We can't let them win....

[Guest zipperzone]

The Book of Daniel is a new sit-com due to have it's 1st airing Friday the 6th. As most of you know there is a gay character as a principal player and I think a lesbian as a secondary one.

 

It was announced yesterday that the NBC affiliate, WTWO in Terre Haute, Indiana has elected to not carry the program due to a number of phone calls and e-mails from homophobes, objecting to the content.

 

This campaign is in response to the urging of the AFA who are now stepping up their retoric, drunk with success from this "victory"

 

How can we stop this homophobic gay bashing? It's getting worse and who knows where it will stop.

[Guest zipperzone]

As no one has made any comment on my original post, I have to assume that there is little or no interest in this topic.

 

But - just to keep you up to date - another station has refused to air the show, namely KARK-TV in Little Rock, and WBIR in Knoxville is considering cancelling it also.

 

That makes 2 definites and 1 maybe.

 

What gives them the right to dictate to us what we can watch? If the Christian Reich don't like gay content on TV, they have the option of turning their set off!

 

How would you feel if your local TV station decided not to run what reviewers are claiming is a first rate show? Think about it. Shouldn't you be allowed to watch the programing of your choice?

[+ deej]

You might raise more ire if you'd post a link describing the protest, or the reasons for pulling the show.

 

Was it solely for gay content? Or was it more because of the biblical satire?

 

As for the markets where they've succeeded, nobody would watch the show anyway. ;-) The stations will air something that will actually sell advertising in their market.

[+ Lucky]

You pick your battles as a part of a greater strategy to achieve your goals. This obscure tv show with one gay character means nothing to me. I really couldn't care if Terre Haute gets to see it or not. What do "they' win here?

[OneFinger]

I live in Utah and the local NBC affiliate is KSL TV which is owned by the Mormon Church. It just came out in the newspaper today that this program has caused a lot of internal discussion among upper management.

 

But, to their credit, the station has decided to show the program and let the audience decide. I'm totally shocked because that same station hasn't been so "liberal" in the past with other programs.

 

When KSL has banned programs (such as Saturday Night Live), it has been picked up and shown on the local WB station.

 

Also find it interesting the KSL movie critic gave Brokeback Mountain 3-1/2 stars on a 4 star rating system. The did caution that the movie "earned" its "R" rating but said it was an excellent show.

 

Does anyone know if Hell has frozen over yet? :+

 

-------------

"We need to have more respect for each other. Things have just gone really crazy, out of control. ... We're on a very weird kind of cycle." Stevie Wonder

[KY_TOP]

Does anyone remember the big stink years ago with the TV show SOAP, because it had a gay charactor? I believe that Billy Crystal played the part of the gay son. You know really, we come along way since then.

[OneFinger]

OK, my age is showing. I actually remember on the I Love Lucy show when they couldn't use the word "pregnant" on TV. Also remember that Lucy and Ricky had to sleep in separate beds because it was not allowed to show husband/wife in bed together.

 

I also enjoyed SOAP and, yes, it was Billy Crystal that played the gay character.

 

We have come a long way in the past 50 years of televison.

 

-------------

"We need to have more respect for each other. Things have just gone really crazy, out of control. ... We're on a very weird kind of cycle." Stevie Wonder

[Trixie]

Maybe it's a little early for a call to arms on this one. I know next to nothing about the show other than the preview ads I've seen... from those I gather that the gay character has the hots for the main character (a priest), and that Jesus is presented as a blue-eyed blond. Yawn.

Maybe it'll be a great show, but then again, maybe it won't. Having a gay character doesn't immediately bestow the guarantee of quality. If it gets great ratings, the stations in question will pick it up faster than you can say "jump" anyway. In any case, I'd like to see a few episodes before deciding if I give a darn.

 

La Trix

[+ deej]

>OK, my age is showing. I actually remember on the I Love Lucy

>show when they couldn't use the word "pregnant" on TV.

 

I'll show my age too. I remember my folks screaming "WHERE DID YOU LEARN THAT WORD?!?!?!?!" when *I* used it while watching that show.

 

>remember that Lucy and Ricky had to sleep in separate beds

>because it was not allowed to show husband/wife in bed

>together.

 

And Rob & Laura Petry, too. Heck, even as a kid I saw through it. MY Mommy and Daddy slept in the same bed. (That, or one of them slept on the floor, which I DIDN'T see happening.)

 

>I also enjoyed SOAP and, yes, it was Billy Crystal that played

>the gay character.

 

The best part of SOAP was Ted Wass as the humpy brother.

 

>We have come a long way in the past 50 years of televison.

 

And some days (particularly after a nipplegate), it just doesn't feel that way. <sigh>

[Guest zipperzone]

>You pick your battles as a part of a greater strategy to

>achieve your goals. This obscure tv show with one gay

>character means nothing to me. I really couldn't care if Terre

>Haute gets to see it or not. What do "they' win here?

 

Hey Lucky:

 

I think it's an easy out to brush it off by saying that one doesn't care if Terre Haute gets to see it or not. I think you are missing the point here.

 

The problem I have with the whole thing is that it another example of the AFA, employing the same tatics they used with Procter & Gable, Ford and others. Any success they have will simply embolden them to continue their hate moungering against gays.

 

It's a slippery slope and if they are not stopped - if they don't meet with massive resistance from gays and others who are not homophobic, who knows where it could go. The people in the White House certainly won't oppose them!

 

And although you state it is an "obscure show" it may not be so obscure a few months from now. One could have made the same comment about Will & Grace the week before it first aired.

 

Note to moderators: Please don't move this to the Religion/Politics forum where it will be seen by fewer people. That is not what this is about. It is about censorship and the attempted erosion of the gains we have all fought hard for ever since Stonewall.

[+ deej]

>Note to moderators: Please don't move this to the

>Religion/Politics forum where it will be seen by fewer people.

>That is not what this is about.

 

Technically, it is about religion. According to this link, the boycott of the show is "for its portrayal of Christianity".

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/05/television.daniel.reut/index.html

[Guest zipperzone]

>>Note to moderators: Please don't move this to the

>>Religion/Politics forum where it will be seen by fewer

>people.

>>That is not what this is about.

>

>Technically, it is about religion. According to this link, the

>boycott of the show is "for its portrayal of Christianity".

>

>http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/05/television.daniel.reut/index.html

 

Be that as it may - MY post is not about religion, it is about censorship and the audacity of one group of people thinking they have the right and power to dictate what we are allowed to watch.

 

And the AFA has shown time and again that it will attempt to boycott any support of gay culture. The show has a main character that is gay, a supporting character that is lesbian and it is written by a gay man. The AFA objection to the portrayal of Christianity may also be part of their objections, but I believe it is just a smoke screen to obscure their real motives - homosexuality.

[+ deej]

>Be that as it may - MY post is not about religion, it is about

>censorship and the audacity of one group of people thinking

>they have the right and power to dictate what we are allowed

>to watch.

 

Right. Your post was about "homophobic gay bashing" which isn't overtly present here. You're attributing gay bashing to a religious protest that could actually be seen as legitimate.

 

I'm no more a fan of AFA than you are, but when they lead with the bible (and only the bible) that makes it a religious issue.

 

As far as who controls what's on the airwaves, that's easy. It's the advertisers. Plain and simple.

 

This little protest is backfiring on AFA, for what it's worth. It's generating media buzz (and interviews with cast, creator, etc.) on entertainment shows that other new shows simply wouldn't get. The show will probably be a ratings winner ONLY because AFA protested it. NBC finally has their "Desperate Housewives".

 

What message does THAT send to advertisers?

[jackhammer91406]

Well,

I don't know about letting "them" win, but I just saw the show and it's very good. I like the wry sense of humor and the characters are all well drawn. Critics are citing a 6 FEET UNDER quality and I can see what they mean.

 

I have enjoyed Aiden since he was a young man running around bedrooms naked showing very brief cock shots in his films. He has matured well and has a real insight into this character that he plays.

 

All in all, I will set my TIVO for Fridays and NBC would be foolish not to let the show have it's run, gay characters or not.

[jackhammer91406]

Well,

I don't know about letting "them" win, but I just saw the show and it's very good. I like the wry sense of humor and the characters are all well drawn. Critics are citing a 6 FEET UNDER quality and I can see what they mean.

 

I have enjoyed Aiden since he was a young man running around bedrooms naked showing very brief cock shots in his films. He has matured well and has a real insight into this character that he plays.

 

All in all, I will set my TIVO for Fridays and NBC would be foolish not to let the show have it's run, gay characters or not.

[Guest zipperzone]

>The show will probably be a ratings winner ONLY

>because AFA protested it. NBC finally has their "Desperate

>Housewives".

 

Don't be so sure - I watched the 2 hour start-up tonight and thought it was excellent. The time passed so quickly it seemed like it was only one hour.

 

It is ten times better than "Desperate Housewives" (which I also watch, after all I AM a fag!)

 

I bet advertosers will be clamoring for a spot on this one.

[Guest zipperzone]

>The show will probably be a ratings winner ONLY

>because AFA protested it. NBC finally has their "Desperate

>Housewives".

 

Don't be so sure - I watched the 2 hour start-up tonight and thought it was excellent. The time passed so quickly it seemed like it was only one hour.

 

It is ten times better than "Desperate Housewives" (which I also watch, after all I AM a fag!)

 

I bet advertosers will be clamoring for a spot on this one.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Well,

>I don't know about letting "them" win, but I just saw the

>show and it's very good. I like the wry sense of humor and

>the characters are all well drawn. Critics are citing a 6

>FEET UNDER quality and I can see what they mean.

 

Jack - you've got that one right. I saw it too and on a scale of

1 to 10, I'd give it a 14.

 

>All in all, I will set my TIVO for Fridays and NBC would be

>foolish not to let the show have it's run, gay characters or

>not.

 

Actually I thought the gay characters were handled very sympathetically and if people take offense to that, then they are truly dinosaurs.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Well,

>I don't know about letting "them" win, but I just saw the

>show and it's very good. I like the wry sense of humor and

>the characters are all well drawn. Critics are citing a 6

>FEET UNDER quality and I can see what they mean.

