first, let me make it clear that i find reality tv both unimaginative and annoying- overproduced, shallow shows that rely on low-brow, shock appeal.. blah blah blah, u get it.
that being said, i like this show, as do many of my straight, homophobic fraternity brothers (although they wouldn't admit it in public). i find it quite amusing. it also makes me realize how clean and hip gay men r.
anyone else dig it?
btw, anyone catch the new simpsons tonight? it was most excellent. (classic simpsons establishing shot #44321-- homer and his two new gay friends go into a gay club called "One Night Stan's")
I like it too. Funny, I only got to start watching it through my rural grandmother loving it and telling my mother who forced me to watch a few episodes. Its very funny and even though what those guys wear will likely be out of date in 5 years, they give great tips. The best is the one that shows you how to find out if pants fit you on the waist without trying them on. Saves me so much hassle when at the store.
I haven't seen it, but from what I've heard, I'm kind of uncomfortable with it. It's bound to spiral into unrealistic stereotyping (if it hasn't already), especially if getting those stereotypes acknowledged and carried out makes people feel comfortable and gets ratings. What if we had, for example, a show like "Feminist Eye for the Bigoted Guy"? It would just fall into the same trap.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI haven't seen it, but from what I've heard, I'm kind of uncomfortable with it. It's bound to spiral into unrealistic stereotyping (if it hasn't already), especially if getting those stereotypes acknowledged and carried out makes people feel comfortable and gets ratings. What if we had, for example, a show like "Feminist Eye for the Bigoted Guy"? It would just fall into the same trap.
i kinda felt the same way when the show had first come out (hehe, come out) and ppl were talking about it. however, after watching a couple of episodes, its hard to deny the show's charm and wit.
Quote from: ©bradQuote from: Jeremy BlackmanI haven't seen it, but from what I've heard, I'm kind of uncomfortable with it. It's bound to spiral into unrealistic stereotyping (if it hasn't already), especially if getting those stereotypes acknowledged and carried out makes people feel comfortable and gets ratings. What if we had, for example, a show like "Feminist Eye for the Bigoted Guy"? It would just fall into the same trap.
i kinda felt the same way when the show had first come out (hehe, come out) and ppl were talking about it. however, after watching a couple of episodes, its hard to deny the show's charm and wit.
yeah...there are some stereotypes, but they're not in each of the character. the chef guy, for example, doesn't really fall into the negative stereotype of a gay man.
and they're really hip too, yes. you can learn some good stuff from it.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI haven't seen it, but from what I've heard, I'm kind of uncomfortable with it. It's bound to spiral into unrealistic stereotyping (if it hasn't already), especially if getting those stereotypes acknowledged and carried out makes people feel comfortable and gets ratings. What if we had, for example, a show like "Feminist Eye for the Bigoted Guy"? It would just fall into the same trap.
I think the
South Park metrosexuals/"crab people" episode is lot more astute and enlightened than
Queer Eye, which demands at least a degree of skepticism.
I'm hesitant to criticize something that seems to be making homosexuality less of a foreign/scary concept to people who have apparently never heard of it before or imagine that they don't know any gay people, but
Queer Eye is very one-dimensional. I'm gay, and I have plenty of gay friends, and I don't personally know anyone remotely like the smarmy, shallow materialistic, desexualized token gays the show's producers have found to be its ambassadors (possibly because my circle consists of people I can relate to, and I can't relate to those attributes, even if I do share a sexual orientation with the person bearing them).
What I'm most uncomfortable with, as I've said before, is that so many people mistakenly think that homosexuality is an "alternative" sexual "lifestyle," as if we who are other than heterosexual picked up our sexualities at a Pottery Barn and don't have the same emotional/sexual complexity and legitimacy as heterosexuals. I think the show tends to lend way too much credence to that very mistaken and very popular conception.
So, I'm ambivalent at best. I guess minstrelry is one step closer to real understanding and acceptance, and it is nice to see that straight guys are less threatened and more secure than many of us tend to give them credit for, but to me, as a gay person who has never experienced bashing or blunt discrimination but who has often felt like a second-class citizen, the whole phenomenon is really no better than an awkward phase, an adolescent stage in our culture's progression toward a grown-up understanding of sexuality.
