in this upcoming s/l.
The show has no need to fire Jake (hence avoiding the fan backlash) since by simply keeping him off the show, it costs them nothing. Why Jake would want to continue with this pointless job is another question. However is he affording to continue to live in NYC given his current status as glorified day player?
Nuke isn't for me..
I am out, open, and happy with my life, it wasn't so when I was young. I was miserable and felt so alone. I think I would have killed to see characters like Nuke on TV back then rather than having to look up the the words, HOMOSEXUAL and GAY in the unabridged dictionary at my local library. Dr, David Rubin was all the rage back then and did nothing to affirm my feelings about my sexuality. Hey Doc, by the way my real name is neither Dick or Peter but I am still gay.
I don't want to think of Nuke as being grateful for little tidbits from the big bad network. I do want to say that even though it is little to you and me, I know it is probably a big deal to a lot of confused and questioning kids out there that come home and watch it as though it were the Bible.
If they do drop the storyline it will be a sad day for all those kids that crave acceptance more than sex. Healthy sex is an important part of life and should be seen as such. Abstinence never has and never will work. Intimacy is a strong element of healthy sex so kissing and snuggling wouldn't be out of bounds. I don't want the show turned into an unrealistic porn film. I have porn movies for that.
It has been announced that the man who is going to run Luke's foundation is going to bring conflict to the story, and he supposedly has a gay son too. They would not have changed the bumpers mid show to include Nuke if they did not have the intention to sustain them in the show.
Writing to the writers and producers won't change the direction. Writing to the Sponors will. They hold the purse string. Leters represent sales to them, they will listen to positive feedback. The far right can get 100,000 leters out the same day. The LGBT community doesn't and can't. We need to be more active in our own lives
Be the change you want to see.
INSIDEGUY
When I was a kid
Insideguy - Excellent comments. When I was a kid I too would have been very happy to see a positively portrayed gay couple anywhere on TV. I was confused myself, and I've said before I didn't even come out to myself until I was 19, even though I had been madly in love (or at least madly infatuated) at least three times by then. Just today I was telling someone in an e-mail about having an actual girlfriend in high school, and then going to a movie with her, but spending the whole time watching one of my high school crushes in the audience, plotting how I could become his friend. Even then I wasn't able to put two and two together. But if Luke and Noah had been on TV at that time.....
Now in HD?
NEWS FLASH: ATWT crumbles under the weight of gay expectations.
"All of our kids, straight and gay, have been denied information about safe sex practices."
Safe Sex practices are a part of the school curriculum in the U.S. The Catholic Schools and right wing home schoolers don't teach their kids about safe sex. The only reason I can think of is because they see pre-marital and gay sex as a sin, and if the kids practice either then it's believed that they deserve any punishment that God give's them, even death. However, in many school systems a teacher can be fired for admitting that he himself is gay, or by discussing his gay sister and her partner. Or even discussing gay sex during a sex education class.
The reason that Parker got the sex education lecture is because he was going to have sex. Luke, we all know, wasn't going to have sex. He don't need no sex talk. But you said you were relieved that they had the sex talk with Parker and Liberty, then explain that that's because straight kids think AIDS is a gay disease. We all agree that teaching protection is commendable. Period. Unless you're applying for federal funding, it doesn't seem to mater who you pitch the lesson to, as long as it's inclusive.
This is the 21st Century. Any kid over the age of 10 is well aware of gays, gay relationships and gay love. They don't have to look up 'Homosexual' in the dictionary unless they hear Karen Walker call her Poodle a 'silly 'mo." If P&G drop Nuke, another soap is going to pick up a gay couple faster than you can say, "ratings bonanza." And they will be certain to do a better job at it, too.
I expect P&G to be held accountable for their portrayal of gay characters. There seems to be an assumption that P&G are doing the gay community a favor just by presenting a gay couple, even if that couple is presented in a way that confirms the AFA's world view that being born gay is a sin. One commenter at AfterElton suggest that the Nuke story-line isn't a "Gay entertainment." No, but at one time ATWT made it one. And even as the story changes, P&G still need to be responsible for how they depict gay people and they need to be called out on exploitation when is occurs. Soaps do not exist in a bubble, a special apple basket where rules of fair play don't apply. I wouldn't call that progress.
As far as bearing the brunt of expectations, they are baring the brunt of the same type of expectation placed on any gay characters in the media today. This is the 21st Century after all; media watch groups and the news media it's self is quick to pick up on story's of mistreatment as do many individual voices like yours and mine. what the rabid fans of this story seem to want is an exception to the expectations. I've said before, If P&G are unwilling or unable to present this couple fairly and inclusively, then they should drop them and let some other soap take up the task. I'm sure any of the other soaps could do a much better job.