 

Jack - you've got that one right. I saw it too and on a scale of

1 to 10, I'd give it a 14.

 

>All in all, I will set my TIVO for Fridays and NBC would be

>foolish not to let the show have it's run, gay characters or

>not.

 

Actually I thought the gay characters were handled very sympathetically and if people take offense to that, then they are truly dinosaurs.

[Samai139]

I watched "Book of Daniel" and was prepared to be disappointed---too much hype from NBC, but I was pleasantly surprised. Although the story line has too many "angles" or "circumstances" to be believable, it is well-acted, reasonable well-written, not too predictable and generally easy to watch---I'm an atheist but I am not turned off by the religious theme.

As far as the "gay" issue---the son, who is near to receiving an MD, is one of the gay characters; Rev. Webster's sister-in-law is also bi-sexual, if not a lesbian, at least in what we know so far. The Rev. and his wife seem to have few problems accepting their eldest son's sexuality. The son's grandfather, an Episcopal Bishop, hasn't a clue that his grandson is gay--and obviously this will be a theme in the future.

There are so many other issues/themes, that it's hard to tell who would NOT be interested in this show. The mother of the main character, Rev. Webster, is obviously suffering from dementia; Judith, the Rev's wife, has a drinking problem; the Rev. himself is seen popping Vicodin; the Webster family has adopted a Chinese son who is involved with a daughter of a prominent city family, and they, or at least the wife is racially "put off"--she doesn't want Oriental grandkids running around the Christmas tree; the daughter of Rev. Webster is selling pot to make money; the Rev. Webster's supervising Bishop is sleeping with his fatherl; the family has an African-American woman who cooks, and takes "care" of the family, but also smokes pot behind trees; the Rev's wife obviously comes from an extremely, well-connected family; the Rev. has a good friend who is a Roman Catholic priest who "helps" him with connections; and Jesus Christ, or at least a long-haired, bearded man who looks like paintings of Christ, makes regular appearances, talking to Rev. Webster.

I've probably missed some others--but these will give you an idea. I'd be willing to do whatever I can to protest television stations from censoring this show. Sign me up. People who are denied having an opportunity are missing something and I suspect this show which I believe will receive a LOT of publicity, and will not remain "obscure" if in fact it is now.

[Samai139]

I watched "Book of Daniel" and was prepared to be disappointed---too much hype from NBC, but I was pleasantly surprised. Although the story line has too many "angles" or "circumstances" to be believable, it is well-acted, reasonable well-written, not too predictable and generally easy to watch---I'm an atheist but I am not turned off by the religious theme.

As far as the "gay" issue---the son, who is near to receiving an MD, is one of the gay characters; Rev. Webster's sister-in-law is also bi-sexual, if not a lesbian, at least in what we know so far. The Rev. and his wife seem to have few problems accepting their eldest son's sexuality. The son's grandfather, an Episcopal Bishop, hasn't a clue that his grandson is gay--and obviously this will be a theme in the future.

There are so many other issues/themes, that it's hard to tell who would NOT be interested in this show. The mother of the main character, Rev. Webster, is obviously suffering from dementia; Judith, the Rev's wife, has a drinking problem; the Rev. himself is seen popping Vicodin; the Webster family has adopted a Chinese son who is involved with a daughter of a prominent city family, and they, or at least the wife is racially "put off"--she doesn't want Oriental grandkids running around the Christmas tree; the daughter of Rev. Webster is selling pot to make money; the Rev. Webster's supervising Bishop is sleeping with his fatherl; the family has an African-American woman who cooks, and takes "care" of the family, but also smokes pot behind trees; the Rev's wife obviously comes from an extremely, well-connected family; the Rev. has a good friend who is a Roman Catholic priest who "helps" him with connections; and Jesus Christ, or at least a long-haired, bearded man who looks like paintings of Christ, makes regular appearances, talking to Rev. Webster.

I've probably missed some others--but these will give you an idea. I'd be willing to do whatever I can to protest television stations from censoring this show. Sign me up. People who are denied having an opportunity are missing something and I suspect this show which I believe will receive a LOT of publicity, and will not remain "obscure" if in fact it is now.

[jackhammer91406]

Wow, I think you got every character and plot line....well done.

[jackhammer91406]

Wow, I think you got every character and plot line....well done.

[Guest zipperzone]

>As far as the "gay" issue---the son, who is near to receiving

>an MD, is one of the gay characters; Rev. Webster's

>sister-in-law is also bi-sexual, if not a lesbian, at least in

>what we know so far. The Rev. and his wife seem to have few

>problems accepting their eldest son's sexuality.

 

I think you read that part wrong. My impression of the Rev. was that he was VERY accepting of his son's sexuality. Every gay should be so lucky.

[Samai139]

zipperzone~~

Sorry if I came across as referring to anything you wrote about the relationship between the Rev. and his son. I was attempting to connect with the original purpose of the thread---I realised that much of what I had written was just a summary of the show and probably belonged in a thread devoted just to the show and not to the "censorship" of the show.

I agree with you that the father and mother are both accepting of their son's sexuality and he is also "comfortable" in his own skin.