I think the show is just fine. I think assuming it will lead to stereotypes is just paranoia. It's not like they're characters... they're real people.
The show is alright. I watch it sometimes, I used to watch it more when it first started, but it got a little boring. A few of the QE men are funny, the rest just try to be.
Also, I get a little annoyed by the way a lot of the "Guests" act. Sometimes they play up the "I'm okay around gay people thing for the camera", a little gross and embarrassing. Some of them just don't know how to act... like they know that they're supposed to "Tolerate" other people's lifestyles, but really don't know how to act around those other people... it's kind of like when you see a real loner around a girl for the first time in a long time... they just don't know how to stand and act. It's (once again) embarrassing.
PS, that wasn't the new Simpsons you're referring to, that was the rerun... the new one was the one with Homer's mom.
Quote from: RegularKarateIt's not like they're characters... they're real people.
Come on, this is reality TV. It's not
really real.
Don't you think there's an element of sensationalism? Aren't these people selected according to, umm, certain things?
although I don't have a problem with this sorta stuff...it's a good show...I don't like reality tv becoming gay tv.
It's like the cool thing...like a "bi" girl....
Similar to how I feft about the sundance channel, I dunno how it is now, but a year ago when I got rid of it...it was becoming "the gay movie channel"....
like i said, i don't mind it, but it's hard for me to related.
ps. cbrad's a frat boy?
Quote from: godardianI'm hesitant to criticize something that seems to be making homosexuality less of a foreign/scary concept to people who have apparently never heard of it before or imagine that they don't know any gay people, but Queer Eye is very one-dimensional. I'm gay, and I have plenty of gay friends, and I don't personally know anyone remotely like the smarmy, shallow materialistic, desexualized token gays the show's producers have found to be its ambassadors (possibly because my circle consists of people I can relate to, and I can't relate to those attributes, even if I do share a sexual orientation with the person bearing them).
What I'm most uncomfortable with, as I've said before, is that so many people mistakenly think that homosexuality is an "alternative" sexual "lifestyle," as if we who are other than heterosexual picked up our sexualities at a Pottery Barn and don't have the same emotional/sexual complexity and legitimacy as heterosexuals. I think the show tends to lend way too much credence to that very mistaken and very popular conception.
i can undertand that. however, why must these 5 guys carry the burden of representing all gay men? any level-headed person knows that not all gay men act like this.
Quote from: godardian
So, I'm ambivalent at best. I guess minstrelry is one step closer to real understanding and acceptance, and it is nice to see that straight guys are less threatened and more secure than many of us tend to give them credit for, but to me, as a gay person who has never experienced bashing or blunt discrimination but who has often felt like a second-class citizen, the whole phenomenon is really no better than an awkward phase, an adolescent stage in our culture's progression toward a grown-up understanding of sexuality.
isn't one step forward better than none at all?
I love this show, and think that it will really pave the way for general acceptance of gay people in society... I mean, sure, there was Queer As Folk, and there have been many gay characters on TV, the guy from Melrose Place, Will from Will and Grace... but I'm of the thinking "the more the better"... so the QE guys play up the stereotypes and multiply them by 10, but that's what makes it funny and gives the show its charm... when other producers want to make shows about gay people, they'll be able to more easily now because of this show... and that's definetly a good thing. I'm hoping for shows in the future that feature more serious gay topics. I'm not gay, but I believe in equality for everyone... and because of its popularity, this show is a good catalist for gay revolution in America.
Quote from: ©bradQuote from: godardianI'm hesitant to criticize something that seems to be making homosexuality less of a foreign/scary concept to people who have apparently never heard of it before or imagine that they don't know any gay people, but Queer Eye is very one-dimensional. I'm gay, and I have plenty of gay friends, and I don't personally know anyone remotely like the smarmy, shallow materialistic, desexualized token gays the show's producers have found to be its ambassadors (possibly because my circle consists of people I can relate to, and I can't relate to those attributes, even if I do share a sexual orientation with the person bearing them).
