Luke39 Posted April 12, 2016 Report Posted April 12, 2016 I guess it would be sort of the same. As OnLy bringing in a female character to date a river boy era haha. If that's their one defining quality. Then obviously doesent work out. So I agree on bringing in a gay character who being gay is just one part of their character. Completely agree re Charlie. Her attraction to Joey was pure Transference. So tptb have tried a lgbt character in the past and clearly failed in execution. So if they were hypothetically thinking about it. Probably need to think before they introduce. Or they could turn an already established character on the show who already has other defining qualities beyond their sexuality. Gay or Bi. Say maybe Olivia or Skye haha, or maybe Billie. I don't know. Maybe a better route to take.
pembie Posted April 12, 2016 Report Posted April 12, 2016 Olivia and Skye would be good I think Then Hunter could get with VJ ;)
Red Ranger 1 Posted April 12, 2016 Report Posted April 12, 2016 Cautiously throwing my hat into the ring...I wouldn't say they shouldn't introduce a gay character but I'm reluctant to outright state they should, even though I can see the validity of many arguments for it.If the show is to reflect to society, then ignoring a certain aspect of society for so many years seems like wilful blindness.I'm not well up enough on Australian culture and television to know whether or not the introduction of a gay character would be a ratings disaster and whether the shows people have quoted are comparable.I know when British soaps started introducing gay characters there was a media furore, which didn't change for about a decade afterwards, but eventually it died down and people got used to it. Referring back to Sarah Walker's comment, while I find them absurdly simplistic, she does have a point.Saying "If you pair up two characters of the same gender there's no-one left for two characters of the other gender" is obvious nonsense, there's been times when making two of the characters gay would have solved the imbalance (there was a point last year when you had Spencer, Oscar, Josh, Matt, Jett and VJ on the show with the only teenage girls being Maddy and Evelyn, although it's a bit more balanced now), but nevertheless it does limit things.You do see on soaps with gay characters that when a new gay character comes in everyone knows that they're going to be paired up with the only other gay character of that gender on the show, which can cause problems if the relationship doesn't gel because there's no other option.I'm not saying that's not a reason to try but there are practical problems.
H.M Posted April 12, 2016 Report Posted April 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Red Ranger 1 said:Cautiously throwing my hat into the ring...I wouldn't say they shouldn't introduce a gay character but I'm reluctant to outright state they should, even though I can see the validity of many arguments for it.If the show is to reflect to society, then ignoring a certain aspect of society for so many years seems like wilful blindness.I'm not well up enough on Australian culture and television to know whether or not the introduction of a gay character would be a ratings disaster and whether the shows people have quoted are comparable.I know when British soaps started introducing gay characters there was a media furore, which didn't change for about a decade afterwards, but eventually it died down and people got used to it. Referring back to Sarah Walker's comment, while I find them absurdly simplistic, she does have a point.Saying "If you pair up two characters of the same gender there's no-one left for two characters of the other gender" is obvious nonsense, there's been times when making two of the characters gay would have solved the imbalance (there was a point last year when you had Spencer, Oscar, Josh, Matt, Jett and VJ on the show with the only teenage girls being Maddy and Evelyn, although it's a bit more balanced now), but nevertheless it does limit things.You do see on soaps with gay characters that when a new gay character comes in everyone knows that they're going to be paired up with the only other gay character of that gender on the show, which can cause problems if the relationship doesn't gel because there's no other option.I'm not saying that's not a reason to try but there are practical problems. The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for Number 96. The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for The Box. The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for Skyways. The presence of gay characters was not a ratings disaster for Prisoner. The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for Winners and Losers. The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for House Husband. The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for offspring. The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for A Place to Call Home. Ratings for Neighbours and Dance Academy. The presence of gay contestants was not a ratings disaster for Masterchef or Big Brother. A string of successful US imported programming with gay characters in key or guest roles have been successful on Australian network TV. Modern Family, Glee, Roseanne, Will and Grace, The Simpsons and Queer Eye for the straight guy (the title speaks for itself) just to name a few. All the above mentioned (excluding Neighbours and DA) shows were hugely successful on Australian TV when gay people were included. So what anyone believe that Home and Away would be any different? In what way would Home and Away not be comparable to any of the above mentioned shows?
emmasi Posted April 12, 2016 Report Posted April 12, 2016 The current format of the show does not support introducing a single gay character. The show is too much about bed-hopping. A bi-sexual character could work, but it would make more sense to have one or more of the current, established characters experiment with their sexuality. I know this is what they tried to do with Charlie, and I think that did work to a degree, it was just a bad storyline and a bad exit for Joey, and the fact that Charlie never glanced at another woman after the relationship ended was pretty insulting. I still haven't given up on Hunter, specifically because of the "gay/bi = evil" in H&A land thing Now, in defense of Neighbours. Chris was the most darling creature to ever grace our screens, and I will hear no talk whatsoever of him being there as a token gay. He was an established character who realised as we saw him mature through his teenage years that he was gay. It was done with sensitivity and realism, including both positive and negative reactions from friends and family, and his own struggles with his identity. He was a fantastic character on every level and it hurts daily that he's no longer around... Okay, so it's a soap, and to have romances you do need to introduce more gay characters after the first one comes out, and yes, it can be predictable that they get paired off. But that's the nature of soaps. No one can stay single for long. That doesn't mean that the relationships themselves will be predictable, or cliched, or token affairs. It doesn't mean that once a character is gay/bi, that's all they'll ever be. Aiden was fantastic, even though he was there specifically for Chris. The next boyfriend was an okay character, and had some pretty explosive storylines that had nothing to do with his sexuality. Nate is a (not meaning this as a racial thing...) black-hole of suck and if we want to talk about tokenism I wouldn't be looking at his sexuality *COUGH* (yes racial but not because I don't want diversity - see Aiden and other boy - I DO want talent!!!). I'm sorry but Nate is an awful character portrayed by an awful actor, who I'm sure is very nice in real life, but jeez... JEEZ!! ... I do appreciate Nate on one level, because he proves that I'm not going to love a character just because they're gay. He proves that point very, very well ... ANYway... I'm not sure where the UK is up to with Neighbours so I won't go into specifics, but I'd follow Aaron to hell and back I would! HE is a good character. Not as wonderful as Chris (but then, who could be?), but he's an example of a cliched entrance - exotic dancer, pretty shallow, all about the looks and the body - who actually fit in really well to the street because they made sure to connect him to an established family and then to give him plenty to do that had nothing to do with his sexuality. And also stuff to do with his sexuality!! Because there's nothing more annoying than having a character declare "I'm gay!" to tick that box, and then never, ever have a relationship, or even show interest in other members of the same sex. (Vampire Diaries, I'm looking at you!). Well I promised myself I wasn't going to make a long rambling post in this thread lol... Hey, I said my piece about H&A in one paragraph. I stuck to my promise on that... Neighbours though... don't let me hear you dissing my Neighbours boys again!! If anyone even was... I... may be a little overprotective ... EDIT: Oh I forgot (in all the Neighbours rambling and ranting) to mention another idea that could work. An older gay couple move in to the bay with a hot teenage son/daughter, because then you'd have the gay characters to make us happy, but you wouldn't have to show them ever doing anything sexual (and therefore moral-panic-inducing) because older people on H&A don't get to do anything anymore but support the teen drama
Luke39 Posted April 12, 2016 Report Posted April 12, 2016 13 minutes ago, H.M said: The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for Number 96. The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for The Box. The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for Skyways. The presence of gay characters was not a ratings disaster for Prisoner. The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for Winners and Losers. The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for House Husband. The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for offspring. The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for A Place to Call Home. Ratings for Neighbours and Dance Academy. The presence of gay contestants was not a ratings disaster for Masterchef or Big Brother. A string of successful US imported programming with gay characters in key or guest roles have been successful on Australian network TV. Modern Family, Glee, Roseanne, Will and Grace, The Simpsons and Queer Eye for the straight guy (the title speaks for itself) just to name a few. All the above mentioned (excluding Neighbours and DA) shows were hugely successful on Australian TV when gay people were included. So what anyone believe that Home and Away would be any different? In what way would Home and Away not be comparable to any of the above mentioned shows? Maybe because they are Us import shows. The success of Gay Characters were already determined by a us audience not aussie. Aussie and Nz tend to be more liberal and forward thinking. But I think.difference is.in the past h and a has not developed lgbt characters successfully
H.M Posted April 12, 2016 Report Posted April 12, 2016 On 12/04/2016 at 5:49 PM, Luke39 said: Maybe because they are Us import shows. The success of Gay Characters were already determined by a us audience not aussie. Aussie and Nz tend to be more liberal and forward thinking. But I think.difference is.in the past h and a has not developed lgbt characters successfully Just to clarify, my previous post was in response to the first part of Red Ranger's post, not the part that was actually quoted. And Luke, what are you talking about? Number 96, The Box, Skyways, Prisoner, Masterchef Australia, Big Brother Australia, Offspring, House Husbands, Winners and Losers, neighbours, Dance Academy and APTCH are not US imports. Only the last few shows I mentioned were made in the US.
Luke39 Posted April 13, 2016 Report Posted April 13, 2016 17 hours ago, H.M said: Just to clarify, my previous post was in response to the first part of Red Ranger's post, not the part that was actually quoted. And Luke, what are you talking about? Number 96, The Box, Skyways, Prisoner, Masterchef Australia, Big Brother Australia, Offspring, House Husbands, Winners and Losers, neighbours, Dance Academt and APTCH are not US imports. Only the last few shows I mentioned were made in the US. You didn't mention those shows though. In.any case Masterchief is a cooking show. You only mentioned two shows that are scripted. The rest are reality shows. So dont see the comparisons. To a scripted soap. I see your point. But they weren't great examples. For some reason having actual lgbt ppl on reality shows seems acceptable. But not fictional characters. For whatever reason. My point was in the past h and a have not done a great job introducing lgbt characters.
Dan F Posted April 13, 2016 Report Posted April 13, 2016 30 minutes ago, Luke39 said: You didn't mention those shows though. In.any case Masterchief is a cooking show. You only mentioned two shows that are scripted. The rest are reality shows. I'd probably go back and re-read the post, and perhaps look up the shows that were mentioned.
Slade Posted April 13, 2016 Report Posted April 13, 2016 3 hours ago, Luke39 said: You didn't mention those shows though. In.any case Masterchief is a cooking show. You only mentioned two shows that are scripted. The rest are reality shows. So dont see the comparisons. To a scripted soap. I would have thought you could argue that reality shows are a better example because they contain real people as opposed to fictional characters in a fictional program. Big Brother being a perfect example of that having people filmed 24 hours a day 7 days a week where often (in a contained environment) their behaviour and traits become more amplified.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.