Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 53 members and 1479 guests online.
|
ATWT - Brian Wheatley's Secret Is...... (SPOILER)SPOILER SPACE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian's secret is revealed.... to Luke anyway. Next week, Lucinda has a mastectomy. Following the surgery, Brian proposes and Lucinda accepts. The two are quickly married. Later, Brian finds Luke, who has been drinking since he's upset over the situation with Noah and has a major hang over. Brian and Luke get close.... a little too close and Brian kisses young Mr. Snyder. Luke is stunned and Brian insists Luke not tell anyone as to not ruin Lucinda's happiness....... Submitted by Anthony D. Langford (7385 points) (1615 posts) on Mon, 2008-11-10 14:59. |
 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
Holy S*&tbags!
I mean, we all kind of expected to a certain extent, but seriously?
Holy S%^TBAGS!
www.thebittersuite.blogspot.com
They're really doing it then ?
Wooo yeah we all thought about it but honestly I didn't think they'd dare...
This storyline seriously needs some shaking, I'm already barely watching it anymore, but I'm pretty sure they're even gonna make this new stunt boring !
holy damn!!
Is this next week? Whoa. Like Brock said above, not entirely unexpected... but WHOA. Love, love, love the drama.
Duh! Is that really
SAY WHAAAAAT?
I obviously have to go back to the recaps, because I can’t remember who Brian is. i do assume he is MUCH older than Luke. damn.
Brian Is...
Gotta hand it to P&G, again.
A creepy closet case villain, What a surprise? Reinforces every Republican, wing-nut, house wife's worst nightmare and worst stereotype about predatory gay men. He marries a wowan to hide his disgusting sin. Not only that, he marries her so he can be close to a virgin man boy who he can deflower. What are they planning for Luke's first sexual experience, a gay rape?
Thanks again, ATWT, for keeping the dream alive. Who knows, you may soon be the first show to win both a GLAAD award and what ever sick tribute that the AFA hands out, -and for the same story line!
How's that for drama?
Laughing!
Okay, I'm totally late to the party here but this made me laugh out loud. You're so right on! It would be one thing if Luke weren't drunk and/or stupid and/or had a backbone and/or was a stronger person in general...but this just seems sorta low.
But, I will say there's something sorta tingly about Brian and Luke kissing. It's because I love the actor who plays Brian. I remember when I was kid I was convinced I was going to marry him (he played Jamie on Another World--my all time favorite soap). So to see him kissing another guy is sorta hot. Does that make me skeevy?
Oh, I See Your Point....
..... but I don't think the show is going to go very far with it. To be honest, I thought they'd never go in this direction and I was shocked when I first heard about it. I seriously doubt if it's going to be depicted in the dark manner you draw.
At least I hope not.
No matter how it's depicted
No matter how it's "depicted", this is the story that is going to play out in the fragile minds of the wing nuts that everybody tells me this story is suppose to be influencing. How about reinforcing stereotypes and prejudices? -nice influence when you can get it.
How else can it be depicted? The man woos Lucinda, then makes a play for her grandson! Let's see, it could be depicted like he is overcome by gay aliens who make him "choose" to be gay with their evil sex phasers? And then he snaps out of it? Perhaps he confesses that he's acting on the same feelings that every male in Oakdale are suppressing and Luke suddenly is confronted by 100s of suitors who can't resist him because he's some kind of gay Stupefyin' Jones? Maybe Brian's a closet Italian? And what about the fact that this is the man who has been predicting failure because of Luke's politics.
Simply put, Luke is now the uppity faggot who will do anything for his "so called' rights, including, lie, cheat or steal. And he deserves to be punished for it, (being uppity that is.) At the end of this I expect that Luke will come to his senses, unlike the faggots protesting in California as I write this, and he will abandon gay politics. Noah is the good gay, an Army brat who knows his gay place is to honor celibacy for ever. Sure they're a cute couple, if you're working for the inquisition and enjoy flogging people.
And the other gays on the show who aren't "wall paper", Who are they? Sex obsessed hot tubbers, political activists who cheat and lie, and now a sexual predator. Except for the obvious, lisping, hair stylist, are we missing any negative stereotypes?
And the list of good gays? Besides the eunuch Noah, there are none, now that poor Luke has fallen prey to the evils of the gay agenda.
The producers of this show either despise gays or they are more messed up than we could imagine.
.
Take a breath...
...Nukely. Lets wait and see how this plays out before getting a hernia. I said before that I thought this is what they were going to do with Brian. That is why he is so terrified of what people will think of the foundation having anything to do with gay activism. He probably has been bashed and/or closeted his whole life because of it. This is where the show is heading in terms of showing what happens when one is persecuted and therefore hidden. They probably won't tell the story well, or even barely decently, but I think that is where they are headed. Besides, the actor that plays Brian and Van have a lot of fans out there. I don't think the producers really want to trigger any riots.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
breath in and out
Janet, before when you Wrote: "I'm always wrong about predicting these plots," that sent a chill down my spine. People usually seem to say that when they are in fact right, even if they're unsure.
How come all of these muddled plots always make the gays look bad?
Is anyone going to feel sympathy for Brian's past regrets or trauma after he hits on Luke and disappoints Lucinda?
Okay, If Brian kisses Luke just to prove he isn't a homophobe and help Luke out by making Noah jealous?
I'll puke.
Get - out!
They really went with the most obvious choice. I could think of a 100 different ways this would go, but didnt think they would go that way.
Is he gay? Maybe hes european?
I dont have a problem with Wheatables making a play for Luke, Im more troubled about having him marry Lucinda and were that could go. I agree with Nukely that no matter how this is handled, people are going to interpret what is on their minds anyway.