I am a fan of the actors as well. I will be following Hansis' career where ever he goes. Frankly, I can't wait for him to shake this role and take on a better project. I would love to see him play gay on another soap -one that is unswayed by the AFA. He's loyal to ATWT, but he would have won his Emmy this year if it weren't for the kissing ban. I know that. We all know that. It has to sting.
ATWT were aware when they created a gay teen that he was going to be a poster child of sorts. They cultivated that angle with his coming out story. That was as gay as entertainment gets. So, it would be exploitative for them to back off now and explain their shabby treatment of the couple as "this isn't a gay story", or "we can't meet everybody's expectations." It's too late for that; they already played the gay card. They are in the game. They knew the expectations and encouraged them when Lily didn't accept Luke at first and when they created a media blitz for the first kiss.
This isn't the lone Chinese-Americaqn kid in class who feels put upon to be the math wiz. This is a multi-million dollar industry being directed by individuals who earn hundreds of dollars an hour. I expect them to be able to stand up to the pressure and not crumble like a sensitive 5th grader.
.
ATWT = Gay Entertainment?
Nukely - We've been back and forth on the Nuke issue so much that it's obvious that we just disagree, which is fine. However, I want to explain my comment that Nuke was never meant to be "gay entertainment", since that contention is causing you some trouble.
Think of it this way. Multitudes of AE readers have been busy voting on and discussing their top 5 gay movies of all time, and it's obvious that most have seen many, many gay movies. Meanwhile, ATWT develops a gay relationship from its very beginnings, writes the story primarily for their straight audience (since I'll bet the straight audience outnumbers the gay audience by 20:1). Further, a large part of the audience for which it is being written is older, and represents long-time viewers, most of which would likely not fit into the "socially progressive" category. As a result, the story is developed slowly, often in very broad terms. Kissing has to be well considered, as does the ultimate sex and, in the meantime, all aspects of the relationship. That's just the reality. How can someone possibly think that, under those circumstances, they were writing the storyline as "gay entertainment" that would satisfy people busy debating the merits of "Boys In the Band" vs. "Shelter" vs. "Trick"? Or for people with a healthy collection of gay porn in their entertainment rooms?
And yet some of us are looking to ATWT for entertainment on the "Shelter" level, and being surprised, disappointed and even outraged when it doesn't happen. When the writers sit down to write this story, they are not thinking of how to please the AE audience. They are more focused on how to do the story fairly and respectfully, but still make it palatable to a wide cross-section of viewers, including, yes, grandmothers and evangelical Christians. It is NOT gay entertainment; it was not conceived as gay entertainment; it is not written as gay entertainment; and it will never BE gay entertainment for the "Trick" and "Shelter" afficionados. To hold it to standards anywhere near that is begging for disillusionment.
ATWT=ambiguity
"As a result, the story is developed slowly, often in very broad terms." The producers have been consistent in their public proclamations on the pacing of the show. "We want to tell an old fashioned story." (Please, please tell me when they have said otherwise.) Meaning a 1950s story which, if historically accurate, would involve bigotry. Why do we need to apologize for them? If what you say is in fact P&G's real concern, why weren't they up front with it? They could have said something like: "We are continuing to introduce our abiding fans to this beautiful and blossoming relationship." To me "old fashioned" is a code word for bigotry, because that was the old fashioned way of doing things. As a result they made it clear that Nuke were not allowed to kiss or interact with the other characters!
I am sorry. But if P&G are going to take the Kudos they need to step up to the plate and treat Nuke honestly and fairly or let them go. You say this isn't gay entertainment, but you seem to want to forgive them when the story became the projection of the AFA and evangelical Christians world view. Why does ATWT get to live by a different set of rules than governs the maturity and the love proffered by the rest of the media? And why is it reasonable for them to court the evangelical Christians and not the gays when they are telling our story? Didn't seem to bother the diverse audience when Henry and Vienna were fornicating in a church sanctuary. But I thought it was tacky.
You seem to be saying that any show that shows Gay men fairly is "gay entertainment." and by "gay entertainment" I think you mean the queer version of "chick flick." In that sense, are you saying it's okay to objectify and demean gay men, just as it's okay to objectify and demean women as long as it's a "dude movie" intended for a broader audience, not just women?
Bottomline: Good or Bad?
This is my first post so I should start by thanking all prior contributors for their indulgence. Personally I tend to agree with Nukely's most recent post to the extent that ATWT stepped into my world with the introduction of Nuke and the subsequent storyline; so, it is now incumbent upon me to determine whether or not CBS/ATWT/P&G are acting with due diligence with regard to characters of Luke and Noah. Perhaps this forum is best suited to provide me with an answer to that question; however, before arriving at an informed opinion I need to know more about those who have participated in this dialogue to date.
How many of you grew up in a small, rural Mid-Western town that is 200 miles from the nearest gay magazine, newspaper, or bookstore where internet access remains limited? I did. How many had a father whom you knew would have dis-owned/dis-inherited you immediately if he had ever found out you were gay? I did. How many of you have lived in long term relationships with men who went home to wives or girlfriends every night? I have. How many have been spit on, beaten up, called names, lost jobs, been mugged, etc. because you were gay. I was? How many can say that their lives wouldn't have been better if there had been one or two (regardless of how poorly defined) gay men appearing daily on their grandmothers' favorite soap opera? I can't.
Please, walk a mile in my shoes before you tell me that Nuke has no redeeming value to the larger gay community. My first hidden glimpses of our community took the form of gay-for-pay porn stars and drag queens, so you will forgive me for saying that I think the good far out weighs the bad where Luke and Noah are concerned. If Nuke can ease the burden of one gay teen or make life better for one gay person in rural America then it's an experiment worth advancing and a cause worth fighting for. That's my opinion based on personal experience but I remain open to your continued input on the subject.
Welcome to the forum...
oneloneokie - Welcome to the discussion. About your succession of questions, the only one I can answer "yes" to is the first one. I was born on a farm, and then lived in a very small town from the age of ten. Though it was only 50 miles from a big city, it was before the internet got anywhere near us. I wasn't exposed to anything at all, really, until I got to college and spent a LOT of time in the library going through the many books on homosexuality. (Fortunately it had an extensive collection.) My biggest memory is reading "The Persian Boy" by Mary Renault (about a young servant of Alexander the Great who was a sex partner and fell in love with him). I can honestly say that that was the first time I really had any understanding about what it meant to be gay. And I was 20 years old!
My grandmother's "story" was As The World Turns, which she watched without fail every day. The concept of "gay" was COMPLETELY foreign to her, as I'm sure it was to my parents. Had they had any inkling at the time that their son was gay they would have been horrified. (Though they would never have disowned me.) But had a story like Nuke been on ATWT at the time my grandmother would have been initially shocked, then puzzled, then gradually understanding. As would my parents. For my part, had I known Nuke were on I would have watched, and would have understood myself so much better.
The times today are different, and the subject of being gay is more in the public consciousness, especially in big cities. But that doesn't mean there aren't hundreds of thousands of gay kids in rural America feeling confused or lonely. That doesn't mean there aren't many, many gay kids in big cities feeling confused or lonely, or oppressed by the homophobic comments of their peers. Further, that doesn't mean there aren't MILLIONS of parents who don't "get" the idea of being gay, who think it only happens to other people's kids, or is somehow dirty or depraved. Yes, the gay world is all around in absolute terms with the internet, but how many people don't seek out that sort of thing. But a loving gay couple treated with respect coming into their homes via a soap opera could touch many.
Bottom line: as you say, if the show "can ease the burden of one gay teen or make life better for one gay person....then it's...a cause worth fighting for." Then I can overlook the flaws. Then I can assuage the disappointment of lack of perfection and crappy story lines.
Bottom Line: good is good
Thank-you for the acknowledgment, I appreciate that. As always, I'm sorry to hear about your struggles, even though I am quite aware that life in a small town is harder for gay folks. Forgive me for not sharing my own story, most people disbelieve me anyway.
As I have said before, we need to reject gay role models that reinforce the "love the sinner, hate the sin" world view. That "view" is not a compromise; it's a step back to the medieval period, which some historians consider more gay friendly than the 1950s but certainly not kinder than the 21st century. I'm afraid we will be stuck in a quagmire, where sitting in public with our shame is seen as a reward. Instead, we need to promote healthy gay role models.
I have to say that since their second kiss up until Ameera left, sadly "hate the sin" was the story that ATWT was developing and telling. In that regard, I believe I am right about my assessment of the show. But I do rejoice as long as they continue to protray gay love without the shame.
.
Thank You...
Oh my
I'm did not read arrogance in you; I'm sorry to see your post revised. But I feel honored by your contribution. Either way.
.