|
Post by Bonobochick on Aug 6, 2009 18:29:46 GMT -5
|
|
jnn111
Junior Member
McDean Forever!!!!!
Posts: 369
|
Post by jnn111 on Aug 7, 2009 2:34:47 GMT -5
Good to hear. I just hope they don't the same thing they did with Matt (the gay) in the 90's version. That was horrible :-(
I shall keep an eye on this.
|
|
|
Post by ivaniv on Aug 7, 2009 4:41:26 GMT -5
He looks very socially acceptable ;D I think I have seen a few pictures of him. I think this is him and if not it should be ;D I hope he'll have more to do than the original gay character on MP...
|
|
|
Post by amber80 on Aug 7, 2009 7:12:21 GMT -5
What is it with these ex Mutant X guys? ;D And yes Ivan, that's him. VERY nice to look at.... (I suddenly remembered seeing this clip of him once. ;D )
|
|
|
Post by Bonobochick on Aug 7, 2009 18:56:39 GMT -5
I also know him from Days of Our Lives, Charmed and Lincoln Heights. He's been around for a while: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_WebsterOh, and just to let you know, he looks that good in person too. I've seen him a few times when I was out in LA over the years. But I also hope they do better with VW's character than they did Matt in the original version. That was just awful. It was always a tie between him and the token Black character over who was more horrendously written.
|
|
HQ75
Full Member
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Posts: 4,200
|
Post by HQ75 on Aug 7, 2009 19:12:20 GMT -5
Well that makes 4 actors from Mutant X who subsequently played gay characters on other television shows 1 show canceled ( The L Word - Laura Lee Smith) 2 shows currently on the air ( Gossip Girl -John Sheaand As the World Turns - Forbes March) 1 show about to premier ( Melrose Place - Victor Webber)
|
|
HQ75
Full Member
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Posts: 4,200
|
Post by HQ75 on Aug 7, 2009 19:18:53 GMT -5
According to Michael Jensen at Afterelton, Executive Producer Todd Slavin's description of the character:* His name is Caleb Brewer and we meet him in Episode 2 * He is Ella Simms' boss at WPK * He smokes cigars, likes the Los Angeles Lakers, collects sports memorabilia, drinks Scotch, likes guys and is not afraid to admit it. * He is an archetype that hasn't been explored as much on television and the show is bringing that into the fold * So far he's in episodes two, three, five, six and appears somewhat frequently * We see some of his personal life, but Slavkin wouldn't divulge any details * He's a very masculine guy. I hope they don't go overboard with trying to prove how masculine he is so that he becomes a different stereotype "The woman hating gay man". I don't like ugly stereotypes about my gay brethren of ANY kind. I'd be totally fine with him being a bit of a player (because it fits the character profile) as long as it's not being use to "prove" how manly, manly he is. I've always loved Victor Webster. He's smart, charming and very, very pretty. I loved him as Coop on Charmed (he was CUPID!!!) and he was great on Mutant X (I was a complete Geek for that show until that got rid of my girl Laura Lee, then I was just bitter! ) I never saw the original show (nor did I have see 90210, ) but I'll definitely check out Melrose Place.
|
|
|
Post by amber80 on Aug 8, 2009 7:28:10 GMT -5
Yes, he was great as Cupid on Charmed. And so tall.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bonobochick on Aug 9, 2009 18:36:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lucrece on Aug 11, 2009 17:14:26 GMT -5
Being masculine does not require one to be misogynistic, fyi ;p.
|
|
|
Post by overtherainbow on Aug 11, 2009 17:54:40 GMT -5
How do we know he isn't just going to be a bearly there character? We meet him in episode 2, right? Why isn't he in the first episode? Is his role smaller than the others or what?
|
|
HQ75
Full Member
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Posts: 4,200
|
Post by HQ75 on Aug 11, 2009 22:27:16 GMT -5
Being masculine does not require one to be misogynistic, fyi ;p. I completely agree but writers and many male viewers don't seem to know the difference. I have no problem with masculine or even hyper super masculine gay male characters if they are portrayed well, with depth and good writing. I do have a problem with sexism thinly disguised as masculinity. But a lot of the comments in response to the introduction of this character (and that crazy description) just seemed like over compensation. I can think of dozens and of masculine, believable gay characters on television right now who are popular so I don't get why Melrose place feels the need to overcompensate in their description as if they should get a medal for how "non-stereotypical" (whatever that means) this new character will be. Men were already critiquing the character's level of masculinity based solely upon photos of the actor and decided he's not masculine enough to fit the character description, and the show hasn't even started shooting yet.
|
|
|
Post by lucrece on Aug 11, 2009 22:55:30 GMT -5
Well, I do see the manizing (no other word equivalent to the male form of "womanizing") bit groundbreaking. Gay guys are often castrated. Whya can't gay men be horny pigs, too? I have yet to see a gay man's cat-calls/dirty talk of desire toward another man being treated as naturally as its heterosexual counterpart. It's always either nonexistent or ridiculed.
I would be thrilled to see a guy who is not afraid to let his horniness and appreciation for male beauty be known. They always try to sanitize gay men out of innuendo, unlike straights, and that pisses the hell out of me.
As for the masculine bit, you'll always get petty straight men calling men prettier than them (assuming they are even pretty themselves) "feminine" because they don't want to add another field in which they might have to compete with other men. Seeing how male beauty is very genetic-based (no make up or the resources women have available to cover their flaws), it's extremely intimidating for a man to be outplayed in a field he has no control over (an ugly man can't buy beauty).
Look at Tom Brady and David Beckham, and all the grief they get. It's all envy, as I doubt anyone could earnestly argue that Brady isn't masculine.
|
|
cheerios
Full Member
If we could decide who we loved, it would be much simpler, but less magical.
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by cheerios on Aug 13, 2009 18:19:45 GMT -5
Hey maybe this time he will actually get to have romantic relationship. Didn't the last time they did Melrose Place one of the tenants was gay, but then they never explored that because of the time the show came out?
|
|
|
Post by davedoty on Aug 13, 2009 20:02:23 GMT -5
How do we know he isn't just going to be a bearly there character? We meet him in episode 2, right? Why isn't he in the first episode? Is his role smaller than the others or what? We don't know. We'll have to wait and see. He's probably not in the first episode because it was filmed as a pilot, and he was added later. It doesn't necessarily say anything one way or the other about how big his character will be in the series proper.
|
|
HQ75
Full Member
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Posts: 4,200
|
Post by HQ75 on Aug 14, 2009 16:53:52 GMT -5
Well, I do see the manizing (no other word equivalent to the male form of "womanizing") bit groundbreaking. Gay guys are often castrated. Whya can't gay men be horny pigs, too? I have yet to see a gay man's cat-calls/dirty talk of desire toward another man being treated as naturally as its heterosexual counterpart. It's always either nonexistent or ridiculed. I would be thrilled to see a guy who is not afraid to let his horniness and appreciation for male beauty be known. They always try to sanitize gay men out of innuendo, unlike straights, and that pisses the hell out of me. I completely agree with everything you said here. Completely. I think gay folks are so worried about gay men being seen as "promiscuous" that they just come off as sexless or always looking for a husband which is not realistic or particularly interesting to watch. Based on his other roles, I think the actor definitely has the charm and charisma to pull off a character who's playing the field with no shame in his game and it would be very refreshing. Not to be too radical but I've always felt that being gay or lesbian means we do have the option to think about dating and lovers and sex differently and not all gays and lesbians want to get married, have children and move to quiet suburbs (not all straights do either but everyone always treats characters who don't want to "settle down" as if they are immature or selfish...). Anyway, it would be great to see the character you describe. All the men making the comments were gay. Every single one of them. I generally defer to dudes when it comes to discussions about what is and isn't sexy or manly enough in a man from an aesthetic point of view. But socially and politically speaking a lot of what guys were saying just seemed really baseless vis a vis how masculine the actor/character is and I do think it's only fair to give characters a chance to actually appear on screen at least once before trashing them as wrong, wrong, wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Bonobochick on Sept 8, 2009 23:46:49 GMT -5
YAWN. Here's hoping that at least the eye candy of Victor Webster will keep me interested for episode 2. I will give this series 4 eps total to capture my attention. If not, BYE.
|
|
|
Post by overtherainbow on Sept 9, 2009 0:09:35 GMT -5
YAWN. Here's hoping that at least the eye candy of Victor Webster will keep me interested for episode 2. I will give this series 4 eps total to capture my attention. If not, BYE. LOL.. Didn't episode 2 air yesterday, or am I totally wrong? Does it air today? Sorry.. I get easily confused
|
|
|
Post by davedoty on Sept 9, 2009 7:45:48 GMT -5
I think it's an encore of the premiere. I hope so, because I missed the pilot, and I set the DVR for tonight's episode.
I probably mentioned this upthread somewhere and forgot about it, but I love MP. It was the first soap I ever watched (no, I'm not that young; I just didn't watch soaps before that.)
As a result, I have both high expectations for trashy goodness, and a desire to see it succeed that will probably lead me to be generous. We'll see which wins out. (It's not like the original MP was high art, so it doesn't have to be GOOD. It just has to be wild, and trashy, and steamy.)
|
|
|
Post by Bonobochick on Sept 9, 2009 10:14:44 GMT -5
The original MP was fun. It was my crack back in the day too. The problem with this new version is it's not fun. At least not any fun yet. It's taking itself too seriously so instead it just comes off as dull and plodding. About the only character I found interesting was Katie Cassidy's ambitious agent plus it was great seeing Michael Mancini and Sydney (both actors have aged well). I want to give it a few more eps so maybe it can find the balance it needs but they need to find it quickly. Last night was the series premiere, there will be an encore and then next Tuesday night will be ep 2. www.cwtv.com/shows/melrose-place
|
|
|
Post by overtherainbow on Sept 9, 2009 13:09:33 GMT -5
I think it's an encore of the premiere. I hope so, because I missed the pilot, and I set the DVR for tonight's episode. I probably mentioned this upthread somewhere and forgot about it, but I love MP. It was the first soap I ever watched (no, I'm not that young; I just didn't watch soaps before that.) As a result, I have both high expectations for trashy goodness, and a desire to see it succeed that will probably lead me to be generous. We'll see which wins out. (It's not like the original MP was high art, so it doesn't have to be GOOD. It just has to be wild, and trashy, and steamy.) I hope it's good too, but I don't know.. It will be hard to top the original, cause I really liked the 90's show. I'll promise to have an open minds though, and it even has a GORGEOUS bisexual female in it, how can I not watch? lol OK, thanks for the update! I have so many shows to follow that I easily get lost. I thought Gossip Girl started this week, but it doesn't start before next week. Supernatural starts this week though, so I'll watch that. I also thought FoQ started this week, but that's not until next week. You see that I'm confused? I'm waiting impatiently for the new season of The Big Bang Theory. Too bad it doesn't start before the end of the month..
|
|
|
Post by davedoty on Sept 10, 2009 0:14:29 GMT -5
I haven't gotten to watch it yet, but the reports I'm hearing is that it's very akin to season one of the original. Which isn't good, but on the other hand, that's how the original started too, so there's hope it could turn around. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by mizuryuu on Sept 10, 2009 2:34:20 GMT -5
I guess the reason Caleb isn't in epi 1 is because he moves into the old landlady's apartment?
|
|
|
Post by Bonobochick on Sept 22, 2009 23:18:49 GMT -5
I found tonight's episode the most interesting of the lot but I still don't care about anyone. I don't hate any of the characters but no one has me rooting for them. You gotta have someone to root for on a show, especially a soap, otherwise what's the point? Caleb's damn ruthless.
|
|
cheerios
Full Member
If we could decide who we loved, it would be much simpler, but less magical.
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by cheerios on Sept 22, 2009 23:24:23 GMT -5
Is this show any good?
|
|