TVSquad

Let's talk about it!

Reply

* audible sigh *

Reply

Honestly, I don't understand why this had to turn into this big, freakin' deal. So the character was gay, so what! Whether the character was gay or straight, for me the main story point was the friendship between the 2 characters, bridging the barrier of high school cliques and that they haven't talked to each other in years.

I attributed some of Zach's motivation to help Claire to a teenage boy crush. It was almost sweeter to find out that it was more about identifying with being different. That made him a better character and friend in my opinion, helping her not to get something, but to genuinely give his friendship.

Actor/Studio/or Writer, who wouldn't want to be associated with that?

Somebody lost their nerve and worries too much. Now the molehill has actually been made into the mountain.

Reply

That was my thinking - who really cares? I have a feeling the character is done anyway, I mean if the group is going to assemble to don tights and fight crime or something, that will cut significantly into Claire's scenes in high school.

Since Zach was basically just wall to bounce dialog off, and could have been filled by anyone, I think that getting all upset about details that are ultimately insignificant anyway is a little silly.

And if you think they're going to actually turn around and have the character be like "oh, I'm not gay anymore because of a memory wipe," you probably need to ask yourself why they'd deliberately go out of their way to cause trouble. It's much easier to retcon that out by never mentioning it again - if the character's even going to stick around in the first place.

Reply

To Margaret: Very well said.

Reply

Yes, I'm sure they'll never mention it again on the show. I just wish Kring had been able to say more than that wishy-washy non-denial denial, which actually didn't clear anything up. It just said he wasn't going to deal with it. You'd think NBC needed him more than he needs NBC right now. I guess "Heroes" is an NBC Studios production, so they pretty much own him.
And the fact that Zach was gay and not trying to get into Claire's pants WAS a significant character point.

Reply

It's sad that a minor characters sexual orientation has to be such a big deal in 2006.

Reply

It's more than a little ironic this happened on a show about people discovering that there's something 'different' in their genetic makeup, no?

Wasn't Wil and Grace on NBC? Maybe Zach should've been written as a cutesy over-the-top flaming gay stereotype, instead of just a relatively normal kid who happens to be gay. In that case, maybe all the heroes on the show should be wearing spandex to separate them from us 'normal' people. If they dress and talk like us, who's to say that the person sitting next to you on the train isn't reading your mind or getting ready to stop time and steal your underwear?

Everything else I wanted to say Margaret has already said.

It's just so sad that some executives at NBC had to make this an issue.

Reply

This isn't exclusive to NBC or network tv in general. On Dead Like Me (which was on Showtime), George's dad was supposed to be gay and that was to be the end of her parents' marriage. Bryan Fuller, the show's creator, had put the themes in motion and one could easily pick up on them. However, Fuller had a falling out with Showtime over that issue (among others) and the new showrunners dropped that storyline entirely.

The moral of the story is that TV execs are constantly afraid that they will alienate viewers by dropping the G bomb, and unless homosexuality is the conceptual foundation of the show (as in Queer as Folk or Will & Grace), they try to stay away from it.

Ever notice how it's a "big deal" when a character comes out on a TV show? Or how about interracial relationships? By tip-toeing around these everyday issues, they're sensationalizing and scandalizing them. I'm sure their reasoning is, "well that might be OK in NY/LA, but how would they feel in Wyoming?" It's pretty messed up, and instead of reflecting current social norms, it's perpetuating negative stigmas.

But back to the gay issue in particular; you'd think progress had been made since Ellen's big day out, but even she won't talk about it... on her talk show! Now *that's* gay...

Reply

Memory wipe? That's almost like saying being Gay is a choice, and not a feeling. Complete and utter BS. They better not take that route.

Reply

I think I just read a spoiler up there...dammit I sure hope not. I didn't read any further though seeing as I haven't seen the fall finale yet.

I'm always freaking (unintentionally) reading spoilers for this show and 24. ARGH.

Reply

I will just say wahat was already said. He was the bestgay charater ever on TV, the most real and didn't act like how many people think gays do. I don't care if he was or wasn't gay, but saying he is and then saying he isn't because NBC doesn't want to is wrong. NBC should be ashamed of themselves.

Reply

What I find sad is that now every creator and every producer of every TV show that is ever filmed and ever picked up for a full season and ever cast is given some OBLIGATION to include a gay character on their show. It MUST be. If a show doesn't have a gay character, the producers are bigoted. Let's see, "Frasier" never had a gay regular character, but because the brothers were metrosexuals, that was OK. I guess.

I would say that the proportion of gay characters on TV today is vastly greater than it is in real life simply because TV producers don't dare just write a show without any gay characters, token or otherwise.

Also, hasn't everybody noticed that it's "courageous" and "brave" to make a decidedly and unambiguously straight character gay, but bigoted to do the reverse? Willow was straight on "Buffy." No ambiguity at all. Chick was into penises. So if your orientation is not a choice, wasn't Whedon basically contradicting that by having Willow suddenly up and change her preference? You can go one way but not the other. Strange. And she was unambiguously straight. ANd a major character. Zach, a minor character, was ambiguously gay at best.

My feeling is, and I guess you could call it bigoted if you want to, is that there has to be reciprocity. If sexuality is "inborn," and it's impossible to "convert" from gay to straight, then the reverse should also be true, and Whedon should be ashamed of himself for having his penis-loving sidekick (she loved two individuals with penises and had a full sexual relationship with one of them) CHOOSE to change her orientation. And it wasn't just because she "happened to fall in love with a woman," as Whedon often said. If that were the case, she wouldn't have still been into chicks when Tara died. Be consistent. That's all I'm asking. If you can't convert one way, you shouldn't be into people doing it the other way. Whedon was basically saying that Willow's heterosexual life with Xander and Oz was a lie. And that's just NOT the way it was portrayed in the first three seasons. Not at ALL. So how is that any better than what Kring and Co. and NBC and Dekker have allegedly done to Zach?

Reply