Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 47027]

He has made no other statements besides this to my knowledge, why do we have to wait to react to this? This is what we have to go on for now, so this is what we are discussing.

And I already said I would welcome clarification. We don't have it at the moment, and possibly will never get it.

Because we want to give him the benefit of the doubt, considering we think he's a level headed person and not a bigot based on the work he's done in the past. We (reasonable people, I guess) would HOPE he wouldn't say something shitty. That's why we're looking to assuage our concerns and fears. "Surely he didn't mean it like that" because we hope he didn't. A lot of people are tired of seeing people whose work they enjoy turning shitty and making it so you don't really want to like their stuff anymore. It sucks, and I hope this isn't the case, because I feel very strongly for equality and equal representation, and I don't want Billy Crystal to be standing in the way of something I previous felt he had my back on.

I don't know if what I said really makes much sense, but it's the best way I could figure out how to word it. I want him to be an ally for this and I was sure he was, but hearing this COULD be a huge disappointment and I hope that's not the case.

 

[Hours Left]

There's no discussion if you're going to call every other interpretation of what is obviously a vague and highly editorialized statement taken out of context "acrobatics."

I'm reacting to his direct quotes.

What is vague about “I hope people don’t abuse it and shove it in our face… to the point where it feels like an everyday kind of thing.” ?

Because we want to give him the benefit of the doubt, considering we think he's a level headed person and not a bigot based on the work he's done in the past. We (reasonable people, I guess) would HOPE he wouldn't say something shitty. That's why we're looking to assuage our concerns and fears. "Surely he didn't mean it like that" because we hope he didn't. A lot of people are tired of seeing people whose work they enjoy turning shitty and making it so you don't really want to like their stuff anymore. It sucks, and I hope this isn't the case, because I feel very strongly for equality and equal representation, and I don't want Billy Crystal to be standing in the way of something I previous felt he had my back on.

I don't know if what I said really makes much sense, but it's the best way I could figure out how to word it. I want him to be an ally for this and I was sure he was, but hearing this COULD be a huge disappointment and I hope that's not the case.

I would like nothing more than this to be a misunderstanding. I was a big fan of Billy Crystal, and would love to still support him.

But just because I like someone's work doesn't mean I give bigoted statements a free pass.

 

[jediyoshi]

Seems pretty homophobic to me.

Anything to back your statement up?

Did I miss your dissection in the OP about your perspective?

 

[ivysaur12]

That depends on what you mean by "going at it". Most people don't want to see genders they aren't sexually attracted to having sex. That's hardly immature. That's as natural as a gay man not wanting to watch two lesbians having sex.

I got through Orange is the New Black just fine, thank you very much.

 

[MormaPope]

Shows that had gay characters that were also intimate:

The Wire (multiple characters)
The Sopranos (

Spoiler

Vito

)
Six Feet Under (David and Kieth, multiple characters)
The Shield (Julien)
Nip/Tuck (multiple characters?)

 

[Calamari41]

I'm reacting to his direct quotes.

What is vague about “I hope people don’t abuse it and shove it in our face… to the point where it feels like an everyday kind of thing.” ?

Like I asked before, did we confirm via direct quote what "it" is in these quotes, or are we just trusting the Yahoo writer when they tell us what "it" is?

 

[The Adder]

What is vague about “I hope people don’t abuse it and shove it in our face… to the point where it feels like an everyday kind of thing.” ?

"It"

 

[Sapiens]

Wait, wasn't he the evil dude in Aliens?

Anyway, I have a cousin who said similar things about gay people. He doesn't want them to try to fuck him and get gay "all in his face."

I remember this one time we were watching MTV back in the day, and one video features a cross-dresser/drag-queen getting dressed up, and for the entirety of the song, he could not stop talking about how badly he want to beat the shit out of that dude. He was transfixed, shaking his fist, wishing he could run into this person in a dark alley and beat him "up".

So weird.

So, anyway, I always associate these attitudes with repressed homosexuality/homophobia as a result. Crystal is a closeted homophobe in my mind now.

 

[BeatResetsTheWorld]

Seems pretty homophobic to me.

Anything to back your statement up?

I'm pretty sure he means you can have a gay character without them being some super flamboyant caricature. Obviously some people are like that, but when it's EVERY one...it's like if every black character on TV was an athlete or something

A good example is Max from the show Happy Endings. He's gay, and it's no secret, but that's not what defines his character. It's simply his sexuality as it is for any straight character our there

 

[Stet]

I'm reacting to his direct quotes.

What is vague about “I hope people don’t abuse it and shove it in our face… to the point where it feels like an everyday kind of thing.” ?

What is "it" in that sentence, Hours Left? Don't go back and read the article, because they can put quotes in whatever order they want. Read just that sentence and tell me what "it" refers to.

 

[Horse Detective]

That's as natural as a gay man not wanting to watch two lesbians having sex.

And you have seen a gay man say this?

 

[Cream]

If he meant "Don't make being gay their only characteristic", that's what he would have said. It's not like that's a very complicated thought.

 

[duckroll]

Found the full comments and a response he had: http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv...-clarifies-his-too-much-for-me-comment-on-tv/

He was asked about the difficulty of playing a gay character, and he said:

Well, it was very difficult at the time, because basically I had the shovel. Jodie was really the first recurring character, starring character, whatever you want to call it, on network television. It was a different time. It was 1977. So, yeah, it was awkward and it was tough. I remember playing scenes with my boyfriend, Bob Seagren, who, in real life, was an Olympic gold medalist…yeah, it was awkward, and then over the years, you’d see other different characters and so on and so forth. And I’ve seen some stuff recently on TV in different kinds of shows where the language or the explicit sex is really ‑‑ you know, sometimes I get it, and sometimes I have ‑‑ I just feel like, “Ah, that’s too much for me.”…sometimes it’s just pushed a little too far for my tastes and I’m not going to get into which ones they are.

I have to say ‘we,’ because Susan Harris wrote [Jodie], and Paul Witt and Tony Thomas and Jay Sandrich and an amazing cast of that show supported me and let me play those scenes, helped me play those scenes with some sort of courage, in a front of a live audience. See, I did it in front of a live audience and there were times where I would say to Bob [Seagren, who played Jodie’s lover, Dennis], “I love you,” and the audience would laugh nervously, because, you know, it’s a long time ago, and I’d feel this anger. I wanted to stop the tape and go, “What is your problem?” because it made you sort of very self‑conscious about what we were trying to do then. And now it’s just I see it and I just hope people don’t abuse it and shove it in our face ‑‑ well, that sounds terrible [some laugher from the crowd]‑‑ to the point of it just feels like an everyday kind of thing.

This is part of his response:

Billy, when people were asking you about ‘Soap’ during the panel, you said something about ‘shove it in your face’ and a few people asked me afterwards if I was offended by what you said. I’m curious about comedy and how you approach that today.

Billy Crystal: First of all, I don’t understand why there would be anything offensive that I said. When it gets too far either visually…now, that world exists because it does for the hetero world, it exists, and I don’t want to see that either. But when I feel it’s a cause, when I feel it’s “You’re going to like my lifestyle,” no matter what it is, I’m going to have a problem and there were a couple of shows I went ‘I couldn’t watch that with somebody else.” That’s fine. If whoever writes it or produces it…totally get it. It’s all about personal taste.

There is much more at the link. We don't have to debate about what he meant, because he has clarified it himself.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

At the same time, look at Michael Scott in the Office - nobody's THAT clueless or foolish. So...is that fine then? It's tough to say. Depends on the show I guess?

I think this is the point, though - you've just compared clueless and stupidity as cues for humour to homosexuality, which is... sort of insulting. I think it's a real problem that a lot of gay character in television shows end up being reduced to "look how gay they are! Aren't they gay? Isn't that funny?"; and I don't mean it in the sense of being over the top or anything given that there's a strong subculture in the homosexual movement that takes great pride in being flamboyany and so on, I mean it in the sense that these characters are defined by their gayness in a way that straight characters don't suffer from. They're not given any other character traits or personality facets other than the fact that they're gay. We're expected to laugh at their gayness.

I have no idea whether this is what Crystal is trying to say; I don't know much about him and there's at least a reasonable chance he wasn't trying to say that and is either homophobic or ignorant. However, I do think the above is a reasonable concern.

 

[styl3s]

to the point where it feels like an everyday kind of thing.

I know i am only gay on Sunday-Monday, Tues-Sat would be too pushy for my boyfriend.

 

[Speevy]

And you have seen a gay man say this?

I don't know why they wouldn't. Tell me why personal taste equates to bigotry since in this case, a gay man can't be homophobic.

 

[The Adder]

I'm pretty sure he means you can have a gay character without them being some super flamboyant caricature. Obviously some people are like that, but when it's EVERY one...it's like if every black character on TV was an athlete or something

A good example is Max from the show Happy Endings. He's gay, and it's no secret, but that's not what defines his character. It's simply his sexuality as it is for any straight character our there

There is nothing at all wrong with a character who is flamboyantly gay. The issue, as I previously noted, arrises when that's ALL they are.

 

[Stet]

Found the full comments and a response he had: http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv...-clarifies-his-too-much-for-me-comment-on-tv/

He was asked about the difficulty of playing a gay character, and he said:



This is part of his response:



There is much more at the link. We don't have to debate about what he meant, because he has clarified it himself.

"But when I feel it’s a cause"

Don't just not bold the beginning of his sentence.

I interpreted it as him saying that it shouldn't be abused. Writers know that people will champion gay intimacy in a show because it's groundbreaking, so they write gay intimacy into their show for no reason but to win champions, and that's what he sees as the problem.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

I would like nothing more than this to be a misunderstanding. I was a big fan of Billy Crystal, and would love to still support him.

But just because I like someone's work doesn't mean I give bigoted statements a free pass.

For sure, and I'm the same way. First and foremost I don't want him to have meant that because that's a person who does hold some sway over people and could be very helpful as far as equal representation goes. Second is I don't want to hate his shit. No free passes, agreed 100%.

Wait, wasn't he the evil dude in Aliens?

Goddammit that was the Queen

Oh wait you mean Paul Reiser

 

[ivysaur12]

Found the full comments and a response he had: http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv...-clarifies-his-too-much-for-me-comment-on-tv/

He was asked about the difficulty of playing a gay character, and he said:



This is part of his response:



There is much more at the link. We don't have to debate about what he meant, because he has clarified it himself.

Well, there you go.

"But when I feel it’s a cause"

Don't just not bold the beginning of his sentence.

He's talking about intimacy on television.

 

[Hours Left]

Like I asked before, did we confirm via direct quote what "it" is in these quotes, or are we just trusting the Yahoo writer when they tell us what "it" is?

"It"

What is "it" in that sentence, Hours Left? Don't go back and read the article, because they can put quotes in whatever order they want. Read just that sentence and tell me what "it" refers to.

Gay sexuality is my take.

The context of his discussion is gay characters/representation of television. I don't see how he could be referring to anything else.

 

[Kimawolf]

Do people have similar issues when a female is brought on to a show to be "the love interest"? Or does it depend on how hot the actress is?

there are lots of depictions of strong women on TV though who aren't just love interests. there are VERY FEW gay characters on TV at all, let alone not in stereotypical roles. I guess it could be me being overly sensitive and trying to be more protective of their limited depictions on TV as it is. Kind of like white people being more offended about some things regarding black people they see or hear than black people.

that's the best way I can explain it. I get just as annoyed when every Asian guy on TV is either a martial arts master or computer genius.

 

[Karsticles]

That depends on what you mean by "going at it". Most people don't want to see genders they aren't sexually attracted to having sex. That's hardly immature. That's as natural as a gay man not wanting to watch two lesbians having sex.

On this note, several gay friends of mine have told me they think it is gross when heteros kiss. Nothing they do suggests they are heterophobic, though. If one is not attracted to a gender, and one is inclined to attach oneself to characters in a show, it makes sense why one might not care to see it. It has never bothered me, personally, but I can respect someone not caring to see it.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Eh I'm guessing it came out wrong. If he's trying to say what I think he's trying to say, it's that he'd hate for homosexuality to become a common shtick or trope. I don't want to see token gay characters or caricatures of gay people everywhere, I'd prefer for the representation in media to be representative of real life, which is to say most gay people aren't flamboyantly so and their sexuality isn't (or shouldn't) be the defining characteristic of their personality. That being said, I understand that the new(ish) acceptance of homosexuality in general leads to a new(ish) topic to explore and I can understand that it might feel like it's getting overexposure because of it.

That's what I'm guessing he meant, and if that's the case I don't disagree.

 

[Faxanadu]

No, it doesn't.

Heterosexual expressions of love/lust are literally everywhere. They are ingrained in nearly every aspect of media. Why does an uptick in gay characters/content on TV suddenly equate to "too much" or "shoving it in our face.

An uptick is not accurate. An explosion is more accurate. When people say forced, it means we're stretching the idea. "Gay" is being treated like a fad or an acheivement. Neither of which it is. Its a personal, intimate choice. Not the flavor of the year the media makes it. It is not hetero vs. type of thought process to me.

 

[duckroll]

"But when I feel it’s a cause"

Don't just not bold the beginning of his sentence.

When gay people make out on television, it's a "cause", but when straight people make out on television, it's just "ratings". Right?

 

[optimiss]

As a black man I've gotten tired of seeing the same reoccurring black people stereotypes depicted on TV

I like that New Girl has two black leads and neither of them are stereotypes. It is very refreshing.

 

[Mumei]

Thanks, duckroll.

I don't know why they wouldn't. Tell me why personal taste equates to bigotry since in this case, a gay man can't be homophobic.

