So far I'm the only one who bothered to do any research to clarify his comments and post exactly what he said, followed by his actual response to the criticism. You're getting worked up over nothing.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Billy Crystal on Gay Characters on TV: "Dont abuse it and shove it in our face."
- Thread starter Hours Left
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
So far I'm the only one who bothered to do any research to clarify his comments and post exactly what he said, followed by his actual response to the criticism. You're getting worked up over nothing.
It helps that Winston isn't a character at all!
Why do you say that? I feel like he has a much more identifiable personality than coach. I think of them like this:
Winston:
1. Dorky
2. Cat lover
3. Terrible with women
4. Rookie Cop
5. Terrible Intuition
Coach:
1. Terrible with women
2. Athletic
3. ????
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?
What about what he said is defensible? What about what he said deserve the vigorous defense you've given it in this thread? It's perplexing, and I think we (should) all agree that it was in poor taste and remind ourselves that heterosexual intimacy is portrayed weekly on television without as much of a Buzzfeed article about it.
MHWilliams
Member
Well there you go, he was absolutely talking about gay intimacy.
And he realizes that it's just his personal taste and he doesn't like seeing any intimacy on TV.
I don't agree with him about it being a "cause", but at least he knows its his personal taste. So can we stop trying this weird twisting thing where we make it about gay stereotypes being overused or something? Seriously some weird justifications around here.
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.
And he realizes that it's just his personal taste and he doesn't like seeing any intimacy on TV.
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.
I don't agree with him about it being a "cause", but at least he knows its his personal taste. So can we stop trying this weird twisting thing where we make it about gay stereotypes being overused or something? Seriously some weird justifications around here.
CornBurrito
Member
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.
What age did you make the personal, intimate (conscious?) choice to be heterosexual?
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?
While this is pretty stupid, I do think there's a problem with gay characters in TV.
I kinda hate when the entire character of a gay character is....being gay and oh how hard it is to be gay in this society!
I noticed a lot of this as well.
A lot of gay characters on television are written to be very one dimensional where their homosexuality is their only defining trait.
I watch Orange is the New Black, and it's one of the few shows that does gay characters right (IMO).
I'm with him on this (and not only in TV but in general): it's more than ok to have a gay character but it's annoying when everything revolves around him just to be "OH LOOK AT ME I'M GAY" when it could be treated exactly like eterosexuality.
I honestly think this approach doesn't solve any discrimination problems.
I honestly think this approach doesn't solve any discrimination problems.
So far I'm the only one who bothered to do any research to clarify his comments and post exactly what he said, followed by his actual response to the criticism. You're getting worked up over nothing.
I'm not exactly worked up. Especially not to the point that I'm accusing people who clarify what someone might mean of sympathizing with them.
This thread started out with: "I think Billy Crystal is saying X. I can't believe what a bigot he is!" to which some people responded, "Actually, I think he's saying Y."
Now we're at, "You think he's saying Y? Hey guys, I think this dude believes Y too!"
Presenting: Exhibit A.
What about what he said is defensible? What about what he said deserve the vigorous defense you've given it in this thread? It's perplexing, and I think we (should) all agree that it was in poor taste and remind ourselves that heterosexual intimacy is portrayed weekly on television without as much of a Buzzfeed article about it.
Why do you say that? I feel like he has a much more identifiable personality than coach. I think of them like this:
Winston:
1. Dorky
2. Cat lover
3. Terrible with women
4. Rookie Cop
5. Terrible Intuition
Coach:
1. Terrible with women
2. Athletic
3. ????
(Off topic, but): Winston is not a character that should ever be on any television show. He has not discernible character traits, besides how they've sort of marinated him in the absurd after realizing that he has no discernible character traits. He's better than he used to be, but it sort of hits the point that there's no one on New Girl who really matters on screen when it's not Nick and Schmidt, and to a lesser extent, Jess.
Please note: I also really don't like New Girl.
Yeah, I would call that immature and homophobic.
What am I, if I think the same, but about old people?
CapNBritain
Member
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 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.
I think that you're right, it's one thing to have a personal preference and another to publicly say you don't want it pushed in your face on tv. But I believe you were commenting on whether or not it was homophobic to not want to see two men having sex.
I also feel that way sometimes, and took the time to think about why I felt that way while reading this thread. I think that a lot of it boils down to just not wanting to see people I am not attracted to have sex. I feel the same way about the elderly and obese.
There's also the context of such a scene. There was this HBO show, Tell Me You Love Me, where there's a scene of an old woman giving a BJ. I actually didn't mind that scene because I felt like it worked in terms of the plot. I need something like that to carry me through a scene that my immediate, visceral reaction to is distaste. With straight/lesbian scenes, my immediate reaction is arousal, so they usually get a pass.
But this is probably getting off topic...
There is a lot of dismissive handwaving going on in this thread. You can interpret what you think he said however you want. Meanwhile, what he said is pretty fucking clear. I don't hate the guy for his comments, but its quite obvious that he is uncomfortable with homosexual intimacy. So are a lot of people. It isn't his defining feature, but he should have kept his mouth shut. It just makes him look bigoted to certain people.
Jesus, there really is a defense force for everything.
Jesus, there really is a defense force for everything.
I noticed a lot of this as well.
A lot of gay characters on television are written to be very one dimensional where their homosexual is their only defining trait.
A lot of shows are one dimensional, period. If a show has a gay character propped up as only being gay and nothing else, characterization across the board is probably weak as fuck.
Besides, Billy is talking about intimacy, not characterization.
I'm not exactly worked up. Especially not to the point that I'm accusing people who clarify what someone might mean of sympathizing with them.
This thread started out with: "I think Billy Crystal is saying X. I can't believe what a bigot he is!" to which some people responded, "Actually, I think he's saying Y."
Now we're at, "You think he's saying Y? Hey guys, I think this dude believes Y too!"
Presenting: Exhibit A.
Honestly that looks like another example of you misinterpreting someone's statement, but that's just me. Maybe we should wait for more context.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I noticed a lot of this as well.
A lot of gay characters on television are written to be very one dimensional where their homosexuality is their only defining trait.
I watch Orange is the New Black, and it's one of the few shows that does gay characters right (IMO).
I think we could have an interesting discussion in another thread maybe about excellent gay characters in fiction. Omar from the Wire would be one of the first I'd think of.
Shows that had gay characters that were also intimate:
The Wire (multiple characters)
The Sopranos ()Vito
Six Feet Under (David and Kieth, multiple characters)
The Shield (Julien)
Nip/Tuck (multiple characters?)
I've only seen two of these. Six Feet Under was amazing, Nip/Tuck, like anything Bryan Murphy related, was ridiculous, cheap, crass and overall awful.
The thing is, Murphy's idea of gay representation is the one hollywood wants and I find that problematic. I think Crystal might be referring to that.
Calamari41
41 > 38
When he and Gad are discussing this, they go into Girls, which I think summarizes what he meant:
"Does the story dictate that that has to be done?" is where he was trying to go with this, I think.
Josh Gad: I literally took it as explicitness for the sake of explicitness in any we discuss it in the nude controversies about Girls.
BC: I didnt want to see that either.
JG: Is that scene going too far? Its literally personal preference and does the story dictate that that has to be done?
"Does the story dictate that that has to be done?" is where he was trying to go with this, I think.
Gentleman Jack
Member
"But when I feel its a cause"
Reeks of 'that homosexual agenda.' The clarification makes it clear he has problem with sexuality on TV and feels gay sexuality is being forced on him and it makes him uncomfortable. Pretty black and white.
What am I, if I think the same, but about old people?
Immature, but not homophobic.
CornBurrito
Member
What am I, if I think the same, but about old people?
I'm just glad I can enjoy shows and movies that happen to depict heterosexual kisses. Or even older people holding hands/kissing.
"Does the story dictate that that has to be done?" is where he was trying to go with this, I think.
I wonder if the large amount of heterosexual fanservice is necessarily for the story in the vast majority of shows. I'd guess not really.
Blood Diamonds
Banned
You do realize this means constant gay sex scenes between gay characters, right?I'm with him on this (and not only in TV but in general): it's more than ok to have a gay character but it's annoying when everything revolves around him just to be "OH LOOK AT ME I'M GAY" when it could be treated exactly like eterosexuality.
I honestly think this approach doesn't solve any discrimination problems.
and what the fuck does"in general" mean?
(Off topic, but): Winston is not a character that should ever be on any television show. He has not discernible character traits, besides how they've sort of marinated him in the absurd after realizing that he has no discernible character traits. He's better than he used to be, but it sort of hits the point that there's no one on New Girl who really matters on screen when it's not Nick and Schmidt, and to a lesser extent, Jess.
Please note: I also really don't like New Girl.
Yeah we probably just have very different taste and expectations as I quite like New Girl.
I'm with him on this (and not only in TV but in general): it's more than ok to have a gay character but it's annoying when everything revolves around him just to be "OH LOOK AT ME I'M GAY" when it could be treated exactly like eterosexuality.
I honestly think this approach doesn't solve any discrimination problems.
Tons of characters on TV have revolved around their heterosexuality.
The sex obsessed cocky guy is a really common archetype. It's also not an uncommon way for people to act in real life.
It's also not really what Crystal was complainng about; he's specifically talking about gay sex scenes.
What age did you make the personal, intimate (conscious?) choice to be heterosexual?
OK Corn. If the community wants to be stereotyped, have at it.