Honestly, I dont mind this story to be told, hey it happens, as long as they dont go to scandalous. That may be too much to ask. Well see how that plays.
I´m happy that at last...
I’m happy that at last Luke is gonna have sex! Ok, ok, not the ideal scenery, but hey, after a year of gathering lust over Noah I think Luke can easily take anything that moves and is not his family. So go, Brian, go, and make nutty little Luke a little happier, lol.
Well, seriously, I’ve seen that (gay Brian) as a possibility but not as a huge one.
¿Where will Noah be? Will see, will see.DAMN!
Holy %&$&
Well
OH MY SH*TSTORMS!
This cannot be... there's GOTTA be some sort of catch to it. Logically it makes no sense and almost goes completely against... wait, nevermind, their storylines don't make sense and go completely against what you would expect to happen already. But this is REALLY pushing the envelope.
So, wait a minute, they're willing to piss off the crazy old grammas and AFA bigots who watch this show with a "gay X-Generation sex scandal" but they won't let two young adult males get it on behind closed doors? What the HELL is going on, I have never been more confused with this show (minus the time a smoking hot dead guy came back from the grave)!
I've gone cold turkey and it feels so good. No more ATWT
If this was happening 10 years ago, I would argue that it was entirely due to homophobia as most of the characters were not card-boards. These days all the characters are card-boards and my biggest qualm with the show-runners is that they continue to use these popular characters as gay bait and really seem to buy their own PR about how noble they are being for letting these guys appear in their dying show once in a blue moon.
It seems like they've finally decided to model the characters without even the slightest veil as they do all their female/male pairings. Luke (uppity fag)is the "woman" of the relationship and "Noah" gets to be the "man." As such, Luke/Carly/Lily/even Juicy Janet are always doing "bad" things as Noah/Jack/Holden are "good" and love their women only when they act according to standards that these loser men never meet.
While I know that I'll miss Carly and Lucinda, not watching this mess (esp. Luke and Noah) has allowed me to ranting about the state of the entire show. The ratings last week are showing that this show is in serious trouble and part of me would like to see it gone as, unlike other shows, neither its runner or head writer have been shown the door.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
We all understand Brian !!!
I don't really care about Brian wanted Luke (me too after all, and I'm sure i'm not alone...), but the fact that Luke has been drinking...
If you know the entier Luke'story, you should know, it's a bad idea... and maybe a great storyline. (I can dream...no?)
TV Guide is promoting this
TV Guide is promoting this "exciting" "event," which is due to take place Wednesday, Nov. 19.
Stereotype? Not ATWT
Interesting Take, Which Confuses Me
Nee Jones
The Way I Understand It Is...
Amazingly, that's not
Is It Always Predatory When An Older Person Makes A
pass at a younger person? Or do folks just think it's predatory because we're dealing with gay/possibly gay men?
I could see where the general straight audience of ATWT might not want to see Brian kissing Luke (for a whole host of reasons), but it's not like Brian is particularly threatening as a character.
I don't remember anyone calling Gabby from DH predatory. Yes there is the whole cougar thing but it seems to be constructed as a "confident, sexy older woman" rather than a predator.
Obviously Brian shouldn't have kissed Luke for like a cajillion reasons (they both have partners, Luke is his BOSS, Brian is married to Luke's grandmother)
I don't think the fact that Brian doesn't or hasn't identified as "gay" makes any difference with regard to the kiss, per se.
People make passes at other people all the time, druken, sober, appropriate, inappropriate.
I don't think the kiss in and of itself is such a big deal (or rather, I don't think it SHOULD be such a big deal)
We'd alwasy assumed Brian might be gay given is Crazy Closeted Man behavior so that's not really such a big surprise.
Please Luke is adorable. He's particularly adorable when he's upset.
I'm a Dyke and even I might wanna kiss him if I saw him feeling all sad and unguarded.
What alarms me is THE DRINKING. It makes sense, his life is kinda falling apart at the moment, but I just hope it doesn't get prolonged or the drinking doesn't become the REASON why he and Noah make up.
They have really serious issues. Any couple (gay, straight, old married, teenager lovers) would need to seriously hash stuff out.
Perhaps a weekend spent hiding away and fighting it out at Lily's lovely hotel...
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorthy Parker)
preditors
But first of all, let me comment on the stereotype of gay as predator, which means older men preying on younger. I want to acknowledge that that is a stereotype.
A predator will prey on vulnerable victims: children, the enfeebled and drunken young men, in this case.
A sexual predator will marry a woman in order to molest her children.
It is going to be interesting to see how ATWT explains this kiss as not being a gay kiss. or will they simply dismiss the whole thing because that how gays are.
One of the few character traits that they have preserved with Luke is that when his personality crashes, he turns to drinking. He did it before and it's no surprise he would relapse. Yes, Noah will probably save him and Dusty will probably push Noah to do it.
And the list of good gays? Besides the eunuch Noah, there are none, now that poor Luke has fallen prey to the evils of the gay agenda.
Perhaps Brian Won't Be Depicted As Some Skeevy Slimester
Of course I'm aware that there are stereotypes about predatory gay men and predatory older men, etc.
But I still think sometimes a kiss can just be a kiss. It's 2008, we don't HAVE to participate into the stereotypical way of thinking.
I never read Reg as a "bad gay" he was a sexually active guy who's Boyfriend Tony was a partier (much like Cassie and Kevin and other college aged guys)
Reg is still friend with Luke, he just also happens to think Luke is sexy. Does that make him a predator? I'm not a dude so maybe I'm just not sensitive to that particular way of viewing the character.
I see Reg and Tony and Noah and Luke as 4 different gay guys who approach being gay differently but who are all out and comfortable (at this point) with being gay.
There is nothing inherently predatory about someone kissing someone unless there is some kind of molestation involved.
Since the scene hasn't actually happened (and the spoiler says Hung Over, not Drunk) I'm just hoping that it's a lot less skeevy than folks are assuming.
I've definitely been in a situation where a girl (and once a guy) jsut up and kissed me out of the blue (I'm sure many folks here have had this happen at some point) and it didn't feel like, OH MY GOD, I'VE BEEN ASSAULTED.
I didn't return the kiss and I made it clear that I wasn't into it. Done and Done.
Granted it may have been a bigger deal for her/him than me (if they were crushed or something) but it was still just a kiss.
So I'm hoping that maybe this situation with Brian and Luke will be handly well and gently and not be all "DON DON DON, CRAZY CLOSET CASE LUSTFUL BRIAN ATTACKS INNOCENT VIRGINAL LUKE! Film at 11.
Perhaps I'm being naive but it's just a spoiler and we really have no idea how it's going to play out and we've already decided that Brian is a monster preying on poor defenseless Luke and I could see the scene/storyline going in a whole lot of other different directions.
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorthy Parker)
Perhaps...
You're saying you were drunk and vulnerable and your grandfather, or grand mother's boyfriend, just up and kissed you *like that*? And you thought that was okay? And you found a way to handle that well and gently?
I know that they release these spoilers to create interest. But, like I said before, from my story telling point of view, this is re-enforcing a negative stereotype. Nothing in the past year has shown me that ATWT can handle a scene like that with any kind of redemption, the only possibility I can think of is that Brian's just some weird straight dude with boundary issues who really doesn't see what he does as anything but innocent, and the only reason the writers put that in was so folks like me would write the things I do and get the fans all charged up. Are they that clever?
The Spoiler just says Luke has a "major hang over"
It's doesn't say Luke is "drunk" "passed out" or "vulnerable" so I'm not sure where all that is coming from.
I know we differ on this. I think that Reg and Tony were perfectly normal young gay men. Tony was more into partying and dating around, Reg was more into having a boyfriend and gay activism. I hope the characters continue to pop in from time to time.
As for grandfathers...
I would hardly call Brian Luke's grandfather. He's been married to Lucinda for all of 5 minutes. But please, this is a soap, people willingly sleep with step siblings and step parents and cousins all the time. People swap partners between siblings and mothers and daughters like gum. It would hardly be shocking. Just because the are men and gay doesn't make them immune to the soap opera partner swap madness.
As far as soaps are concerned it's like" What, no actual blood relation? Well then, have at it!"
Since it hasn't happened yet, I have no way of judging whether or not Brian is going to be depicted as or received by viewers as a predator.
I also didn't say that Brian kissing Luke was OKAY, I just say it's not the same as some kind of predatory "assault" and Luke's response doesn't have to be all "Help, Help, Brian Kissed Me".
It could be more like how Noah responded to Ameer's kissing him "Um, wait a minute, hold up, what part of I'm not into you did you not get?!" or "Um, seriously Brian, you need to back that up and explain yourself did you just marry my Grandman Mr. Straight man, WTF?" or some such thing.
I could easily see a scene in my head where Brian kisses Luke, is shocked by his own actions, Luke is shocked by the whole thing but is also sad for Brian because he now understands why Brian has behaved like such a freak monster towards him about gay stuff (even if Brian didn't know himself why).
Whether or not he decides to tell Lucinda. Ahhh, there's the story.
I'm just saying there are many ways the scene could play out and we don't have to assume the story will be "See, middle-aged closeted gay men are just lying plotting evil looking for a place to happen"
I think it could be an interesting sort of story if it's done well.
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorthy Parker)
they said blotto
darcolover55 wrote: I
I think it could be an interesting sort of story if it's done well.
Yes, because ATWT has shown us that they know how to craft interesting and compelling stories so well especially when it comes to Luke and/or Luke and Noah.
Don't hold your breath.
Yeah, TV Guide Says That....
.... but other spoilers say that Luke does remember what happened. So there's some confusion about that.
Every storyline in EVERY
Every storyline in EVERY SOAP OPERA enforces, and reinforces, negative stereotypes and negative messages. Whether they be of straight couples or Nuke. Nobody watches As the World Turns for its strong moral and ethical code, or for its work in breaking down stereotypes. Nobody watches any soap opera for the messages they put across. In all their plots, EVERYONE is made to look bad at one point or another.
For Luke and Noah to NOT be involved in a storyline that sees them self-destruct, cheat, not listen to advice, AND/OR scheme is treating them differently to other couples on the show. And this is what the show promised to do: to treat them the same as every other couple on the show. This does not, and frankly CANNOT, mean that they are treated in a way akin to real life. Because real life and soap opera can never co-exist.
In my very humble opinion, I don't think the show has a duty to represent this couple in any light they don't desire, or in a light that would take them away from a really JUICY SOAP story. And I CERTAINLY don't think the writers sit down and try to think of ways to convey the gay community in all its glorious stereotypes. This is compelling SOAP storytelling where the lines of morality and ethics are blurred (and odds are the guy who committed the morally dubious act will come out on top). Still, as viewers, we're confronted with some pretty strong arguments for and against. It's just fun, far-fetched storytelling.
ALSO, one last thing. As the two gay men in the show, Noah and Luke are COMPLETELY different from each other. And NEITHER fits into any stereotype of the homosexual man. The same goes for Reg and Tony.
full of it
The fact of the matter is that ATWT and many of Nukes fans have been dreaming of the day that they can smack down gay activists for their criticism of the show. Don't despair, Nukeforever, that day has come. Revel in it. Oh, wait, you are.
Never mind.
Please...
My point is that gay activism can be far more affective when scrutinizing a medium that actively seeks to demoralise homosexuals, as opposed to EVERYONE! It's a soap opera. It has no basis in reality. There can be no moralising on soaps. On the issue of rape: On 'Days', Sammi claimed to have been raped by EJ, and yet since then, they have had a child together and have been romantically linked. EJ has committed countless murders and yet he is roaming free. This is just one of MANY examples where the criminals have been rewarded, not reprimanded.
The activists' argument is made weak when it is clear that ATWT has NOT portrayed straight couples as morally superior to the gay couple. In fact, in comparison, Luke and Noah would be the clear victors in that game. Neither has cheated on the other, abused the other, or schemed to cause the personal downfall of another human being. Instead, they have supported each other, and proven to be exceptional people who would go to unlikely lengths to save another human being from potential death. With this election storyline, no matter who you agree with, you can understand and empathise with both Luke and Noah. I haven't seen Luke as a "crazed gay radical", but a man who was rejected (heart-break and revenge are not reserved to the Luke character alone) and a man who believed in the message of diversity and anti-discrimination, and took that belief too far.
I would never be so arrogant as to suggest what you think I'm suggesting, BUT I do feel as though there is room to defend ATWT (or at least those of us who disagree with you about the negative light these characters have been placed in) and perhaps show that there is another side to the story that you may (or may not) have missed or interpreted differently. Isn't that the point of debate?
and thankyou...
Okay, one rapist gets off free, in one soap even though the crime is never poved, therefore no moralizing ever happens on any soap -least of all ATWT.
We all know that every soap character falls from grace on a soap. Your argument falls apart when the very reason that Luke gets taken down is BECAUSE he is gay NOT inspite of it.
Not the point
For Luke and Noah to NOT be involved in a storyline that sees them self-destruct, cheat, not listen to advice, AND/OR scheme is treating them differently to other couples on the show. And this is what the show promised to do: to treat them the same as every other couple on the show. This does not, and frankly CANNOT, mean that they are treated in a way akin to real life. Because real life and soap opera can never co-exist.
It's obvious you're a super fan (NukeForever?) so I'm not sure why I'm going to bother but I have insomnia again so here goes.
Nobody is asking that Luke and/or Noah not be scheming, self-destructive, cheaters, liars, or anything of the sort. Or any other character in their orbit. I would welcome that. I loathe wholesome Luke. I would welcome a story arc that had him really getting in touch w/ his Damian and Lucinda roots. I think Van's overacting and mugging would be perfect for that. And Jake always plays Noah w/ such earnestness he'd be perfect as the wronged lover.
So please get this through your head. We don't want saints. What we're asking for is that it not be related to them being gay in a negative and derogatory way. And it always seems to be. They can be evil and just happen to be gay. As it goes right now, you're evil b/c you're gay and/or doing something that has to do w/ being gay. His entire reason for entering the race to begin with was to be a representative of the gay community b/c he was pissed that they couldn't do a gay movie festival. That was his reasoning. And to win he had to stuff a ballot box. So his intentions were noble (give the gays on campus some representation) but he was punished for going about it the wrong way. As he should but it all went back to his original intent. Rep the gays. Can you not see where this might rub some ppl the wrong way?
I said this somewhere else but Luke could've done a hundred different things that had nothing to do w/ him being gay whatsoever and, quite frankly, it would've made more sense and been more compelling. How about he's spending so much time on his foundation he's pretty much forgot about school and now really needs to get his ass in gear or risk failing? How about him hacking into a computer to steal an exam? How about him blackmailing a professor who gave him a shitty grade? Hell, if we wanted to incorporate the gay thing and still let him get into trouble why not hijack the movie festival and stage a gorilla gay cinema? That would've been noble, stupid, and he'd probably got into trouble for it. But it wouldn't have left such a bad taste in ppl's mouths.
In all their plots, EVERYONE is made to look bad at one point or another.
But they're made to look bad as it relates to their character traits, not their sexuality. There is a difference.
In my very humble opinion, I don't think the show has a duty to represent this couple in any light they don't desire, or in a light that would take them away from a really JUICY SOAP story.
What about this is juicy? Stuffing a ballot box is drama? Really? Wow. Have we forgotten the truly glorious days of 80-90's soaps that were truly juicy? I think we have. There is nothing here that says "juicy" except for the fact that Noah works at a coffee house and they probably serve orange juice.
You can have compelling gay characters that deal w/ their sexuality but also get great s/l. JP/Craig/Keiron on Hollyoaks. Ollie/Christian on FL. You can even have really fucked up ppl who happen to be gay who get into trouble constantly, i.e., Max/Iago (a career criminal whose mother was killed b/c she helped him commit a robbery so he could flee the country) on whatever the name of that Spanish soap is. On and on.
Quite frankly, when you grovel and shove your product into the gay community to get ppl to watch you have a duty to give them a reason to. I don't think anyone would give a flying monkey's ass if they hadn't done so well in summer 07. They set us up. That's all there is to it.
You know what? I pride
You know what? I pride myself on being and remaining respectful towards other people, especially when it's discussion over a soap opera. And I can recognise that not all people behave the same way. Fine.
I will say this, though. Because I am human. There is NOTHING "ABSOLUTE" about your POINT OF VIEW. You can't end on "That's all there is to it". How arrogant can you be? Because your post is exactly that: a point of view. For you to support your argument with jabs at my light-hearted chosen username and to compare an AMERICAN soap to that of EUROPEAN ones is not going to convince me of your stance. People are different, cultures are different and shows have to play to that. The fact that there is a "Nuke" (SUPERCOUPLE) on American daytime right now must be viewed as a step in the right direction.
I'm actually sorry that you (and Nukely) are so jaded to see that the soap opera As the World Turns isn't actually out to get you. I would like to say "get over yourself", but that would be rude, wouldn't it? Oh wait, I'm still miles away from a bold and italicised command like "get this through your head". Wow. Just wow.
I'm actually done with After Elton. The amount of times I've witnessed (and experienced) the disgraceful attacks on differing OPINIONS happens far too often and goes unchecked far too often. For wanting to enjoy a SOAP OPERA, this turned out to be the biggest waste of time.
snow day
I am so completely depressed over the current story line. Not as much over the story line but how quick and exhuberant that fans are to imbrace yet another plot that is demoralizing to gays.
I was beginning to wonder if I was born on another planet or at a different time and I might be the only one who see's this. But then there you are, LoTr1985, like a magnifyig glass. Thank Godess for insomnia.
Back to ya my friend
I am so completely depressed over the current story line. Not as much over the story line but how quick and exhuberant that fans are to imbrace yet another plot that is demoralizing to gays.
I want to preface what I'm getting ready to say by reiterating that I'm not stating that everyone who likes this s/l (or parts thereof) and/or Luke and Noah are anti-gay. I have a great friend who actually likes it right now but she sees my point of view and doesn't try and make excuses. And occassionaly, I can see where she's coming from b/c she's logical and comes @ it from a logical place. The same could be said of Anthony Langford. I remember having some good discussions w/ him @ SoapFest (that's right haters I was @ SoapFest and I went b/c of Luke and Noah--the old Luke and Noah) and, although we disagreed, I think he's one of those ppl who can see where it might offend. And I can see why he likes this s/l in terms of what's been on before. And we can have a good debate b/c he's logical, he knows the history of soaps (which is very important), and he can see things I can't so I feel like even if I don't agree, I might learn something. I would get into a discussion w/ him any day of the week b/c it's just that--a discussion. And it just boils down to that we have a difference of opinion.
I don't think it's even about super fans embracing the s/l really. It's that they can't stand anything negative to be said about their darling Luke and Noah and, in turn, Van and Jake. The truth is, I don't think a lot of them (most on vh.net for example) care about the s/l as long as it involves Luke and Noah in some capacity, which is truly horrible for the gay community. It doesn't matter to them that it demoralizes gays. It has Luke and Noah (and more specifically Van and Jake--squee!) and that's all that matters.
I was beginning to wonder if I was born on another planet or at a different time and I might be the only one who see's this. But then there you are, LoTr1985, like a magnifyig glass. Thank Godess for insomnia.
You are not the only one who sees it. The ratings can attest to that. It's just that Van/Jake--Luke/Noah fans (b/c of course they're the same thing) are incredibly vocal and they spend a lot of time on their obsession (as do I w/ my YouTube obsessions w/ other soaps). And it sometimes feels like you're ramming your head into a tree when you try to lead them down a logic tree so why bother, i.e., but what about this? OMG don't talk about Van/Jake Luke/Noah that way!! They view it as a personal attack against them, which I've never understood, and then begin to make rules so that you can do nothing but praise them no matter what they're doing or how the characters are acting. So the debate just stops.
I can't believe I'm getting ready to say this but Mike Huckabee (yes, that Mike Huckabee) actually said something the other day to Bill Mahr. He said that he welcomes debate and discussion about his faith b/c if you aren't preparred to debate and discuss and logically defend, your faith wasn't that strong to begin with. I think the same could be said of some super fans who just refuse to see anything from flowers and unicorns from these two.
I was just a kid when I started watching soaps in the mid-80's (I was actually named after a major character on Another World) but I remember doing all kinds of stupid shit so I could stay home to watch. I remember faking a serious stomach ailment (complete w/ vomit) just so I could stay home to see if Josie won the modeling contest on Another World. And kids have ridiculous attention spans so you know there was something that was holding my attention. And as I've gotten older it's gotten worse in terms of s/l and character development and the fact that I can remember what it was like in the glory days makes it that much more significant. And it's not just the genre of soap. It's the American genre of soaps. Britian, France, Germany, Spain, Mexico--they all have better soaps than we do that have great s/l and gay characters. It can be done. But not as long as we're okay w/ the status quo and not as long as we take the route of "at least they're on." Until that changes, the shows won't. Period.
Interesting Post
I too welcome debate, and I especially appreciate it when the subject is religion. There are so few religious people who can talk about religion without feeling challenged and threatened and even offended by a difference of opinion. I have a new appreciation for Mike Huckabee for what he said. And I can one-up you on that. George W. Bush (yes, THAT George W. Bush) has said a couple of times that he believes that Christians, Muslims, and others all pray to the same God. That's gotten very little play, but it's a truly shocking statement in the context of his evangelical base.
Having said all that, though, I have a different take on the ATWT situation. I'm in no way a non-thinking fan of either the actors or the characters. But my honest, thoughtful, logically considered opinion is different from that of people like you and Nukely. Nothing wrong with that, of course. As you said, disagreements are healthy if both sides are respectful and logical. However, I'm very reluctant to say much about ATWT on this board because of the negativity it seems to generate. I can't speak for the attitudes on different boards, which I don't read. But I feel a lot of intolerance here to anything that's outside of a narrow range of highly critical, "this is terrible" reaction to the show and S/L. Read Nukely's posts in this thread, and yours as well. There's a tone not of "here's how I see it and why", but rather "This is how it is, and you're screwed up if you see it any other way. Period."
Personally, I don't come to AE to fight with anyone, or to be attacked by anyone. I'm happy to exchange thoughts and opinions, but sometimes the anti-ATWT people seem as intransigent and absolutist as do evangelical Christians. There simply are no absolutes of any kind here. I can easily see cases that can be made for either side. It all comes down to world views and perceptions and opinions. I just don't see how there can be any "Period"s in this discussion.
Back to you
You're actually making my point but okay let me try and clarify.
Again, you're assuming that the attack is against you. I'm telling you it's not. In my case, and I don't pretend to speak for Nukely, I can unequivocally say you really need to be careful about reading emotion into a post that's not there if it's coming from me. Trust me there would be no perception of anything. If I hated you or found you stupid or found you illogical make no mistake, I would say something. And saying that your argument is illogical is not the same as saying that you are illogical. Completely different. And if I say your argument is illogical, and provide examples and reasons why, show me I'm wrong. As my mother would say "you need to know what you know and why you know it."
Here's the truth--I don't know anyone (with the exception of Anthony and maybe Guillermo) even remotely well enough to attack them, unless they use their screen name from vh.net or I know who they are (which was the case here) and then I know them too well perhaps (I have personal history w/ those folks and yes, that animosity is very real and it's very personal b/c I actually know them--met them--been in the same room with them and that's an entirely different beast).
I, on the other hand, have been called stupid, frigid, lacking in sense of humor, a victim, a joyless and soulless human being all on AE. For me, what I type are words and you just can't convey any type of true emotion behind them, at least not for me unless I implicitly say so. I try to be as straightforward as possible ("you're like a fucking Brit" one of my friend's says--no flowers and rainbows from me) b/c I don't feel like typing a manifesto (although it usually ends up being one). If you misinterpret, let me know and I can try and explain another way.
But it's they who have created the "us versus them" concept. Not me. I wouldn't still have friends who still love this show and converse w/ regularly about this show if I did. And I wouldn't occasionally check in on YouTube to see where they are. And I wouldn't take the time to respond to other's posts.
I've never had a conversation with you (that I can recall) so perhaps you're different. I would be happy to have a debate but debating has rules and that may be the crux of the problem. Most people don't know what a real "debate" is. Debate is an attack--an attack on the other side's hypothesis and arguments. And it's okay to say "that argument is illogical" or "that argument doesn't make any sense." Because that’s my perception. And I’m one of the debaters. If that's the case, if I'm saying that to you, prove me wrong. Show me the logic behind it. I would, in turn, have no problem doing it in any of my posts should I be called on it. That's why I always go point by point. That way, whoever disagrees can, in turn, go point by point in rebuttal. And if you get tired of the game, just say "don't wanna talk about it anymore." Then I'm done. Nothing to discuss with you @ that point. But if you post something, don't expect there to not be questions.
Debate is, at its core, a point by point rebuttal against the other person(s) main hypothesis (mine being that this show has jumped the shark and is offensive--when I ask the basic question of "can you not see how this might be offensive to some ppl?" I have yet to get any real response to that). It does not require that either side agree and yes, there are absolutes in debate because it's a perception of what the absolute is. You can't have a debate without that. For/Against, For/Against. That's how you judge debate even. You write For on one side and Against on the other, write down all the points that each side makes under their particular column, match the rebuttals, and whoever has more arguments to defend their hypothesis that weren't successfully rebutted wins.
Now, you can concede points, even agree on some which I've done. I agree with everyone who wants to see one/both of the boys scheme and be manipulative...I've said that many, many times. I don't agree on the method and have provided examples of how it could be done both of my own and other shows...I have yet to have anyone respond to that either. I can see where some of this might be exciting, especially given the enormous lack of airtime the two had this summer. I'm not even morally opposed to the kiss between Luke and Brian b/c I think it would have potential and I really don't like the character of Noah so I wouldn't care if they broke up. But not the way it's being played and written, IMO. Myself, Nukely, and others have given specific reasons why we don't like it but no one has really responded to that either.
I have never really had a discussion with someone on here that lasts more than 1-2 posts that goes back and forth, back and forth, point by point rebuttal. They don't usually get that far. They 1) go off in a different direction entirely or 2) attack you personally. Again, I can go point by point with anyone's posts that I disagree with and it's expected that they could do the same...but they don't. If you can do that, I have no beef with you. Maybe your argument but not you. And therein lays the problem. You see it as a personal attack but it's really the argument.
As for my "period" prove me wrong. The statement was something along the lines of "if we continue to accept the status quo, the shows will never change...period." All you have to do is hop on YouTube and see the difference in quality, s/l, character development, etc. in other soaps in other countries. I have yet to have one person...just one...tell me how American soaps (which is what I was specifically referring to here not just ATWT) compete and compare with these other soaps, many of whom have lower budgets than even ATWT. We accept that this is all we can have because we continue to watch. Perhaps I should've spelled that out more but it's really in relation to the entire genre of American soap, not just ATWT. We don't stop watching no matter how atrocious it gets.
So if you disagree, what's the alternative? What's the other side of that argument? How is my absolute wrong? And if it helps, narrow it to ATWT. Is the status quo okay for you? Do you not want it to change? Are you happy with the show and/or Luke & Noah? Do you like the direction of the s/l? Do you have any misgivings? Is it awesome to you? Why? And be prepared to explain why. "It's great drama" is not really an answer. “It’s great drama because “point,” “point,” “point” is better. What about it makes it great drama? What is drama? When you compare it to the other shows as a control group is it better? Worse? Give me specifics. And if you feel like that's intolerance because I'm asking you to explain then I guess I am intolerant. Forgive me if I require a bit more depth than “because I say so.” I back up what I say. And yes, again, that’s “period.”
Bottom line, I am more than prepared to defend why I feel the way I feel. Could the same be said of anyone else?
Response - Finally
Thanks for the thoughtful, well constructed response. I'm sorry it took so long to reply, but I haven't been on AE much lately. I suppose I'm replying on a dead thread and no one will see it. Oh well...
Actually, I fully understand pretty much everything you said, whether about the nature of debate, attacks on persons vs. attacks on arguments, etc. In fact, I was heavily recruited in high school to the debate team because I'm so good at it. But I declined, partly because I don't like the idea of arguing for a position I don't believe in, and partly because I had a problem with public speaking. But I'm confident (arrogant?) enough to say that in a true debate I feel I could mop the floor with you or Nukely! Sorry for the bravado, but I guess I've got a bit of "fucking Brit" in me too sometimes!
But anyway, your post raises so many issues I'll number my responses:
1. You lament the fact that few people are willing to debate you on AE. I'll offer two possible reasons. First, as Joseph alludes to, I think many people are not up to the effort. That's not a slam against them. But to get into a long, back and forth debate in writing requires a fairly large commitment of time and energy. And what's the payoff really? Not much, if you ask me. At the end, it's still really one person's opinion against anothers, and little is settled. In a true debate situation, face to face, especially with a judge of some kind, it's much more profitable, because there can be a "winner", and because there are more formal rules that help lead to a satisfactory outcome. In the short time I've been on AE I don't think I've ever seen a "debate" that lived up to the name, or that I saw as profitable. And so I personally don't engage in them. As I said to Nukely on another thread, if you lived near me we could give it a go, but it rarely seems to work in online forums. And I think a lot of other people feel the same way, and so would rather just offer their opinions and leave it at that.
The second possible reason is that I think you (and Nukely as well) do give off a feeling of belligerence and negativity that puts people off, and makes them unwilling to engage you. I don't mean that as a slam at all, but it's my honest opinion based on what little I've read from the two of you. For example, just in this thread Nukely headed a post "Full of it" in reference to the poster he was replying to, and you said "So please get this through your head" in bold letters and underlined. There are several other examples as well, in addition to just an overall tone of hostility from both of you. Personally, I'm not intimidated by that at all, but it certainly doesn't give me any desire to engage in debate with someone who expresses themselves that way. I'm not asking you to change. But I would ask that you consider that perhaps that expressed attitude is preventing exactly the sort of debate you're seeking. Think about how formal debates work. As long as they stay respectful they work. The minute they descend to sarcasm or belligerence they start to fall apart.
2. Regarding ATWT, I respect your desire to debate its merits, but personally I have no interest in that. To me it's just a soap opera that I watch and comment on, but I don't think it has an importance that makes it worthy of much debate, certainly not a drawn out debate.
3. I'm going to mention the "absolutism" issue again. One of the most important thing I've learned as I've matured is that there are almost no absolutes. Almost everything is opinion, or interpretation. Unfortunately, I've discovered that most people who are prone to absolute thinking are almost impossible to debate because they use their "absolutes" as fact rather than opinion, and you can't debate an opinion masquerading as fact. I have a friend who passionately believes in the legalization of drugs. I don't share that opinion (though reducing marijuana possession to minor fines is a good idea), but the issue is solely a matter of perspective and opinion. Unfortunately, my friend thinks his position is a foregone conclusion for anyone with a brain, and he uses all sorts of "facts" to make that case. Some of those facts really are facts (statistics, etc.), and others aren't, but either way the conclusion is an opinion. How can I debate him about the issue when he doesn't recognize it as a debatable point?
I'll give one example related to ATWT. I truly believe that the presence of Luke and Noah on ATWT is a huge benefit to the fight for ultimate gay equality, sex or no sex. You and Nukely passionately believe the opposite. How do we debate that point? My position can be explained in a sentence or two, as can yours. There are no facts that can be brought to bear, and arguing the point back and forth makes no sense to me. And so I don't do it.
I'll also give an example from an earlier post of yours in this thread regarding how "squishy" facts can be. You stated, in reply to one of Nukely's posts, that the declining ratings show that a lot of other people get what the two of you are saying about the Nuke storyline, and how anti-gay it is. Unfortunately, the ratings can't be viewed as saying any such thing. It's possible that the ratings having nothing whatever to do with the Nuke storyline. It's possible that people in middle America are tuning out simply because there IS a gay storyline and they can't approve. The truth is that we really have no idea what the ratings are telling us about Nuke, and it's not valid to use them in a debate about the storyline.
I find that few people online really know how to debate in the true sense. And by that I mean avoiding both squishy "facts" and absolutist arguments. A debate in person can work simply because those things can be instantly challenged. If the person stubbornly holds to squishy facts as being genuine facts, or continues to believe that absolutist opinions are more than mere opinions, then I simply back out of the debate. Online, that's much more difficult, and it can take many back and forth exchanges to get to that point, challenging the squishy facts, clearing up what's fact and what's opinion, etc. As Joseph says, most people don't have the patience or energy for that.
4. You ask a lot of questions about ATWT specifically. As I stated, I'm not willing to debate ATWT since it's not important to me. But since you asked:
a. Yes, I TOTALLY see how the storylines could rub people the wrong way, especially the lack of sex. But I have to ask you. Even though you disagree, do you not see how people could legitimately see the presence of Nuke on a mainstream soap to be a good thing, sex or no? As I've previously said, gay equality ultimately depends on a PROCESS that involves acquainting all Americans with gay people in their lives. Nuke helps serve that purpose, sex or not. Even though you disagree, can you not see the logic behind that position? (I hardly think that Nuke not yet having sex is causing middle America to think less of gay people.)
b. The "status quo" is OK with me in the short term, apart from the occasionally bad writing. (The writing of the Ameera story was atrocious, but much of the rest of the Nuke writing has been quite good.) They're way overdue for sex, but I accept the reality of the PROCESS I keep talking about. (And this point backs up what I've been saying about the futility of debate when you're talking about mere opinion. It's my opinion that the process I talk about is inevitable, and ultimately results in what I/we want. Your opinion is different. I understand where we both are coming from. What more can be said?)
c. Yes, I want the status quo to change. PROCESS, again, however. But the bottom line is that I have more patience than you do. Again, how do you debate patience?
d. I am extremely unhappy with the show as a whole. I think they should utilize the older characters more, and give them meaty storylines. I think they should fire the head writer, and two thirds of the other writers. I think they should let stories evolve better and more slowly. I think they should pay FAR more attention to consistency of character, to motivation, and to slower development of plot.
e. I am quite happy and excited about the current Nuke storyline. The Brian connection is fascinating and daring, and I'm excited to see where it goes. I understand Noah most of the way, unlike many AE posters, except that I think his hard-nosed current attitude is more plot driven (the need for Nuke to be broken up right now) than character driven. But I completely disagree that the ballot stuffing storyline is anti-gay, and I think you and Nukely are horribly overreaching in that opinion.
f. Sorry, but I can't compare ATWT to other soaps, since I don't watch other soaps.
g. Why am I excited about the current Nuke storyline, and why is it good (not great) drama? Let me count the ways. First, the Brian kiss was outstanding for many reasons. First, it was a shocking development. Gay kisses on American soaps are rare enough, even for couples, but to have a significantly older, apparently straight guy, kiss a teenager is, yes, shocking. Especially when that character has just married the teenager's grandmother! That development opens up multiple levels of drama that have NEVER been dealt with by American television as a whole. Second, the breakup of Nuke (contrived as it might partially have been) opens up classic opportunities. Third, the ballot stuffing incident takes the halo from Luke, which was necessary. Fouth, Luke's resultant "decline" gives him opportunity for great acting, and for all sorts of further dramatic possibilities.
It is my personal opinion that you and Nukely are setting up a very narrow window of acceptability for the Nuke storyline, and are futher imposing your own biases and gay sensitivities into the story. But that's just my opinion.
Whew! Sorry for the long post, but you said so much I had little choice if I were to respond at all. (And you won't see a post like that from me again.) As I said, ATWT is not important enough to me to get into a true debate about. I don't know you or Nukely at all, of course, but my one piece of advice would be to tone down the snark and the belligerence if you really want people to engage you on a serious level. And don't assume that people who choose not to debate are people who CAN'T debate.
Hmm, agreed with....
...mostly everything you said here, Sean, except for two things. I don't agree the writing has been good- I think the writers have squandered good ideas over and over again. That's shitty writing. I still watch because I'm interested and ever hopeful they'll pull it out of the can. And I am pretty icked out by the Brian kiss. In the last show, they said that Luke isn't even old enough to get alcohol in a bar. That is younger than I thought his character was. It is seriously creepy that this guy hits on a teenage drunk family member. I really hope they have a plan to fix this because at this point, I don't see how.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
The Brian kiss
Janet - I'm cool with the Brian kiss for a couple of reasons. First, Luke is either 19 or 20, and so he's above the adult age of 18. So it's certainly not pedophilia. I'm totally not saying it was appropriate, however, especially considering the drunk angle (which is far more important to me than the age angle). But one of the key points to remember is that Brian in no way planned the kiss. It just happened, totally on the spur of the moment. If the spoilers I've read are to be believed, Brian didn't know he had gay feelings until that kiss. If that turns out to be true, then I can't see it as "icky" at all. It's then a guy discovering a side of himself he didn't know about, and discovering it in a way that must have surprised him as much as it did Luke. Haven't you ever done something on the spur of the moment, and then instantly regretted it, or said to yourself, "now why did I do that?" So there's no calculation there, apparently.
Second, I'm cool with the kiss because it opens so many dramatic doors for the storyline. And third, I think the whole idea of people having gay feelings even though they've perceived themselves as straight is a completely under-exposed idea, and will become increasingly important as gay people become more accepted in society.
As far as the writing, I'm not talking about the show as a whole. As I said, I'd fire two thirds of the writers. But many of the Nuke scenes specifically (with the notable exception of most of the Ameera story) have been well done. I'm not a writer, but the Nuke scenes often seem more realistic than the scenes of many of the other characters.
I see your point....
...about Luke's age. It's not that he is "not old enough" as Darcolover points out in a post farther down, but that he is young and obviously (ha) inexperienced. Brian is probably in his 50s. It's kind of like that thing of someone in a position of power over another. It would be far worse if Luke was his employee, not the other way around. But I wouldn't feel that Luke was being- I don't even know the appropriate word-- used or taken advantage of, if Luke was in his forties, for instance. Now, if the young one is the one doing the unexpected kissing, then there is much less advantage taken on account of the world experience thing. I am so not explaining myself well.
I do agree, though, that the drunk thing makes it worse. That really is taking advantage of someone in a completely vunerable and helpless postition. (been there)
I am really curious to see how this plays out as well. I hope they deal with it as you suspect. I think with skill, this could be salvaged, but we all know the skill of these writers. Heh.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
to debate or not to
Thanks for explaining it. I am bad because I have assumed that some of the folks here choose not to debate. But, perhaps they simply lack the skills and know how
Some of us...
...just don't have the energy or patience.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/