Members Vee Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 The point is that when the story was done, in the '90s, Eli was being discriminated against and looked down upon because "gay=HIV" was the prevailing stigma of the era. Carlotta saw past that, and took him in. This is not the first or last time she's done that with wounded birds and objects of scorn from conventional society, Marcie, even Mark Solomon, I believe. To suddenly claim in 2009 that Carlotta, of all people, is against homosexuality like Patricia Mauceri is the height of hypocrisy and character revisionism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TC Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 absolute and utter BS. What if they wanted her to be a murderer? Or to die as a complete fool(see Edmund on AMC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TC Posted September 4, 2009 Members Share Posted September 4, 2009 It would have been love the sinner hate the sin, and that is homophobia. It's not violent but it is homophobia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cheap21 Posted September 5, 2009 Members Share Posted September 5, 2009 I wonder if most of the people commented in this thread have been watchers of OLTL and if you've seen the new Carlotta in action. Having now seen the scenes, myself, of what the new Carlotta was given, I have to say she was written completely out of character. It wasnt so much that she was accepting of a gay son but that she was so quick to beleive Cris was gay. She always suspected it? Um when? Cris has always shown an interest in women. Carlotta thinks that Cris being gay explains why he and Jessica broke up? Um really? It wasnt any of that history with Will and Roxanne? I didnt get why she wouldnt believe him when he told her that he was straight as if she was so happy to have a gay man in her life to go shopping and decorate with her. WTF? The writing was just plain bad and wasnt believable considering the history of all the characters involved. I can see why PM would have spoken against what they gave her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TC Posted September 5, 2009 Members Share Posted September 5, 2009 It was poorly written and would have benefitted from more reflection, but this gay story has been on too much of a fast track anyway. That said, homophobic PM could have played along like everyone else did. I can't see why she would have had a problem with this. She is an actress on a soap. Not a writer. Anything can happen for her. Frankly, it sounds to me like she's dealing with some kind of dementia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LeClerc Posted September 5, 2009 Members Share Posted September 5, 2009 I knew PM would make an appearance on Fixed News over this sooner or later. I smell a possible new Fixed show in the works: "Patricia and Prejean". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members leevo64 Posted September 5, 2009 Members Share Posted September 5, 2009 I hate Perez Hilton but holla to this post. Fox News is so painfully obvious in their reporting it's pathetic. Patricia Mauceri refused to do her job. She got fired. Why is everyone arguing over whether or not the "gay" head writer and "gay" executive producer had the right to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members quartermainefan Posted September 5, 2009 Members Share Posted September 5, 2009 Your character will do whatever the writer says it will do. She wasn't playing Dungeons and Dragons, getting to role play a character and lead it down the story based on her decisions. There really is no way to slice this except she objected to portraying someone who was not critical of homosexuality, and her reasons are she is critical of it herself. But who cares about her and her backwards religious beliefs? Is OLTL now some reality show where we need to know her innermost thoughts? If Carlotta is an axe murderer, a cannibal, a terrorist out to blow up the Banner, or just someone who wears plaid a lot, it does not matter. It's all the same and all she was asked to do was say some lines, content being immaterial to her ability to say them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members quartermainefan Posted September 5, 2009 Members Share Posted September 5, 2009 Did we really need her to publicly admit that? Didn't everyone know this already who looked at the original item with common sense? Not you, but some around here will go through the most twisted contortions in logic before they will ever admit this woman (and that putz from Y&R) is nothing but a hate monger who hates homosexuality so much she couldn't even tolerate fictional homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ian Posted September 5, 2009 Members Share Posted September 5, 2009 The gay storyline was bigger than Patricia Mauceri's token rare appearances. She was collateral damage in order for OLTL to tell a gay storyline. I see her being quietly killed off off-screan and then not mentioned again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JinxxAvery Posted September 5, 2009 Members Share Posted September 5, 2009 Whoever that was in the Diner, it wasn't Carlotta. Not a single "Dios Mio" was uttered. It was a disservice to the fans not to have left the backstage drama backstage. They should have written Carlotta as off visiting Adriana or Antonio & Jamie and brought on SS as some Vega or Delgado Aunt who was taking care of the Diner while she was away. It's never a good idea to twist the character to fit the plot, even if it's well intentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted September 5, 2009 Members Share Posted September 5, 2009 I've watched Carlotta since her debut. I saw nothing so out of character. First of all, the scene was a simple, quick broad gag bit; it's not supposed to be that deep. If you don't like the gag, that's fine, but let's not try to make it more than it was. Secondly, I could buy the gag - Carlotta's long-held neuroses over her sons' luck in love extrapolated into a wild conclusion that that was why he had never had made it work with Jessica, or Natalie, or Sarah. This is far, far from the first time Carlotta Vega has jumped to wacky ideas to explain things involving her boys or their women. Who can forget Carlotta's endless obsession with Keri Reynolds' credit level? Carlotta's main function in at least the last decade has been as a talk-to and foil for her children and their love interests; she is constantly obsessed with them, constantly brainstorming and getting ideas as to how they can improve their relationships, or picking at them when their romances are rocky. For Carlotta to get the wrong idea and have an "epiphany" about a cure-all for her boys' troubles is not new for her. It was Carlotta. She loves her boys, and she always thinks she knows best or has it all figured out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members miajere Posted September 5, 2009 Members Share Posted September 5, 2009 I imagine there's quite a few offline fans who recognized the change and are scratching their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NorrthCafe Posted September 5, 2009 Members Share Posted September 5, 2009 I was just going to post the same thing. I don't think this issue has ever come up for Carlotta. For the record, I'm not opposed to actors fighting for the integrity of their characters. I think the genre suffers when there's no consistency and everything appears to be plot driven instead of character driven. It's akin to watching a 'variety' show with its various skits than a continuing daytime drama. The problem I have is that PM is saying that she and Carlotta are the SAME. Carlotta is a Christian who is opposed to homosexuality because SHE is. That bothers me. Surely there have been other storylines involving Carlotta and her boys that raised PM's hackles because of her religion. Why is this one so different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted September 5, 2009 Members Share Posted September 5, 2009 Carlotta has always been represented as a warm character who takes in all sorts of wounded birds and outcasts. Her faith is a testament to the best of her religion's aspects, not the worst. Mauceri's complaints are bullshit. Bigotry in a character should never be honored because the actor is a bigot. As a hypothetical, what if Scott Evans had refused to kiss the gorgeous Tika Sumpter because he suddenly decided both he and Fish had a problem with people of color? What if Trevor St. John hadn't wanted to romance Renee Elise Goldsberry? What if Hillary B. Smith didn't want to play opposite Nathan Purdee? Oh, but that's different, of course, whereas this is religion and the gays. Same old double-standard. Everybody shuffle along, you know the tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.