MHWilliams
Member
I'm not exactly worked up. Especially not to the point that I'm accusing people who clarify what someone might mean of sympathizing with them.
This thread started out with: "I think Billy Crystal is saying X. I can't believe what a bigot he is!" to which some people responded, "Actually, I think he's saying Y."
Now we're at, "You think he's saying Y? Hey guys, I think this dude believes Y too!"
Presenting: Exhibit A.
And after clarification, he's absolutely not saying Y and yet people still seem to be bringing it up. It's closer to X, in that he does not want to see gay intimacy (or straight intimacy apparently) and feels people sometimes push it as a cause. Nothing about gay stereotypes or one-dimensional gay characters.
I think he was trying to say that he wants it to be slightly treated normally. He just said it in a shitty way.
Nope.
When he and Gad are discussing this, they go into Girls, which I think summarizes what he meant:
"Does the story dictate that that has to be done?" is where he was trying to go with this, I think.
For a lot of gay people, this is an eye roll. It's like when people say "well, I wouldn't want to see ANY PDA!". No, we know that if you walk by a straight couple holding hands at the mall, you won't even turn your head. It's hard for me to take that seriously because of it. I think it's a deeper question on what it means to be for gay rights but also uncomfortable with seeing something like a gay couple displaying even fleeting moments of PDA, but it's also hard for me to buy the argument that this is about all intimacy on television.
I've only seen two of these. Six Feet Under was amazing, Nip/Tuck, like anything Bryan Murphy related, was ridiculous, cheap, crass and overall awful.
The thing is, Murphy's idea of gay representation is the one hollywood wants and I find that problematic. I think Crystal might be referring to that.
The show was gaudy and excessive on purpose though, Nip/Tuck is a guilty pleasure show 100%. One of the main characters, Christian, is a full blown sex addict. There is a scene in the show where someone fucks a couch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLe9odemFXs
And after clarification, he's absolutely not saying Y and yet people still seem to be bringing it up. It's closer to X, in that he does not want to see gay intimacy (or straight intimacy apparently) and feels people sometimes push it as a cause. Nothing about gay stereotypes or one-dimensional gay characters.
Nope.
No, the "when it's a cause" is still pretty close to how I originally interpreted his words. But it's okay, you can ignore that part of the sentence as well -- I'm sure it's not important.
No, the "when it's a cause" is still pretty close to how I originally interpreted his words. But it's okay, you can ignore that part of the sentence as well -- I'm sure it's not important.
I mean, it's not, but okay.
Calamari41
41 > 38
For a lot of gay people, this is an eye roll. It's like when people say "well, I wouldn't want to see ANY PDA!". No, we know that if you walk by a straight couple holding hands at the mall, you won't even turn your head. It's hard for me to take that seriously because of it. I think it's a deeper question on what it means to be for gay rights but also uncomfortable with seeing something like a gay couple displaying even fleeting moments of PDA, but it's also hard for me to buy the argument that this is about all intimacy on television.
I wonder if the large amount of heterosexual fanservice is necessarily for the story in the vast majority of shows. I'd guess not really.
I personally cringe every time there's an explicit hetero sex scene in a show like Game of Thrones. When I'm watching a show like that, I don't need or want to cut away to a woman or a man getting pounded by a man for an extended period of time. I really think he's talking about situations like that, but again I could be just giving him too much of the benefit of the doubt and be wrong.
Hours Left
Member
This exactly how I feel.For a lot of gay people, this is an eye roll. It's like when people say "well, I wouldn't want to see ANY PDA!". No, we know that if you walk by a straight couple holding hands at the mall, you won't even turn your head. It's hard for me to take that seriously because of it. I think it's a deeper question on what it means to be for gay rights but also uncomfortable with seeing something like a gay couple displaying even fleeting moments of PDA, but it's also hard for me to buy the argument that this is about all intimacy on television.
I find it really hard to think that this is not a reaction to seeing gay intimacy on TV, but rather some general comment on any sort of romantic/sexual expression, regardless of orientation.
MormaPope, you never got back to me. Was that enough of an elaboration?
The Jim example laid out the perspective well enough, I can't think of many shows though where gay people are simplified to just being gay while straight characters are nuanced and well written.
I mean, it's not, but okay.
Yeah, it's not like it's a qualifier for the rest of the sentence or anything.
You know, when you're purposefully being ignorant you're a bit of a prat.
(Just for your reference, I'm not calling you a prat all the time. There was a qualifier on that sentence.)
User 73706
Banned
This honestly sounds like:
"Don't show gay people loving other gay people, or people having to solve conflicts with their partner."
Yeah, I can't really see this being a simple miscommunication when the guy tries to rationalize it with "I mean, you can add 'likes men' to the dude's bio, but don't actually show him going around being intimate or affectionate with other gay men or anything."
No, the "when it's a cause" is still pretty close to how I originally interpreted his words. But it's okay, you can ignore that part of the sentence as well -- I'm sure it's not important.
I don't think anyone is questioning your personal interpretation. Just saying that it doesn't make it any less uncomfortable. The perception that gay intimacy is too much and is bad because it feels like a cause just underscores how many people view homosexuality subconsciously.
The show was gaudy and excessive on purpose though, Nip/Tuck is a guilty pleasure show 100%. One of the main characters, Christian, is a full blown sex addict. There is a scene in the show where someone fucks a couch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLe9odemFXs
If it was just nip/tuck I would even agree, but AHS is the same, Glee is the same, and unfortunately people like over the top stuff and this becomes the image of gay people in many minds, after reading Crystal's comments I think he's referring to that.
I will read the whole thing once I'm not on my phone.
I don't think anyone is questioning your personal interpretation. Just saying that it doesn't make it any less uncomfortable. The perception that gay intimacy is too much and is bad because it feels like a cause just underscores how many people view homosexuality subconsciously.
I think you're mixing up the cause/effect of his statement. Billy Crystal never said that gay intimacy on television is a cause and that's why it's bad. He said that when gay intimacy on television is just a cause, it is bad.
MHWilliams
Member
I think he was trying to say that he wants it to be slightly treated normally. He just said it in a shitty way.
Yeah, it's not like it's a qualifier for the rest of the sentence or anything.
You know, when you're purposefully being ignorant you're a bit of a prat.
(Just for your reference, I'm not calling you a prat all the time. There was a qualifier on that sentence.)
Again, different quotes.
Quote A:
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.
Quote B:
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.
I'm not ignoring "when it's a cause" but i'm also not taking it as the entirety of what he's saying, like you are. You've ignored the rest and zoomed in on one part. Crystal has a problem with gay intimacy on TV. This also gets into what someone feels is "a cause".
If it was just nip/tuck I would even agree, but AHS is the same, Glee is the same, and unfortunately people like over the top stuff and this becomes the image of gay people in many minds, after reading Crystal's comments I think he's referring to that.
I will read the whole thing once I'm not on my phone.
Haven't seen those other shows, sucks that those shows are like that.
CornBurrito
Member
I personally cringe every time there's an explicit hetero sex scene in a show like Game of Thrones. When I'm watching a show like that, I don't need or want to cut away to a woman or a man getting pounded by a man for an extended period of time. I really think he's talking about situations like that, but again I could be just giving him too much of the benefit of the doubt and be wrong.
You personally, yes. But I feel many people who enjoy that stuff in GoT and explicitly state their enjoyment of that stuff become prudes and pull the "not in my face" card whenever it happens to be homosexual in nature.
I'm not ignoring "when it's a cause" but i'm also not taking it as the entirety of what he's saying, like you are. You've ignored the rest and zoomed in on one part. Crystal has a problem with gay intimacy on TV. This also gets into what someone feels is "a cause".
Apparently he also has a problem with hetero intimacy on TV. "When it gets too far either visually now, that world exists because it does for the hetero world, it exists, and I dont want to see that either."
Hours Left
Member
That would be a good idea, because he's not talking about OTT stereotypes, but rather displays of gay intimacy.If it was just nip/tuck I would even agree, but AHS is the same, Glee is the same, and unfortunately people like over the top stuff and this becomes the image of gay people in many minds, after reading Crystal's comments I think he's referring to that.
I will read the whole thing once I'm not on my phone.
Extra Sauce
Member
Pretty sure people who are gay are gay everyday.
I don't think you understand what "defined by" means.
a tonne of characters are defined by their sexuality, it just happens to be heterosexuality so we don't think anything of it
if the sexes of their conquests were the only things swapped in their lines the public would have a Crystal-like reaction to it being "shoved in our faces"
Blackstarhat
Member
I hope this doesn't sound off but I think there is trend of sorts with cable shows to make gay characters very promiscuous so they can can almost have a sex scene every episode. I notice this with Shameless on Showtime.
I notice that too and i find it kinda offensive.
Calamari41
41 > 38
You personally, yes. But I feel many people who enjoy that stuff in GoT and explicitly state their enjoyment of that stuff become prudes and pull the "not in my face" card whenever it happens to be homosexual in nature.
Those people are indeed hypocrites. But Billy specifically uses a nude female as a further example in his discussion, which is why I give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not just picking on gay scenes.
MHWilliams
Member
Apparently he also has a problem with hetero intimacy on TV. "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."
Yep. I pointed that out in previous posts. Like the last one you quoted.
I notice that too and i find it kinda offensive.
Why?
Why is Californication, Hello Ladies, or Girls fine, but when a gay character just wants sex it's offensive?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.