What I'm most uncomfortable with, as I've said before, is that so many people mistakenly think that homosexuality is an "alternative" sexual "lifestyle," as if we who are other than heterosexual picked up our sexualities at a Pottery Barn and don't have the same emotional/sexual complexity and legitimacy as heterosexuals. I think the show tends to lend way too much credence to that very mistaken and very popular conception.
i can undertand that. however, why must these 5 guys carry the burden of representing all gay men? any level-headed person knows that not all gay men act like this.
Quote from: godardian
So, I'm ambivalent at best. I guess minstrelry is one step closer to real understanding and acceptance, and it is nice to see that straight guys are less threatened and more secure than many of us tend to give them credit for, but to me, as a gay person who has never experienced bashing or blunt discrimination but who has often felt like a second-class citizen, the whole phenomenon is really no better than an awkward phase, an adolescent stage in our culture's progression toward a grown-up understanding of sexuality.
isn't one step forward better than none at all?
No, it's true that TV is probably as unfair to most people it depicts as it is to gay guys on
Queer Eye. I'm not staunchly against the show's existence- I just have some criticisms. It probably does do some mind-opening along its merry little way, which I applaud. And yes, one step is better than none at all. I just said I was ambivalent. :) I feel the same way about
Queer as Folk- a total misrepresenation or narrow representation, but it's rare that TV finds its away above that for
any group of people.
There are also a few shows that I think get it right, in their separate ways:
Friends,
Six Feet Under,
Roseanne once upon a time (which was even better than the others because it was a show about "ordinary" people that included gays and lesbians under that description, plus it was back when bringing up the subject was still rather controversial).
i think even will and grace is a bad portrayal (tho the episode with matt damon was hilarious). maybe that is my beef with it...not so much the show's content as much as the shitty "gay portrayal".
Quote from: godardianQuote from: ©bradQuote from: godardianI'm hesitant to criticize something that seems to be making homosexuality less of a foreign/scary concept to people who have apparently never heard of it before or imagine that they don't know any gay people, but Queer Eye is very one-dimensional. I'm gay, and I have plenty of gay friends, and I don't personally know anyone remotely like the smarmy, shallow materialistic, desexualized token gays the show's producers have found to be its ambassadors (possibly because my circle consists of people I can relate to, and I can't relate to those attributes, even if I do share a sexual orientation with the person bearing them).
What I'm most uncomfortable with, as I've said before, is that so many people mistakenly think that homosexuality is an "alternative" sexual "lifestyle," as if we who are other than heterosexual picked up our sexualities at a Pottery Barn and don't have the same emotional/sexual complexity and legitimacy as heterosexuals. I think the show tends to lend way too much credence to that very mistaken and very popular conception.
i can undertand that. however, why must these 5 guys carry the burden of representing all gay men? any level-headed person knows that not all gay men act like this.
Quote from: godardian
So, I'm ambivalent at best. I guess minstrelry is one step closer to real understanding and acceptance, and it is nice to see that straight guys are less threatened and more secure than many of us tend to give them credit for, but to me, as a gay person who has never experienced bashing or blunt discrimination but who has often felt like a second-class citizen, the whole phenomenon is really no better than an awkward phase, an adolescent stage in our culture's progression toward a grown-up understanding of sexuality.
isn't one step forward better than none at all?
No, it's true that TV is probably as unfair to most people it depicts as it is to gay guys on Queer Eye. I'm not staunchly against the show's existence- I just have some criticisms. It probably does do some mind-opening along its merry little way, which I applaud. And yes, one step is better than none at all. I just said I was ambivalent. :) I feel the same way about Queer as Folk- a total misrepresenation or narrow representation, but it's rare that TV finds its away above that for any group of people.
