I miss Antonio.

Well I'd really like to see the scene in question (as it was originally written, not churched up to make PM look even more ridiculous if the allegations of homophobia are true), and I'd also like to know what the real deal is/was in terms of s/l projection involving Carlotta. And above all, I'd like to hear it all from PM's mouth.

Maybe she thought the scene was just stupid, like some corny David Vickers-type crap that she objected to in the interest (protection) of her recurring character (i.e., "Why are you bringing back Carlotta for this foolishness? This is silly and out of character. I enjoy my recurring gig, but if we keep it up with this inconsistent, non-sensical stuff, there won't be a viable Carlotta left.") Now, that's what I'd LIKE to believe happened, but I won't make any judgments until we know more. What I will say is that homophobia and the entertainment industry are like oil and water, I don't understand how anyone could have a career in the NY off-Broadway theatre as long as PM has had and enjoyed a happy life and career not liking gay people. Actors, directors, agents, casting directors, crew members, patrons, if it weren't for the gays... yeah. Not saying that homophobia doesn't exist in the business, it certainly does, but if it puts that big of a bee under your bonnet, like I said, you are truly in the wrong business.

If you look at Markko's parents, you could easily imagine them having a negative reaction to gay characters. I'm assuming they were going in the opposite direction with Carlotta to be fair and balanced in their portrayal of Latin parents (not all ultra-conservative Catholics). Maybe the Rivera's values jived more with PM's idea of Carlotta's.

Why didn't they consider airing this perspective to begin with? It shows how committed they are to telling this story, because like it or not there are people out there who are misinformed about homosexuality and have formed strong opinions against it. Carlotta's stance on such an issue could have been a real lesson on letting religious beliefs get in the way of understanding the people you care about.

Somehow I think it's a win/lose situation anyway they go.

If they had decided to have Carlotta express views that objected to homosexuality, I think fans would be crying foul, saying that they were stereotyping her. Now they're trying to do the opposite.

I do wonder though, how does this compare to the Clint situation years ago when they had that character object homosexuality? Was having Clint oppose homosexuality really that out of character?

Edited June 28, 200916 yr by MichaelGL

The problem is that everyone wants regular, established and sustained soap characters to be socially enlightened. Sure, we can have Carlotta be homophobic…for the time being…but by the end of the storyline, she had better come around to supporting the gays.

That’s not how real life always works. In real life (yeah…I know soaps aren’t real life, but they are purported in reality) people have their biases, bigotries and prejudices. That’s human nature. Sometimes they come around, and sometimes they don’t.

This is why I tend to not like gay storylines on soaps. They are usually so sanitized and fake. The show is so worried about offending, or not being user-friendly, that they avoid the (more interesting) gray areas in situations like this. Instead they go in extremes. The evil homophobes (who’re destined to either be destroyed or converted to the point of wearing a PFLAG shirt) versus the plastically PC ‘good folks,’ with their almost androidian declarations of tolerance. I have a feeling, though, if Agnes Nixon were still writing the show, it would be more evened out.

And, unfortunately, it’s mostly the VIEWERS faults. The ABC comment line, posting forums, email boxes, and slants from Bronco/Hilton would light up if Carlotta even slightly objected seeing Kyle and Fish nuzzle in her restaurant. Whatever Patricia Maurceri’s own personal views are, it *is* an out of character COPOUT for someone as traditional as Carlotta Vega tends to be immediately gay-supportive. That’s something more for Roxy…or even Renee, Dorian, or Viki. Now they’re about to recast and water down the role for the sake of placating a story. So in the end, Carlotta Vega wound up being altered at the mantle of Kish. How sweet.

Edited June 28, 200916 yr by ACEM

The problem is that everyone wants regular, established and sustained soap characters to be socially enlightened. Sure, we can have Carlotta be homophobic…for the time being…but by the end of the storyline, she had better come around to supporting the gays.

There's no way of knowing that. Carlotta would have been a minor part of the storyline. If she objected to homosexuality, and never changed her opinion, then people may have respected her opinion. The problem is soaps today don't know how to tell ANY story with subtlety.

And, unfortunately, it’s mostly the VIEWERS faults. The ABC comment line, posting forums, email boxes, and slants from Bronco/Hilton would light up if Carlotta even slightly objected seeing Kyle and Fish nuzzle in her restaurant.

I don't think Hilton or Branco are the same as the regular viewer. They want to get publicity. Of course they're going to say something.

Since we have never really seen a gay storyline where characters are allowed to not personally support homosexuality, as we have seen so few of these stories on daytime period, I don't know if we can assume how viewers would react. That's like if I said the angry comments I saw about Otalia on some boards meant that all GL fans hated Otalia and that's why Olivia and Natalia never do more than hold hands and are about to have a stupid

pregnancy

storyline.

Edited June 28, 200916 yr by CarlD2

Somehow I think it's a win/lose situation anyway they go.

If they had decided to have Carlotta express views that objected to homosexuality, I think fans would be crying foul, saying that they were stereotyping her. Now they're trying to do the opposite.

I do wonder though, how does this compare to the Clint situation years ago when they had that character object homosexuality? Was having Clint oppose homosexuality really that out of character?

Mr.Richie thought so but he still done the scenes.

acting on soaps is a job u do what TIIC say or u find another job.

That being said i totally agree their should be at least one main character u doesn't like gay people and they shouldn't be shown as evil.

Not one character haven't a problem with a lesbian wedding on AMC was just plain STUPID.

Just like CE, it's clear that those in charge knew how that the actors would be pushed enough to walk. I hope people will treat this actress worse than they did CE. Carlotta is just being asked to not get on her usual condescending high horse (a tall task, I know); Adam is using gay sex to hide his scheme (it is not a romance, but then again, Luke raping Laura turned out to be the biggest "love story" in soap history).

I have no problem with homosexuality but I also can understand people who do. It happens. It's life.

I have no problems with jews (which I am one), but I also understand that people do. It happens, it's life, but I am not about to start establishing moral equivalency for such biases.

Why wouldn't Mauceri have a problem working for a gay Exec Producer and headwriter?

I guess Mauceri knows her character better than I do.

But, being a gay guy myself - and a longtime viewer, I had NO idea that Carlotta should object to homosexuality. Being Catholic does not necessarily equal being anti-gay - just ask half my friends, who happen to be straight and Catholic... and who happen to disagree with the stance of their church. Or ask the gazillion Catholic families out there who fully accept their gay sons / daughters...

I would (and do) accept the writers' take on this. However, Mauceri evidently felt so strongly against it - for whatever reason - that it was worth losing the job. So be it.

Whatever the reason is that she felt so strongly, I think she's off the mark, and I won't shed any tears.

I welcome Saundra Santiago as Carlotta 2.0 ....and by the way, she is in no way too young - definitely not by SOAP standards - to play Antonio & Cristian's mom. (Referencing what someone mentioned here previously.) But if we're really in doubt, let's ask her former TV son from GL, the mid-late 30-ish Paul Anthony Stewart.

Edited June 29, 200916 yr by YurSoakinginit

I guess Mauceri knows her character better than I do.

But, being a gay guy myself - and a longtime viewer, I had NO idea that Carlotta should object to homosexuality. Being Catholic does not necessarily equal being anti-gay - just ask half my friends, who happen to be straight and Catholic... and who happen to disagree with the stance of their church. Or ask the gazillion Catholic families out there who fully accept their gay sons / daughters...

I would (and do) accept the writers' take on this. However, Mauceri evidently felt so strongly against it - for whatever reason - that it was worth losing the job. So be it.

Whatever the reason is that she felt so strongly, I think she's off the mark, and I won't shed any tears.

I welcome Saundra Santiago as Carlotta 2.0 ....and by the way, she is in no way too young - definitely not by SOAP standards - to play Antonio & Cristian's mom. (Referencing what someone mentioned here previously.) But if we're really in doubt, let's ask her former TV son from GL, the mid-late 30-ish Paul Anthony Stewart.

Actually, Paul Anthony Stewart was born in 1968, making him 41....so yeah, she's already played mom to a guy older than her "new" son Cristian.

Actually, Paul Anthony Stewart was born in 1968, making him 41....so yeah, she's already played mom to a guy older than her "new" son Cristian.

I was sort of guesstimating... But good for him - he looks great!

Stuff like this and the Y&R thing shows how much better P&G, for all the flak it gets and its long-past-true "conservative reputation", handles its gay storylines, which still lead the way. Nuke and Otalia get headlines (whether good or bad) for what is going on in the story, not cast walkouts over character reactions.

Quick question for those who are appalled at the idea of Patricia Mauceri refusing to play what the writers wrote for her character...

If she were an avid supporter of gays and refused to play a story where Carlotta was written to be homophobic, would those of you turning your noses up in disgust at her for her not doing her job as an actress still be bothered...or would you be lauding her for standing up for her principals?

Edited June 29, 200916 yr by ACEM

Stuff like this and the Y&R thing shows how much better P&G, for all the flak it gets and its long-past-true "conservative reputation", handles its gay storylines, which still lead the way. Nuke and Otalia get headlines (whether good or bad) for what is going on in the story, not cast walkouts over character reactions.

HOLD UP!

Just because there aren't "cast walkouts" doesn't make their stories any less boring or uninteresting.

And just because someone isn't having a an outward "homophobic" reaction or objection to the way a story is being told doesn't mean that the actors don't. Jake Silbermann is clearly bored and uncomfortable around Van Hansis.

And Otalia is like watching paint dry. Their fangirls need to get a grip and stop using their kids and lesbian lovers in "Save Guiding Light" videos. Otalia is not the only thing related to GL.