Internalized homophobia is something that many gay people struggle with.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

I think this is the point, though - you've just compared clueless and stupidity as cues for humour to homosexuality, which is... sort of insulting. I think it's a real problem that a lot of gay character in television shows end up being reduced to "look how gay they are! Aren't they gay? Isn't that funny?"; and I don't mean it in the sense of being over the top or anything given that there's a strong subculture in the homosexual movement that takes great pride in being flamboyany and so on, I mean it in the sense that these characters are defined by their gayness in a way that straight characters don't suffer from. They're not given any other character traits or personality facets other than the fact that they're gay. We're expected to laugh at their gayness.

I have no idea whether this is what Crystal is trying to say; I don't know much about him and there's at least a reasonable chance he wasn't trying to say that and is either homophobic or ignorant. However, I do think the above is a reasonable concern.

I totally didn't mean to compare the two as if it made sense - I was just trying to draw from a character that is hard to believe could exist in real life, which was the argument. Though humanity always tends to surprise me... I honestly did not mean to draw any sort of parallel, nor do I think gay characters have anything in common with someone who is bumbling. I don't want to be misunderstood.

 

[ivysaur12]

I like that New Girl has two black leads and neither of them are stereotypes. It is very refreshing.

It helps that Winston isn't a character at all!

 

[Sapiens]

Goddammit that was the Queen

Oh wait you mean Paul Reiser

Right, Paul Reiser, the guy from City Slickers.

 

[Horse Detective]

I don't know why they wouldn't. Tell me why personal taste equates to bigotry since in this case, a gay man can't be homophobic.

I think finding something icky isn't enough for me to outwardly say that I don't want it pushed in my face on tv. And I don't know why one wouldn't just say they don't want romance in general pushed in their face. Narrowing it down specifically to this is a little childish and egotistical. And yeah it seems to be a unique problem with people who identify as hetero.

 

[Stet]

When gay people make out on television, it's a "cause", but when straight people make out on television, it's just "ratings". Right?

That's ... not at all what he said. He said when he feels it's a cause. That doesn't mean it's always a cause.

Never mind, Duckroll, I know why you didn't bold it now.

 

[Blood Diamonds]

I hear that gay people disappear on the weekdays and reappear on the weekends only
I think they go to some kind of gay limbo, being gay isn't an everyday thing

 

[T.O.P]

Best gay TV characters: David and Keith from Six Feet Under.

Also Ian and Mickey from Shameless US are fantastic

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Right, Paul Reiser, the guy from City Slickers.

goddammit

 

[ivysaur12]

Eh I'm guessing it came out wrong. If he's trying to say what I think he's trying to say, it's that he'd hate for homosexuality to become a common shtick or trope. I don't want to see token gay characters or caricatures of gay people everywhere, I'd prefer for the representation in media to be representative of real life, which is to say most gay people aren't flamboyantly so and their sexuality isn't (or shouldn't) be the defining characteristic of their personality. That being said, I understand that the new(ish) acceptance of homosexuality in general leads to a new(ish) topic to explore and I can understand that it might feel like it's getting overexposure because of it.

That's what I'm guessing he meant, and if that's the case I don't disagree.

That's not what he meant:

And I’ve seen some stuff recently on TV in different kinds of shows where the language or the explicit sex is really ‑‑ you know, sometimes I get it, and sometimes I have ‑‑ I just feel like, “Ah, that’s too much for me.”…sometimes it’s just pushed a little too far for my tastes and I’m not going to get into which ones they are.

He's talking about the level of intimacy on television.

 

[stupei]

"But when I feel it’s a cause"

Don't just not bold the beginning of his sentence.

I don't think he's saying that?

I thought he was saying that explicit sex bothers him, whether it's gay or straight, but since some people are disgusted by gay people, putting explicit gay sex on a show is going to make those people even more disgusted.

That being gay is a cause trying to change minds, that gay people are using representation to do just that, but that by being more explicit sexually they are more likely to turn people off, because even he finds some of the sex scenes to be "too much" while still supporting gay rights. (To be clear, I don't agree with him. That was just my take away from that particular part of his statement.)

 

[PhoenixDark]

I think it's fair to point out a lot of gay characters on tv are complete stereotypes, and it's rather tiring. You could say the same about a variety of female characters on television. Bad writing, bad roles.

Great gay characters like Omar on The Wire or Max on Happy Endings are a minority.

 

[Hours Left]

Found the full comments and a response he had: http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv...-clarifies-his-too-much-for-me-comment-on-tv/

He was asked about the difficulty of playing a gay character, and he said:



This is part of his response:



There is much more at the link. We don't have to debate about what he meant, because he has clarified it himself.

Thanks duckroll.

I'll add it to the OP.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

So Billy Crystal is kind of a prude. And that's alright as long as it's equal. I don't necessarily agree, I mean I think sexuality, definitely skewed towards the hetero end by a huge degree is used as a crutch to tell stories without putting forth good effort for motivations.

 

[ivysaur12]

That's ... not at all what he said. He said when he feels it's a cause. That doesn't mean it's always a cause.

Never mind, Duckroll, I know why you didn't bold it now.

And I’ve seen some stuff recently on TV in different kinds of shows where the language or the explicit sex is really ‑‑ you know, sometimes I get it, and sometimes I have ‑‑ I just feel like, “Ah, that’s too much for me.”…sometimes it’s just pushed a little too far for my tastes and I’m not going to get into which ones they are.

But when I feel it’s a cause, when I feel it’s “You’re going to like my lifestyle,” no matter what it is, I’m going to have a problem

Please tell me what about this you agree with, or sympathize with. I'm curious.

I think it's fair to point out a lot of gay characters on tv are complete stereotypes, and it's rather tiring. You could say the same about a variety of female characters on television. Bad writing, bad roles.

Great gay characters like Omar on The Wire or Max on Happy Endings are a minority.

But that's not at all what he's talking about.

So Billy Crystal is kind of a prude. And that's alright as long as it's equal. I don't necessarily agree, I mean I think sexuality, definitely skewed towards the hetero end by a huge degree is used as a crutch to tell stories without putting forth good effort for motivations.

Except he puts it in the context of:

But when I feel it’s a cause, when I feel it’s “You’re going to like my lifestyle,” no matter what it is, I’m going to have a problem

I don't think Billy Crystal would have a problem with Game of Thrones sex.

 

[Stet]

Please tell me what about this you agree with. I'm curious.

You can clarify someone's words without agreeing with them, ivysaur.

Or is the witch-hunt now going to extend to members of this forum as well as Billy Crystal?

 

[Calamari41]

That's not what he meant:

He's talking about the level of intimacy on television.

In the full context, he says that he feels the same way about over the top heterosexual intimacy (like in Game of Thrones, to use your example), and in this specific case is talking about situations where he feels that homosexual intimacy is added in just for the sake of saying you have homosexual intimacy. For a network or show runner to be able to say "look, our show has gay characters having sex." If that makes sense... I realize I'm having kind of a hard time expressing my thoughts on this.

He even uses "Girls" as an example, with the main character getting naked all the time for the sake of "this show has a woman who doesn't represent the 'ideal' female form naked all the time"

 

[Sanjuro]

I think it's fair to point out a lot of gay characters on tv are complete stereotypes, and it's rather tiring. You could say the same about a variety of female characters on television. Bad writing, bad roles.

Great gay characters like Omar on The Wire or Max on Happy Endings are a minority.

I still think Omar is one of the better gay characters on television. Gave me a better understanding of what they were trying to do with the show early on, as I believe the show took a while to gain traction of everything going on.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

That's not what he meant:



He's talking about the level of intimacy on television.

Welp...that's a lot harder to defend then

 

[StealthGoblin]

I kinda agree with the overall message here. It seems like every drama nowadays has to shoehorn in a Romeo/Juliet homosexual subplot where the only defining character traits in one or both characters are that they are gay. Why does their homosexuality have to define them? Why can't they just be characters /and/ be gay?

That is my issue with recent developments too. People shouldn't solely be defined by their sexuality. Their entire stories shouldn't revolve around it.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I totally didn't mean to compare the two as if it made sense - I was just trying to draw from a character that is hard to believe could exist in real life, which was the argument. Though humanity always tends to surprise me... I honestly did not mean to draw any sort of parallel, nor do I think gay characters have anything in common with someone who is bumbling. I don't want to be misunderstood.

I wasn't accusing you or anything, I'm just pointing out why having "stupidity" as a larger than life aspect for the purposes of comedy isn't, or at the very least shouldn't, be analogous to having "homosexuality" as a larger than life aspect for the purposes of comedy.

 

[CornBurrito]

I don't know why they wouldn't. Tell me why personal taste equates to bigotry since in this case, a gay man can't be homophobic.

What television shows actually depict full blown hardcore graphic sex?

 

[stupei]

That is my issue with recent developments too. People shouldn't solely be defined by their sexuality. Their entire stories shouldn't revolve around it.

People keep saying this.

Are there any examples of shows that do this but are otherwise considered well written shows? Because the only ones I can think of are shows that are bad in every way, including their inclusion of gay representation.