There are also a few shows that I think get it right, in their separate ways: Friends, Six Feet Under, Roseanne once upon a time (which was even better than the others because it was a show about "ordinary" people that included gays and lesbians under that description, plus it was back when bringing up the subject was still rather controversial).
i'd agree w/ u on six feet under and roseanne, but friends? i mean, i can appreciate the show for what it is, but what do u think the show is 'getting right?' i definitely think roseanne is an honest portrayl of a lower middle class family, but 'friends' is not at all. they liv in apartments in manhattan that would costs thousands of dollars per month! on what? coffee shop waiter's salaries?
the show is a grossly inaccurate portrayl of new york city. it looks and feels like L.A. seinfeld is a show that feels like a new york show. even sex and the city does (altho i have problems w/ that show as well)
I love homosexual people..... I guess that makes me gay
Quote from: ©bradQuote from: godardianQuote from: ©bradQuote from: godardianI'm hesitant to criticize something that seems to be making homosexuality less of a foreign/scary concept to people who have apparently never heard of it before or imagine that they don't know any gay people, but Queer Eye is very one-dimensional. I'm gay, and I have plenty of gay friends, and I don't personally know anyone remotely like the smarmy, shallow materialistic, desexualized token gays the show's producers have found to be its ambassadors (possibly because my circle consists of people I can relate to, and I can't relate to those attributes, even if I do share a sexual orientation with the person bearing them).
What I'm most uncomfortable with, as I've said before, is that so many people mistakenly think that homosexuality is an "alternative" sexual "lifestyle," as if we who are other than heterosexual picked up our sexualities at a Pottery Barn and don't have the same emotional/sexual complexity and legitimacy as heterosexuals. I think the show tends to lend way too much credence to that very mistaken and very popular conception.
i can undertand that. however, why must these 5 guys carry the burden of representing all gay men? any level-headed person knows that not all gay men act like this.
Quote from: godardian
So, I'm ambivalent at best. I guess minstrelry is one step closer to real understanding and acceptance, and it is nice to see that straight guys are less threatened and more secure than many of us tend to give them credit for, but to me, as a gay person who has never experienced bashing or blunt discrimination but who has often felt like a second-class citizen, the whole phenomenon is really no better than an awkward phase, an adolescent stage in our culture's progression toward a grown-up understanding of sexuality.
isn't one step forward better than none at all?
No, it's true that TV is probably as unfair to most people it depicts as it is to gay guys on Queer Eye. I'm not staunchly against the show's existence- I just have some criticisms. It probably does do some mind-opening along its merry little way, which I applaud. And yes, one step is better than none at all. I just said I was ambivalent. :) I feel the same way about Queer as Folk- a total misrepresenation or narrow representation, but it's rare that TV finds its away above that for any group of people.
There are also a few shows that I think get it right, in their separate ways: Friends, Six Feet Under, Roseanne once upon a time (which was even better than the others because it was a show about "ordinary" people that included gays and lesbians under that description, plus it was back when bringing up the subject was still rather controversial).
i'd agree w/ u on six feet under and roseanne, but friends? i mean, i can appreciate the show for what it is, but what do u think the show is 'getting right?' i definitely think roseanne is an honest portrayl of a lower middle class family, but 'friends' is not at all. they liv in apartments in manhattan that would costs thousands of dollars per month! on what? coffee shop waiter's salaries?
the show is a grossly inaccurate portrayl of new york city. it looks and feels like L.A. seinfeld is a show that feels like a new york show. even sex and the city does (altho i have problems w/ that show as well)
I was just being self-centered and one-issue for a moment and applauding their no-big-deal attitude towards non-heterosexuality. I don't think
Friends is "realistic" by any means, but I think they "get it right" as far as enfolding different kinds of people on an even keel into their (very) make-believe world. It's a little more nuanced and sophisticated than, "Ohmigod, this character is gay, and that means a), b), and c)." That's all I was talkin' 'bout.
I think
Sex and the City actually IS a New York show, literally shot on location. Isn't it? It's far from realistic, too, but I love the different attitudes the characters have about sex and relationships, their banter and jokes. I think the characters are actually very likeable, too, for the most part, without being sickening idealizations. I think of it as a really good sitcom.
Will and Grace is another story. I like the (general) self-effacement of the gay characters, and the Megan Mulally character is the closest thing America's ever had to
Absolutely Fabulous, but the Grace character is just a crude, demeaning husk of a woman, and Debra Messing just comes across as a desperate wisp of insecurity. That's only funny if there's more to the character than just that, and there usually isn't.
Bottom line on this, though: It's not literal realism or exact accuracy I'm looking for so much as better, richer, more sophisticated fiction. I posted in the John Goodman thread about how I would've watched the apparently terrible
Normal, Ohio just for his talent, but I also like the idea of a regular, slovenly working Joe who also happens to be gay. I don't resent the flamboyant, sassy, stylish elements of my community, but it gets annoying when that reaches phenomenon level and becomes the preferred signified of the "gay/queer/homosexual" signifier.
But anyways, cbrad, I think it's an unequivocally good thing that your frat-guy acquaintances will get a kick out of a bunch of gay guys on TV and maybe be that much less likely to be automatically gay-negative. I guess
Queer Eye is something I'm glad some people are watching, but it's also something I hope we eventually get beyond.
I think homosexual people/couples ought to have the same rights as heterosexual people/couples. If it's not my business that some girl ended up with some boy, then it's not my business that some boy ended up with some other boy. i know some gay men who are open about that and they are some of the nicest men I've ever met. On the other hand, I've also met some people who are embarassed about that, and hide it, even trying to act like they're heteros, and those are not nice at all. I've seen them humiliated many times for how they look, talk, move...and I can understand how they feel, especially if their own parents are ashamed of them. I always think they wouldn't be that way if people accepted them.
Quote from: godardian
I was just being self-centered and one-issue for a moment and applauding their no-big-deal attitude towards non-heterosexuality. I don't think Friends is "realistic" by any means, but I think they "get it right" as far as enfolding different kinds of people on an even keel into their (very) make-believe world. It's a little more nuanced and sophisticated than, "Ohmigod, this character is gay, and that means a), b), and c)." That's all I was talkin' 'bout.
I think Sex and the City actually IS a New York show, literally shot on location. Isn't it? It's far from realistic, too, but I love the different attitudes the characters have about sex and relationships, their banter and jokes. I think the characters are actually very likeable, too, for the most part, without being sickening idealizations. I think of it as a really good sitcom.
Will and Grace is another story. I like the (general) self-effacement of the gay characters, and the Megan Mulally character is the closest thing America's ever had to Absolutely Fabulous, but the Grace character is just a crude, demeaning husk of a woman, and Debra Messing just comes across as a desperate wisp of insecurity. That's only funny if there's more to the character than just that, and there usually isn't.
Bottom line on this, though: It's not literal realism or exact accuracy I'm looking for so much as better, richer, more sophisticated fiction. I posted in the John Goodman thread about how I would've watched the apparently terrible Normal, Ohio just for his talent, but I also like the idea of a regular, slovenly working Joe who also happens to be gay. I don't resent the flamboyant, sassy, stylish elements of my community, but it gets annoying when that reaches phenomenon level and becomes the preferred signified of the "gay/queer/homosexual" signifier.
But anyways, cbrad, I think it's an unequivocally good thing that your frat-guy acquaintances will get a kick out of a bunch of gay guys on TV and maybe be that much less likely to be automatically gay-negative. I guess Queer Eye is something I'm glad some people are watching, but it's also something I hope we eventually get beyond.
okay, i'd agree w/ u on those points.
do u watch queer eye on a regular basis, or is ur analysis of it based on only seeing an episode or two? not that it would change anything. also, what do other gay men think about it? do ur gay male friends watch it?
well, i can only speak for sum of the guys in my fraternity as well as sum friends i have in other ones. often when i'm w/ a girl and another guy the guy will admit he watches the show. i'm not so sure he would in front of just brothers, but who knows. u'd be surprised, or maybe u wouldn't- i don't know, to know that there's a whole discreet underworld of fraternity guys who r in fact sexually involved w/ eachother. they just don't tell anyone- in particular their girlfriends and other brothers. :shock:
the show is excellent... many of you people in here should call them :twisted:
Comedy Central Turns 'Queer Eye' on Its Head
Cable network Comedy Central is planning to turn the make-over hit "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" upside down with a new show called "Straight Plan for the Gay Man."
Debuting in February, the new show will parody the Bravo channel's "Queer Eye" series and male stereotypes in general as a team of straight comedians -- the "Flab 4" -- teaches a succession of gay men how to pass as heterosexuals.
The make-overs include lessons in such areas as spartan home decorating, oafish manners, less-than-fashionable wardrobes, and an overdeveloped ego to mask all personal failings, production executive Lou Wallach told Reuters on Monday.
He said the network is currently producing three hour-long episodes centering on three gay men looking to go straight for a day to satisfy some personal curiosity about life on the "other team."
Jonathan, an upscale fashion salesman seeking greater insight into the lives of blue-collar workers, will try to get a job as a meatpacker. Roger, a yoga instructor who has always wanted to play a round of pickup basketball, will square off in a competitive game of street hoops. And Stephen, an entertainer with lots of female friends, will venture into the hetero club scene to try his luck as a smooth-talking babe magnet.
As the end of each episode, the Flab 4 will accompany their straight-A students to see if they "pass their tests."
The format is a role reversal of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," in which five gay men with expertise in good grooming, food, fashion, culture and interior design come to the aid of a hapless heterosexual slob. The show has drawn the highest audience numbers ever on Bravo, and a half-hour version proved popular on sister broadcast network NBC.
Comedy Central, a Viacom Inc.-owned network that reaches some 84 million homes, is best known for such offerings as the subversive animated comedy "South Park" and the newscast satire "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."
A spokesman for NBC and Bravo, which are owned by General Electric Co., said the networks were aware of the plans for the parody show but had no comment.
If it looks clever enough, I'm sure I'll be watching the parody.
This thread has gotten too dense... let's just keep it at this: gays are cool, straights are cool, queer eye is fun, and hopefully there will be better gay/straight stuff on the air soon....
Quote from: TheVoiceOfNickThis thread has gotten too dense
No, it's fine! I think this thread has brought out some excellent discussion... think of it as a varied, diverse rainbow (flag sticker) of subtly varied opinion.
Fox Takes Gay-Themed Reality Show One Step Further
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Two straight men will do their best to pass themselves off as gay as they compete for $50,000 in an upcoming Fox television special, "Seriously, Dude, I'm Gay," the network said on Thursday.
The two-hour show, set to air June 7, marks the latest in the burgeoning TV sub-genre of gay-themed reality shows, such as "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and the previous Fox offering "Playing It Straight."
"Queer Eye," in which five gay men teach a heterosexual slob how to dress, dine and design, caught on quickly with gay and straight audiences alike, first on the Bravo cable channel and then on its sister broadcast network NBC.
But "Seriously, Dude, I'm Gay" has raised the eyebrows of at least one gay activist group, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which questioned the show's premise as potentially offensive and the "inflammatory" tone of the original press release announcing it.
"Without having seen the show yet, it raises some red flags for us, speaking to negative stereotypes that we work every day to tear down," GLAAD spokesman Stephen Macias told Reuters.
He cited a passage in the press release stating that two straight contestants will immerse themselves in "the gay lifestyle" as they move into separate West Hollywood apartments with gay roommates, come out of the closet to their best friends and socialize at gay nightclubs. Each will even go out on a blind date with another man.
Fox also said the two contestants will be judged by a "jury of their queers" -- a panel of gay men from all walks of life who will decide which of the two they believe is actually gay and the winner of $50,000.
"There was a second press release that was sent out with a disclaimer at the top of it apologizing for their ill-attempted humor in the first press release," Macias said.
A Fox spokesman acknowledged that "the failed humor was ill-chosen and inappropriate and we issued a new release," but added that the program would actually help "dispel stereotypes." He added that Fox would provide GLAAD with an advance copy of the show's script for review.
The show, from the creators of the Fox reality series "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance," will be hosted by Amanda Byram, who also emcees the Fox make-over show "The Swan" and the romance reality series "Paradise Hotel."
Queer Eye for the... "The Perfect Man"
Source: Variety
Carson Kressley, the blonde gay fashion expert from Bravo's hit show, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," will make his first studio feature role in the comedy, "The Perfect Man" for director Mark Rosman ("A Cinderella Story").
According to Variety, the film stars Hilary Duff as a young woman, who tires of watching her mother (played by Heather Locklear) date idiots and creates an imaginary secret admirer to bolster her confidence.
Kressley will play her confidant and the uncle of the young man who proves to be a match for the young woman.
... :roll: