Jump to content

Gay characters on soaps


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 235
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Zac probably isn't even gay. I didn't want to believe it at first, but it's highly possible that he and Zoe are really lovers (and not twins, or related at all), and Zac is only playing the role of wanting Noah as a way of getting into Luke and Noah's little...circle.

Tune in for wasted potential on "As the World Turns," weekdays on CBS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Haven't read any spoilers, but I think Zac and Zoe are twin Grimaldis and Zac is gay. I believe they really are twins because they both have the thing which tipped Noah off to them both being Pisces.

What about Doris Wolfe on GL? She is usually portrayed as a power-hungry, publicity-seeking, corrupt type, and although her portrayal has softened somewhat since she was revealed to be a lesbian -- the softening makes her three-dimensional instead of "one-note" -- I still think she could qualify as a gay villain, although not a gay male one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't trust most of the current showrunners in daytime enough to believe they would be able to tell a story about a gay villain which would not heavily imply that their homosexuality is part of what makes them evil, or that they are mentally ill and damaged because they are gay. Even the supposedly more progressive primetime shows fall into this trap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

There was already a gay villain on daytime - Vincent from Passions.

Passions didn't imply those things. Vincent was just evil and messed up and it wasn't because he was gay.

Yup, it happened with Vincent blackmailing Chad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wasn't Vincent a hermaphrodite who could make himself male at one time and female at another? I wouldn't classify him as the typical gay villain you see on a show.

I didn't think they did that great a job with the other gay characters in the story, like Simone (girlfriend murdered, shipped off) or Chad, but then Chad was such a bad actor, maybe it wasn't the writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

At the time of Vincent was blackmailing and sleeping with Chad, we didn't know Vincent could change sexes. But before we found that out, Vincent was a typical villain who was gay. Him being gay didn't play a factor in him doing bad things. He wasn't bad because he was gay. He was a bad guy who just happened to be gay.

Passions also showed Rae and Simone in bed kissing and about to make love (I think....my mind's a bit fuzzy on this).

Sure they weren't the best written storylines, but it did happen on Passions. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I hope I didn't come across as saying Passions was sending out that message. What I said was I don't trust daytime to tell a story about a gay villain because of the gay = evil trap which is so easy to fall into. I didn't count Passions because I never thought of that character as gay. I had forgotten viewers didn't know about him being able to change gender until after the affair was discovered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You're not the only one. Having seen the Celluloid Closet, I am well aware about the legacy of gay characters in American cinema... being villains, outcasts or getting killed/killing themselves. But, oh, how delicious of a time would it be if, say, David Hayward on AMC or Faith Rosco on GH were homosexuals?

You're talking about Wanda Sykes? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Not bratty at all! But I'm about a decade older and came from a less evolved environment. Maybe I'm "stuck" in the past...except I look at Prop 8, and I think "nope...this world hasn't changed...not outside of New York and LA, and maybe SF and Provincetown". And even in LA and SF, the numbers weren't sufficient to carry the day on Prop 8.

I don't want storytelling confused with agendas. But...there are a lot of people out there who are just dying to see promiscuous, nasty homos...let's throw in some pedophiles too...to confirm everything they already know to be true.

I do want to see this. But on B&B. It would fit in perfectly on B&B.

On my Y&R...I'd much prefer it to be a tender young legal aid lawyer...who calms the savage beast of the hirsute prodigal son trying -- so desperately -- to win the acceptance of the family he never knew, and that has rejected him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I KNEW I wasn't the only one who thought that! He looks exactly like her!

With the writers we have now, I'm sure that's what they'd get, a one-note, slutty, queeny, promiscuous gay. If we had writers who knew what they were doing (or were allowed to do it, or even wanted to do it), I'd like to think that they could write a promiscious, "nasty" homo as a person with feelings and a past, a person who is who he or she is for a reason, be it for better or for worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

On gay villains - I think the gay soap character needs to stop being sanctified and so far GL does the best job of that with Doris. She's corrupt, angry and hardened but has a soul. The best soap villains overall are those who don't twirl their mustaches but those who are deeply hurt, angry and tortured by something inside of them and do bad things as a result. Daniel on OLTL was a huge misstep because his sexual orientation became the deep, dark secret that caused him to do the things he did. The story would have been much more interesting and acceptable to me if he had been having an affair with Paul Cramer and killed him to keep political secrets from getting out; I would have accepted that more than an otherwise good man who turned to murder to hide the fact that he was gay. Being gay should never be the cause or excuse of someone's villainy, and if it IS there should be a character to represent the other side of the coin. I know it sounds very agenda-y, but I'd say soaps are still where cinema was in the 50s-70s. Luke, Noah and Bianca are so whitewashed it's nauseating. The most believable gay-themed story in soap history so far is Olivia and Natalia, because they are imperfect and human. Imagine Luke or Noah doing something to intentionally hurt someone! Heavens no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I'm following the news in Los Angeles at https://laist.com (independent public radio and news) They had up-to-the minute accurate info during the wildfires in January.  
    • That's a bit murky since that happened during a writers' strike. Assuming Kristen Marie had a 2-year contract she left about when her contract would have expired and Sharlene and Josie showed up right before that. Lemay was officially credited as HW from September 1988 but it seems very probable that his anticipated tenure influenced events that happened during the strike which started in April. 
    • I've seen so many posters over the years who are bright, creative, well-versed in soap history, and who care deeply about the integrity of the genre. I'd put the shows' chances in their hands a lot faster than I would allow any of the "usual suspects" to take control of the dramas they've already helped decimate. When I returned to university in the 1980s, I created a bible for a new soap and presented it in my screenwriting class. It was in reaction to how badly I saw the network shows being butchered at the time. The creative process was thrilling; a total joy, and I still smile when I remember the positive feedback I received from the professor and my fellow students. I was used to seeing written commentary from professors on my work. This one wrote me a long, complimentary note on the final page of the bible, but also graded it 97%, A+. I was beaming ear to ear for days!

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Thanks. I do wonder if Rose was meant to be more given the caliber of actress they hired. I remembered Sara and Peggy staying longer as they were still on when Soapnet started their repeats. I wonder if that was part of the reason they brought Jake's brother in. 
    • Speculation about Missy Reeves' potential evolution on basic civil rights doesn’t change my opinion of her. My view is shaped entirely by her public social media presence—which I find unpalatable—and I have no interest in learning more beyond that. I simply liked Jennifer’s hair and dress. That’s as far as my admiration goes.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Cheryl was gone before Lemay came back but I agree with your thinking that he would rather a character from a family he introduced to the show than a family he did not originate.  I remember reading somewhere in the early 90's probably after DS left as writer, their was an either a writer or a producer who made a comment that their intent was bring the McKinnon family back to AW.  Would have made sense for the newer viewers from the 80's.  Much like Lemay's attempt to bring the Frames back from his writing in the 70's in his 1988 return
    • DePriest left in January 1988. According to the AWHP, Rose last appeared nearly a year before in February 1987 while both Sara and Peggy appeared as late as October 1987.
    • Annie was not brought in as an antagonist for Reva. Reva wasn’t even on the canvas when Annie first appeared in late 1994. 
    • The speculation……….very entertaining. 
    • I had forgotten that several Days stars came out strong against Melissa. Good for them!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy