Portrayal of Gays in Media

>>7738048
yeah, don't get diseased whores

>>7738060

Thanks for responding.

Is that a reference to Robert Sepulveda, Jr. of "Finding Prince Charming" or someone else?

How did you find out he was a sex worker?

What makes you think he has a disease?

Would you be willing to watch a show with a prominent gay character who has AIDS if he or she was not a sex worker and was in a committed relationship?

Thanks.

There is no such thing as "A-List" gays, outside of their own heads/social circles. You made a show about the gay mean who are so obnoxiously arrogant and with their heads so far up their own asses that they live in a delusional fantasy world where they believe they are popular and envied. The show failed because every normal gay person fucking loathes those losers. The "stereotype" shit, while very correct, was still just an excuse. It was just easy ammunition to throw at those ridiculous self-important faggots to make them get the fuck off tv, and to stop feeling so smug about their ridiculous lives by making us all look like idiots.

"Normal" gay men are not women. They do not fucking watch real fucking housewives for fucks sake.

The only one of those other shows I ever watched was like 1 episode of Queer Eye when I was a teenager that made me cringe so fucking hard I wanted to crawl out of my skin and set it on fire.
I liked nothing about it, and what I FUCKING HATED the most about it was that it made every gay man seem like he only had value as some kind of fucking shopping guru for straight people.

I'd really like reality show to come to an end, so please don't product anything.

>>7738048
Imagine the X-Files but Mulder's a femboi and Scully's a super-defensive straight-presenting dude

I'd watch that

>>7738075
>Is that a reference
No, just don't get diseased whores. As in, anyone who's a whore and has diseases. Probably best to stay clear of whores altogether.

AIDS is also disgusting and I've never seen a show use it in any way that was interesting to the story. Then again, I'm also not interested in seeing how people with AIDS cope with it, so there might be other people around who do care about that shit.

I'd be interested in a normal show with characters who just happen to be gay.

>>7738091

Thank you.

This is helpful.

I think our goal was to follow the lives of people that were respected role models in the community but we obviously failed at that.

What qualities would a gay person have that would make you like them and possibly want to emulate them?

The opposite of arrogance is humility so maybe we should focus on finding people like that?

I know that normal gay men aren't women or even feminine.

What types of shows do gay men watch?
I'm guessing everyone watches tv but I may be wrong.

I would like to promote the idea that gay men have value, but I don't want it to just be as a "shopping guru" or something stereotypical like that.

Can you elaborate?

Thanks

>>7738093

I understand.
We may ultimately decide not to produce anything.

>>7738048
>"A List" gays
The fuck does this even mean? Were they "famous"? Rich? Rich and "famous"? Because those types of people tend to be the most degenerate of them all, no wonder they thought you'd be targetting gays with bad intentions.

The average gay will not have enough money to sustain such a crazy lifestyle, nor will they have enough money to stay alive for very long while being a flaming faggot in public at all times.

You're going to get some brutal, useful, and useless feedback from posting on 4chan. Good luck sifting through it.

I'd say something important is getting a VARIETY of men. If you're following real people, and ONE of them is a messy, feminine alcoholic then that's fine. But if you specifically choose all of your gay men to be like that - then, well, you're sending a message that's what all gay men are like.

>>7738102

I like how you think!

This is a great idea.

Who would you cast as Mulder and as Scully?

When you say super-defensive straight-presenting do you mean a typical jock or how would you further describe that character?

Thanks

>>7738128
For instance, this'd be like picking some crazy rich idiots and portraying them in a "THIS IS HOW WHITE PEOPLE LIVE, THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE AND REAL STORIES, YES", it'd have nothing to do with how normal white people live.

Of course, there are so many shows with white people in them and so many white people around that no one would particularly care about this one show making them look bad.

Gays barely have any shows with gay characters to begin with, we're already stigmatized and to top it off we're a tiny percent of the population, so even your one show could make things harder for gays, that's why they cared enough to complain about it.

>>7738121

I don't think anyone knew about Robert's history until they were several weeks into the show.

Do you think that actors should be obligated to divulge their sexual history if it involves sex work?

Is there a way that we could find out who has a history of being a "whore" without breaking confidentiality laws?

It seems like we're opening a can of worms with that one.

>I'd be interested in a normal show with characters who just happen to be gay.

I like this idea. Can you describe in more detail what you mean by "normal"?

For example, what are normal occupations?
Normal behaviors?
Does straight acting = masculine = normal?

Thanks

>>7738128
>"A List" gays

It was a reference to Kathy Griffin's "My Life on the D List" which was popular at the time.

The network wanted to do a "Real Housewives" meets "The Hills" with Gays.

We thought the title was clever but it obviously missed the mark by a long shot.

We wanted aspirational characters, gay men who were successful and, unfortunately, the ones we found weren't very likable or relatable to most gay men it seems.

We don't want to make that mistake again.

The reason we chose "Rich" guys is because we thought it would allow for more interesting story lines; ie. they could travel and go to nice clubs and they wouldn't be limited by work and the drudgery of everyday life.

It never occurred to me that they would be seen as "degenerate" or "crazy" but I understand your point in retrospect.

Is Neil Patrick Harris respected?

Would you watch a show that followed him and his husband?

FYI, We've already approached him and he doesn't have time or interest in doing it so it won't happen, but maybe someone like him?

>>7738130
>You're going to get some brutal, useful, and useless feedback

Haha, yes, that's okay.
I appreciate hearing from all sides of the spectrum.

I hear your point that our show did not include a variety of men.
At the time we thought we had a good spectrum of individuals but, looking back, I can see that they mostly had similar lives and personalities.

What do you think of Mike Ruiz?
We thought that he was more masculine and, being a photographer, more normal and relatable.
Unfortunately, he did not like having his personal life exposed on the show and he ultimately decided not to return to the show, which was one of the reasons we got cancelled.

Thanks for your feedback.

>>7738137
>"THIS IS HOW WHITE PEOPLE LIVE, THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE AND REAL STORIES, YES"

This is kind of what Real Housewives is and yet it has been incredibly successful, but I get your point that gay men are not housewives or women and so they have different interests.

I take it from your note that you would like to see more non-white people on television.

How do you feel about the representation in "Strut"?

I know that show's casting directors made a big effort to include non-white performers, and especially asian and black people.

Do you feel they were successful?
If not, which ethnicities would you have liked to have seen represented?

Thanks

>>7738048

I think reality TV is going to convey stereotypes because of the nature of its audience and what they expect from the kind of shows they watch. I'm not quite sure of the kind of reality you're trying to make, but the kind that I'm thinking thrives on (artificial) drama, which some women and gay guys are known to be masters at creating. Queer Eye and the other shows which came earlier helped make gay people mainstream by introducing them to the straight audiences in a non-sexual way, focusing instead on whatever quirkiness or stereotypes they could find to make them appealing. It helped bring up LGBT rights in a non-political way.

Putting aside the issue of if your show was any good to begin with, I think it also received criticism because the climate has shifted since Queer Eye. Gay people have become more or less mainstream, and the necessity today is more to help clear up some stereotypes and not exacerbate them. And showing boring, stable gay couples doesn't exactly make for entertaining reality TV.

>>7738201

Thank you for your comment.

I agree that a lot of shows contain a lot of unnecessary "drama" and I think that the producers deliberately promote that because they want to push people's buttons so that they can get that "water cooler moment" which is when people talk about your show after having watched it.

This is one of the grassroots ways in which a show gains viewers is by being "controversial" but I agree that it is growing tired as a method and most of us don't want to sit through a lot of hair-pulling and screaming.

I agree that Queer Eye was revolutionary and that the times have changed.

More people know gay relatives and so it is not as necessary to "introduce" gay people to straight people.

Maybe we don't need exclusively gay shows.
Maybe I should be fighting to get more gay characters on regular tv shows?

I see your point that a stable gay couple like NPH might be boring.

Did any of you like the shows "Work Out" and "Thintervention" with out lesbian Jackie Warner?

They were quite successful at the time.
Jackie no longer wants to be in the spotlight but would any of you watch an exercise show if it featured a charismatic personality with a great body?

Thanks

Why not have a show about gay culture clashing to show that stereotypes aren't ubiquitous?

Find some boring stable conservative and/or religious gay guy from a rural area, someone who is out but not obnoxious about it, someone who manages to have tons of friends straight and gay. Just a cool regular dude that wouldn't normally be on tv, and have him go hang out with more stereotypical gays in a big city gay scene?
And maybe have one of the city guys try and live in the rural area.

Even better, do all that but you get married gay people (lesbians too) and do a gay spouse swap.

>>7738233

My point was that making a show exclusively about gay people is likely to focus on stereotypes, which is not what the LGBT movement wants or needs right now. I'm guessing what they want might be an honest portrayal, thinking that the audiences are ready for shows that do not intentionally leave out sexual scenes. That might also backlash with more conservative members of the political scene, and not be the type of show you were thinking about anyway. Personally I'd want shows where the lead (or an important character) is gay, but where that's treated more or less as if they were straight: no tip-toeing about sexual scenes and gay culture, while having the show not revolve around that either. I'd say being gay doesn't warrant a whole show about that, because it's not such an oddity anymore.

>>7738187
>I take it from your note that you would like to see more non-white people on television.
Completely missed the point.

The point was that a huge majority that's not stigmatized is not affected by a show portraying them in a bad light.

A small minority that's already stigmatized is.

I don't care what races you put on your show, but if you're having a show FOCUS on minorities, it's best to avoid focusing on the minority of the minority that sucks.

File: 105015_D1252b.jpg (99KB, 495x745px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 495x745px

>>7738265

I think you might have something there!

It reminds me of "Big Business" 1988 with Bette Midler and Lily Tomlin.

Also reminds me of "Big Brother Season 16" with Frankie Grande and Caleb Reynolds.

Did any of you watch that?

Did you ship Frankie and Zach?

I know a lot of people hated on Frankie for being too feminine, but was the contrast between him and Caleb's redneck character (assuming Caleb was gay) interesting to you?

>>7738166
>Is Neil Patrick Harris respected?
He's famous and usually paraded as "gay man is not a degenerate - SHOCKER". I don't think anyone knows him further than that.

>Would you watch a show that followed him and his husband?
No. I would not watch any show that just followed anyone around. Well, unless this person happened to be extremely funny somehow, but even then I'd not watch it consistently, just if there was nothing to do and it happened to be on TV. But I'd even watch Spongebob in those situations, so, yeah, not really a point in favor.

>The reason we chose "Rich" guys is because we thought it would allow for more interesting story lines; ie. they could travel and go to nice clubs and they wouldn't be limited by work and the drudgery of everyday life.
So, they'd be free to be huge sluts and therefore make a mess on TV and get you cash.

>>7738141
>I like this idea. Can you describe in more detail what you mean by "normal"?
Pick any show. Now the MC is gay. That's all there is to it.

Not a "gay culture" show. Just a show about anything else with characters who happen to be gay in it.

Like imagine Supernatural if Sam was gay. That's just it. A normal show about something non-sexual that has gay characters in it. Not a gay show, just a show with gay characters.

>>7738048
I don't watch reality television, because it's all about vacuous drama. However, I'd definitely watch a show that covered the personal and romantic lives of intelligent, prominent and successful gay men like Anderson Cooper, Peter Thiel, Troye Sivan, Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Oakley.

Such a show would do much to shut down "negative stereotypes", and stand out from other gay reality series that are nothing but mindless drama involving catty queens.

Of course, it'd be much harder to get into the lives of such prominent figures but I think they could be convinced if you push how the show would work to eliminate many of the negative stereotypes people have about gays.

File: tyler-posey-1.jpg (355KB, 700x888px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 700x888px

>>7738302

Thanks.

We are not going to be on network television so we would be able to include more sexual scenes and situations.

How sexual is too sexual?

If we showed frontal nudity would you like it if we cast porn stars or would that be rejected under the "diseased whore" backlash?

Would you want to see a male erection?

How far is too far when it comes to female nudity?

I like the idea of an ensemble cast with a gay lead character as the protaganist.

Do you feel that scripted shows are better than reality shows?

How do gays feel about the "fantasy" genre?
(Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, etc.)

What are some shows (besides "X Files") that you watch and enjoy that could do with a gay character?

Would you like "Teen Wolf" if it had an explicitly gay character?

Which Tyler, Hoechlin or Posey, would you prefer be gay?

I know Hoechlin gets shipped a lot with Dylan O'Brien in a stereotypical Top/Bottom (Seme/Uke?) pairing.

Do you like this type of pairing or do you think it is too "heterosexual" and would you prefer a more "equal/egalitarian" relationship between two "Versatile" men?

Thanks for all your input, guys and gals, this is really helpful.

File: homo.png (98KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 429x410px

Imagine actually focus testing a television show on this board or 4chan in general.

>>7738313

I think I understand now.

You are saying that if a show is about gay people it should avoid focusing on the subset of gay people that are stereotypes.

In other words we should try to create roles that are not stereotypes.

Besides femininity and alcoholism, what are some other stereotypical behaviors we should avoid?

Thanks

>>7738327
>NPH- He's famous and usually paraded as "gay man is not a degenerate

Yes, his publicist has made a great effort to promote him as relatable to the family values crowd, and with good result. In fact, his choice to do "Hedwig" was the cause of some controversy because it was thought he was killing his brand, but he wanted to "step outside the box" and play a character that wasn't safe.
And I think he benefited from it.

How do Trans people feel about "Hedwig" by the way?

>unless this person happened to be extremely funny
Who are your favorite comedians?
Are there any gay comics that you admire?

>So, they'd be free to be huge sluts and therefore make a mess on TV and get you cash.

We did want to have a successful show, I'm not going to lie.
I don't know that success hinges on people being "huge sluts" (does that mean sleeping around?) however.

Would you watch a show where the characters did sleep around with each other?

Or would you prefer that they have more traditional, monogamous relationships?

Thanks

Just set a camera in front of a closet and leave it at that.

File: vdovvhg26kalkhcvyzdn.jpg (73KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x450px

>>7738343
>Like imagine Supernatural if Sam was gay

Got it.
So a Superhero Fantasy with an Adolescent lead.
I like it.

Something along the lines of Patrick Fillion's "Naked Justice" but not so slutty?

What if we used Sean Paul Lockhart?
Is he considered "too slutty" or would his nude frontals be enticing?

Or should we not do any nudity?

I'm hearing some people want more sexualized situations and others don't want actors with sex worker pasts.

Does anyone feel strongly enough about this to comment?

Thanks

>>7738372

I'm afraid I'm not really able to say where the line is crossed in terms of sexual scenes, but I think it pertains more to how the scene is inserted in the plot and how it's treated than what it actually contains. Personally I prefer it when sexual scenes in series are more than just sex for the sake of it, when the emotional attachment is highlighted; after all, if I want to watch porn, I can go watch porn. In this context I'd prefer the beautiful to the raunchy, but I guess that's a pretty broad statement. Netflix shows do this quite well, at least those I've watched: even if they don't include full on sex like OITNB or Sense8, there's going to be that little touch, like that scene in House of Cards where Claire and Frank are drunk and start kissing with the bodyguard.

> Do you feel that scripted shows are better than reality shows?

Yes, for me at least. There's the possibility to go much more in depth with the characters, to actually make something artistic. The reality shows I've watched feel too prepared to qualify as "spontaneous art" (especially given the people usually starring in them), and not prepared enough to qualify as "cinematic art". At least in that regard, it feels like the worst of both worlds.

>>7738464
Question:

Are you autistic?

>>7738372
>Do you feel that scripted shows are better than reality shows?

>implying "reality" shows aren't scripted

>>7738372
>How sexual is too sexual?
For gays, "too sexual for TV" starts right after hugging/holding hands. If they so much as kiss, you'll get people with torches and pitchforks.

File: 1442518739224.cached.jpg (195KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 2000x1333px

>>7738368
>Anderson Cooper, Peter Thiel, Troye Sivan, Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Oakley.


Thank you.
This is exactly what I'm looking for: names of people you are interested in.

It will be hard to get these men because they are already successful, but we may be able to do some sort of "True Hollywood Story" about them that would promote them in a positive light and show their accomplishments and setbacks and let the audience get to know their philosophies of living.

I know that Tyler Oakley is polarizing.

What type of fictional role would you like to see him play?

Do you see him as a "Uke" character if we paired him with a more dominant "Seme"?

Or would you rather he just be himself in some sort of reality situation or biography?

Peter Thiel is notable for his conservative politics as well has his huge fortune.

What would you be interested in knowing about him?

For example, are you more interested in his social life or his business acumen?

Thanks.

>>7738368
>Tyler Oakley

is this a joke? are you trolling?

Tyler is hot garbage and it seems everyone has finally figured that out.
Have you seen his youtube numbers lately? The dude is crashing and burning.

>>7738377

I am getting some helpful feedback.

I appreciate your time and effort in responding.

File: sleep-warhol.jpg (35KB, 600x455px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x455px

>>7738450

That seems like a very "Andy Warhol" approach.

I wonder if anyone would "come out" of the closet?

Thanks

>>7738473
>I prefer it when sexual scenes in series are more than just sex for the sake of it

I have to agree with you.
What did you think about the rape scenes in "Game of Thrones"?

>The reality shows I've watched feel too prepared to qualify as "spontaneous art"

Again, I have to agree with you.

While I would love to make art, I'm not sure that is always possible on a budget and within a limited time frame, but it should be the goal.

>>7738541
>I wonder if anyone would "come out" of the closet?
At the end it opens and reveals that there was nothing inside all along.
Or it opens and reveals the outside world, making the viewer realize they were in the closet all along.

File: bewitched.gif (545KB, 490x368px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 490x368px

>>7738482

I have been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum, yes.

I'm considered high functioning if that makes a difference.

I will look you in the eye and shake your hand, if that's what you need, haha.

Do you personally know any autistic people?

I donate to autistic causes and want to understand better the causes.

I hope you're not attempting to doxx me!

Not that it would matter.

I'm a perfectly boring nobody.

>>7738492
I know that reality shows are over-produced.

I guess I was simply trying to make a distinction between the two.

>>7738495

I hope you're kidding.

I would hope that we have progressed as a society beyond that.

I would like to have gay couples shown kissing and interacting in all the ways straight couples do.

I remember watching shows as a kid and being grossed out by the Public Displays of Affection between the heterosexual couples and wishing there were gay couples instead.

One of my goals with my work is to create those situations for young people so that they don't feel left out, the way I did.

Thanks.

>>7738517
see
>>7738368

>>7738048 (OP)
I tend to doubt there's any truth behind this whole premise but here's my thoughts nonetheless:
I write this with the underlying assumption that you have some degree of artistic integrity and give a fuck about quality as opposed to marketability. That being said, I don't disregard marketability in my thought process
The shows you mentioned were unwatchable trash in terms actual quality and also pretty unmarketable and getting right down to it, it will be very difficult to appeal to a broader audience focusing solely on a group of homosexual characters as relatability is pertinent marketability and alternatively, understanding of universality (and the human experience) is (within reason) pertinent to quality, ergo the model and structure of the show being your first writing choice and obviously quite an important one should consider this. As I see it there's 2 obvious solutions: you could make a cast of characters with primarily homosexuals or have the story focus on one or two gay guys reacting to the predominantly heterosexual world. The latter seems better to me in terms of quality especially but the former would probably generate material more easily.
So anyway, if you land on the former (which seems likely), if you create numerous romantic tensions and tease them out with varying plot devices to generate episode to episode material, you should be careful about concluding relationships after characters overcome their obstacles with each other but alternatively be careful not to have all the romantic conclusions carry no weight because then the characters would all become really slutty seeming probably.

>>7738048
>What type of Gay people would you want to watch in a reality show situation?

Masc gay men where the audience has trouble believing they are even gay. I've been with my boyfriend for ten years and there are people who still think we are "faking it". Most of the gay men I know aren't the femmy sissy types that are always pushed to the forefront.
>Are there specific subjects that we should avoid or edit so that we don't promote negative stereotypes?
I don't want to hear about hook-ups non stop. Some of us are capable of meeting and forming relationships without the need of Grindr. Also HIV/AIDS, it's not sexy, nobody wants it, let that shit stay in the shadows where it belongs. I want a show with a masc couple engaging in normal family activities. Give me a couple who are raising a son, show how they have to navigate through society in spite of the great leaps we've made in the passed few decades.

>>7738048
It needs /k/omrades

>>7738048
>Nothing was scripted
Fake. Those shows are all fake and scripted, who are you trying to fool?

File: ayy lmao greyed.jpg (12KB, 560x416px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 560x416px

>>7738048
I don't know why I'm bothering about this since those shows look extremely fake and "sensationalistic" but the fact that "nothing was scripted" only means you picked the same type of fucked up people to portray in all your groups.

Pick a scientist, someone really passionate about science.
Pick a shy guy.
Pick a bear.
Pick a feminine guy that isn't a flammer.
Pick a geek.
And obviously pick a kinky fetishist as well.
It's ok to pick a trainwreck type of person but not ALL of them should be like that. Furthermore try generate a dialog rather than simply using emotional baits.

Lastly work on your marketing, if your company wants to make a show about normal gay people then they should market it as such, remind them that if a person wants to look for one of those fake reality shows there are 300 of them airing at the moment.

>>7738048
https://discord.gg/8fU2Tmn

Reality tv is cancerous in general.