Jump to content

Y&R: Shocking Role Recast


Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted

Someone will say this is not the same thing. They will say "let's not bring such hate into the topic". They will say "why do you have to bring up afro v homo?" and they will say "this is not cultural, this is primal". And there will never be a rectifying of the two positions.

  • Replies 899
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
Posted

Vee, both you and Cashton ROCK!!!! I foolishly left you out when I first mentioned Cashton. But you two have the most sensible and straightforward posts ever!

  • Members
Posted

You are right. The magazines rely too much on show cooperation for the spoilers that apparently now drive their circulation. We'll never get anything outside of publicist-controlled interviews.

Indeed, it is into this vacuum that NB has come and flourished. At least he has a perspective and a consistent voice and (even if it is gossipy stuff) he mostly says things that come to pass.

:lol::lol::lol:

Well, here is the rub. The Engen story could also be a show-planted tale, designed to cast Engen in the worst possible light, to justify replacing a popular actor. I'm not saying that...I don't even believe that...but I'm saying that without independent sources, we'll never know. MAB might be giving NB an interview because NB ran with her story about Engen.

I think that 'co-stars' line comes from the Friday Nelson Report. Which means all the original reporting on this story still lies with NB. We have zero independent confirmation from another sources.

All that is clear is that Engen has been replaced. Everything else is sole-sourced and unattributed. I TOTALLY believe NB heard these things and is reporting what he heard. But I also have no doubt that there are other parts to the story. We'll likely never know these.

  • Members
Posted

Truth be told, I don't feel they're exactly the same either. I mean, in terms of prejudice and whatnot, there are similarities, but in general, it's just apples and oranges. More than anything, I wanted to see if people think there is in fact a difference between the prejudice facing different minorities, since it was discussed earlier in the topic.

  • Members
Posted

Are racism & homophobia the same thing? Yes & no. I think it's the issue of religion that makes is so complicated for some people. While people have used religion in the past to justify racism, racism is not woven into the DNA of the major western religions. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all ascribe to the idea that all of humanity are descended from Adam & Eve. How else where Christians & Muslims going to be so successful in their evangelizing if they limited their faith to one racial group? And until modern times, most sects of these religions also ascribed to the idea that heterosexual union was the ideal. It wasn't until people started saying that the Bible doesn't need to be taken literally and is a product of its time before certain sects began to evolve their ideas on homosexuality. Even psychiatrists classified homosexuality as a disorder for a long time. Racism is America is a few hundred years old but not every American was racist. Homophobia, however, in the western world is thousands and thousands of years old and DIRECTLY TIED to a literally reading of the Bible. For us to think we can snap our fingers and get rid of homophobia so quickly is naive. I realized that myself after Prop 8. I was quite shocked and distraught by the vote. The idea that people would take away marriage rights from their fellow citizens after they had been granted to them was horrible. Who the hell doesn't want Ellen to be able to marry Portia?! Listening to the Prop 8 supporters though I realized that they honestly believed they were doing their religious duty. They still take the Bible literally and here we come to our impasse. How do we find common ground between Bible literalists and full freedom for homosexuals? When you have folks like Sherri Shephard & Elisabeth Hasselbeck using their show as a venue to speak out against gay marriage because of their religion, and Sherri & Elisabeth represent half (or maybe slightly more than half) of the country, what's the right approach?

Anyone see the story about Marie Osmond's daughter? She has come out as gay and Marie is supporting her. Good for Marie. :)

  • Members
Posted

Oh ok, good. I was about to cut a bitch. And yes, I do think that there is a certain prejudice when it comes to different minorities.

  • Members
Posted

After the Perez Hilton bit, I'd be shocked if he and his representation haven't be deluged with interview requests. So, he's surely aware of the attention at some level.

  • Members
Posted

If/when all of the facts come out, and the rumors have been true all along, and Engen did skip out on the show because he wasn't comfortable playing the scene, then yes, I'd definitely call him a homophobe. I wouldn't mean the bastardized definition of the word, but the original definition, the definition that fits the suffix. I wouldn't group him in the same category as Anita, Miss Cali, Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc, but he'd still be a homophobe to me. So yeah, I agree, but I just wanted to be sure what definition of the word you were using.

Let me clear up what I think, just so I can be sure that I'm not included in the "I can't believe some people on here..." talk. I don't know the facts yet, so I don't have a full opinion of it yet. BUT, if it's all true, and he left because he was "uncomfortable" or it went against his "beliefs," then I think he's stupid. Can he be an actor and pick and choose what roles he wants to play? Yes. Heavens, imagine if every actor played every single role that was offered to them. BUT, the difference is that he was contracted to play Adam and whatever the writers wanted to do with Adam, and he broke the contract, and so he should be ready to go to court over it. Still, if you want to be the actor who turns stuff down based on your beliefs, I have to wonder why you are in daytime in the first place. Few soap opera characters live up to Catholicism's view of moral decency, so why exactly did he join the show if he knew he wouldn't do certain things?

That being said, however, I'm considering all of the above speculation until all of the facts come out and are reported by a source that will quote people, and by people, I don't mean "setside sources." This is exactly what Nelson's "setside sources" said:

It doesn't say WHY he refused to kiss him, and yes, I know that the plainest, easiest, and most likely reason is because he's uncomfortable or doesn't "believe in it" (whatever that ish is supposed to mean) or whatever, but there are other possibilities. Maybe he simply doesn't like the fact that Adam is going to mock Rafe's sexuality for his own personal gain? It's not that much of a stretch, and I don't doubt for a second that it's a much less likely explanation than the first one, but until there's more to go on than Nelson Branco and his "sources," I'd rather not assume anything. For the record, just if the reason happens to be the latter, that his leaving is more about Adam unfairly using Rafe's sexuality, I still think it's idiotic to break contract. If it was the end of his contract, however, and he wanted to leave because he didn't like the writing, then I don't think that he would have to be Erika Slezak or David Canary or Eric Braeden or anyone else to do that.

Again, though, I just want to stress that all of the sites that are reporting that "Engen quit over gay kiss" are linking back to Nelson. If they don't refer directly to Nelson, they refer directly to a site that refers directly to Nelson. That's just one source! Sites like Soaps.com, SOD, CBS-SID, CBS.com, and others, don't say anything of the sort. Soaps.com actually states clearly that they haven't received any official word on why he left from the studio or CE's publicist.

  • Members
Posted

This is very reasonable. The only FACT is that Engen has been recast, and the source for that is basically Muhney himself (is there any other official announcement?). Everything else...EVERYTHING...is unattributed and reported by a single source.

Now, NB has earned a measure of "trust" from me, in the sense that what he says mostly comes to pass. But he also clearly has a very close reciprocal relationship with Y&R.

Thus, we really need attributed sources and, ideally, other reporters before we accept the currently prevailing version of why he left.

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • Vernon is an idiot. Why would he have Sharon in the same hotel that Leslie is staying at?
    • Yes, that out of the blue return was odd. Maybe GG found a forgotten clause in the contract he signed when he was wooed to ABC and they were forced to take him back! Like George Reinholt he talked about the contract that promised him primetime roles. But it was loaded in the networks favor. I think it was Gloria Loring that re-signed at Days on the promise of primetime opportunities, but that was all it was- she was put up for guest spots and TV movies but not necessarily guaranteed that she get the role.
    • I still am baffled by why Monty brought back stunt hire Gerald Gordon in the early '80s out of nowhere for like a year. I haven't found anyone who can come up with a thing he did in that second stint of note.
    • It's interesting to watch this having watched The Doctors. I'm not sure I'm seeing that much of a difference in the characters Gerald Gordon and Anna Stuart played on The Doctors and what they're playing here.
    • I keep forgetting a huge chunk of that year was written by scabs. You're probably right, because by the time the strike was over, they were likely planning an exit for Alan's character as it must have been obvious by then that Bernau was not going to return. If he was still there, it's also doubtful they would have approached MZ and MG about coming back. Wild.
    • And to think the original plan was for David and Lesley to have an affair.  Not only would that have made no sense - Lesley wasn't THAT stupid, lol - but it also would've ruined her and GH.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Week ending March 5 1978 Second season shows are tested CBS finishes first week in March with stronger than usual 1 9.5, but not enough to beat ABC The prime -time ratings pattern continued to hold steady for the week ended March 5, and attention increasingly turns to second season entries as the networks probe one another's weaknesses or cover their own. As usual, ABC -TV won the week, scoring a 20.5 average rating. But CBS -TV was closer than usual with a 19.5 average garnered with the help of several strong specials and movies in addition to some of its dependable series regulars. NBC followed its habit of plummeting when its "évent "entries failed. In this case it was the miniseries, Loose Change, which scored only 24 and 22 shares on Monday and Tuesday, leaving the network with a 16.9 average rating for the week. Looking at new series and new time slots, ABC's Six Million Dollar Man on Monday (8 -9 p.m. NYT) continued to falter with a 22 share, while What's Happening, in its new slot on Saturday (8 -9 p.m.), also remained shaky with a 23 share. Starsky and Hutch is still healthy with a 38 share in its new slot following Charlie's Angels on Wednesday, and How the West Was Won also had a 38 on Sunday (8 -9 p.m.). Against West CBS's Rhoda and On Our Own came in poorly for the second week in a row of face to face competition, with each pulling 25 shares after a 41 share lead in from 60 Minutes. ABC's special two -hour presentation of the upcoming series tryout, Having Babies, scored a 27 share on Friday (9 -11 p.m.) against strong competition from both the other networks (the movie "Ski Lift to Death" on CBS and Rockford Files and Quincy on NBC). For CBS, its new Monday night leadoffs, Good Times and Baby I'm Back, scored so -so 27 and 28 shares respectively. But the second half of the night had its best performance since the new line -up came in- M *A*S *Hwith a 45, One Day at a Time with a 41 and Lou Grant with a 36. Celebrity Challenge of the Sexes and Shields and Yarnell showed no signs of reviving on Tuesday, with 16 shares each, but the new Tuesday movie slot held up with a 41 share from Clint Eastwood's "Magnum Force." The network's entire Saturday line up continued to limp in, as Bob Newhart Tony Randall, The Jeffersons, Maude and Kojak all scored sub 30 shares (with the exception of Newhart's 29, in fact, all scored sub -25 shares). NBC premiered its new Chuck Barris Rah Rah Show on Tuesday (8 -9 p.m.),when it pulled a 24 share. The second episode of Quark had a 27, three points down from its premiere. There might be the temptation to conclude that the 29 share turned in by the National Love, Sex and Marriage Test on Sunday (9:30 -10 p.m.) proves the appetite for "sophisticated" subject matter is not insatiable after all, except that its competition was not only CBS's strong comedy block but also ABC's rerun of "The Way We Were," which pulled a 35 share. Of NBC's other midseason entries -CPO Sharkey, Black Sheep Squadron, James at 16 and Class of '65 -CPO Sharkey turned in the highest score of the week, a 27.   *NBC were in dire straits at this point relying on movies and specials which could hit or bomb in equal measure.  Fred Silverman had his work cut out for him when he arrived that Summer. He favored sitcoms and series as the schedule's foundation and NBC had no sitcoms to build on and few solid series. He also had a big backlog of specials/mini series that had been committed to air. Also NBC had a long standing relationship with Universal so he was forced to work with that studio. He struggled to get quality producers on board as they were either tied into deals with ABC/CBS or were wary of having their shows on the 3rd rated network. He still felt variety had a place on the schedule however and that lead to duds like Susan Anton, The Big Show and Pink Lady and Jeff.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I spent years hoping we would get an oral history like the OLTL book, but it’s too late now with so many having passed away.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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