|
|
Post by justinate on Jan 1, 2020 19:03:00 GMT -5
Bad news. Disney+ just released a teaser of all its 2020 shows but Love Simon doesn't even appear, not even in the form of a still image (like they did for the Marvel shows which aren't even filming yet). Even if the show does premiere this year, you can already tell it's going to be very low priority and low publicity for Disney.
|
|
|
|
Post by justinate on Feb 5, 2020 13:19:12 GMT -5
They've just announced the premiere dates of the Marvel shows including one in December, but still no date attached to Love Simon. I think this series is very much the unwanted child of Disney+ and there almost certainly won't be a second season at this rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by mizuryuu on Feb 14, 2020 4:33:46 GMT -5
The Marvel shows are big enough that they would get special announcements. Have there been premiere dates announced for any of their smaller shows? Is it possible they are trying to keep it under the radar to avoid controversy?
|
|
|
|
Post by kellerbrady on Feb 15, 2020 7:07:03 GMT -5
Marvel shows are main source of audience for the streaming service. Shows like Love Simon will be announced like two weeks before release.
|
|
scmian
Junior Member
Posts: 456 
|
Post by scmian on Feb 24, 2020 15:29:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by justinate on Feb 24, 2020 19:25:58 GMT -5
This makes a lot more sense. I could never wrap my head around this series appearing on Disney+. Disney has always been very tepid about queer characters and same-sex romance in shows carrying its brand. June is not as soon as I'd like, but at least it's sooner than originally rumoured. It's good that the Hulu execs seem to be more excited about this show; let's just hope the young actors don't find other gigs before they commission a second season and lock them down for it. |
|
|
|
Post by kevvoi on Feb 24, 2020 21:38:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mizuryuu on Feb 25, 2020 0:55:31 GMT -5
Love Victor is a much better name than Love Simon considering the show isn't focus on Simon from the movie. I also think it is a much better fit on Hulu than Disney. I think it probably stand a better chance of more seasons with Hulu than the more conservative audience of Disney+. Considering the article is saying that Hulu has already commissioned a writer's room to explore ideas for a second season, it certainly seems like Hulu is more enthusiastic about the show than Disney
|
|
|
|
Post by kellerbrady on Feb 25, 2020 6:47:13 GMT -5
Fuck Disney.
I hope the president Sanders breaks them up before they take over every property and remove LGBT content from existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by justinate on Mar 12, 2020 10:12:05 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more I fear the move to Hulu is actually the death knell for this series.
If they'd made this decision early in the game, before they started writing the season 1 scripts, they could have tackled actual "young adult" content, made the series more like Skam or Skins. The bullshit about "alcohol use and sexual exploration" being too mature for the Disney+ audience is just that - bullshit. What kind of sexual exploration would they have scripted for a series written and produced (at the time) for a family audience on Disney+? Certainly nothing that Hulu audiences would find novel or interesting. So it's going to struggle to find an audience on a platform that isn't aimed at children or young adults. Why would anyone tune into a kiddie series where the most daring they get is having two boys share a quick peck on the lips or swig a bottle of beer (no doubt suffering immediate alcohol poisoning and swearing it off thereafter as a moral lesson to kids)? I presume that's the extent of the portrayal of the mature themes that Disney+ found so unsuitable for teenagers on their platform. It's not like boys are going to experiment by giving each other handjobs, discussing who's top/bottom or facing the dangers of getting roofied if they drop into a gay club replete with go-go boys in thongs.
It reminds me of the time Netflix introduced a tepid gay romance for Kalama Epstein in the young-teen series No Good Nick but the show was cancelled because it just couldn't garner the following it needed within its genre on Netflix. They were so cautious because they wanted to remain super-family-friendly but the end result was that they pleased no one. (Ironically No Good Nick also starred Anthony Turpel, who is now a regular on Love, Victor.)
|
|
|
|
Post by justinate on Mar 12, 2020 10:13:33 GMT -5
Fuck Disney. I hope the president Sanders breaks them up before they take over every property and remove LGBT content from existence. I don't want to get political but I wouldn't expect any help from Sanders in the off-chance that he does get elected to the Oval Office. Gay male representation is simply not a priority for him or the Bernie Bros. |
|
dylan
Junior Member
Posts: 288
|
Post by dylan on Mar 12, 2020 12:37:11 GMT -5
Fuck Disney. I hope the president Sanders breaks them up before they take over every property and remove LGBT content from existence. I don't want to get political but I wouldn't expect any help from Sanders in the off-chance that he does get elected to the Oval Office. Gay male representation is simply not a priority for him or the Bernie Bros. Oh why thank you for bringing "Bernie Bros" and Bernie Sanders - who has been fighting for LGBT rights since before you were born and voted against the Defence of Marriage Act, which most Democrats voted for - into this discussion. Suggesting that he and his supporters are anti-gay is just absurd. Under his leadership as mayor, Burlington held the city's first Pride parade. What a joke. www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/32-years-before-scotus-decision-sanders-backed-gay-pride-march . And I'm dying to know just one example of so-called "Bernie Bros" saying anything even remotely anti-gay. |
|
|
|
Post by justinate on Mar 13, 2020 12:24:51 GMT -5
I don't want to get political but I wouldn't expect any help from Sanders in the off-chance that he does get elected to the Oval Office. Gay male representation is simply not a priority for him or the Bernie Bros. Oh why thank you for bringing "Bernie Bros" and Bernie Sanders - who has been fighting for LGBT rights since before you were born and voted against the Defence of Marriage Act, which most Democrats voted for - into this discussion. Suggesting that he and his supporters are anti-gay is just absurd. Under his leadership as mayor, Burlington held the city's first Pride parade. What a joke. www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/32-years-before-scotus-decision-sanders-backed-gay-pride-march . And I'm dying to know just one example of so-called "Bernie Bros" saying anything even remotely anti-gay. Their vicious campaign against Pete Buttigieg, which Bernie falsely tried to blame on the Democratic establishment. Your knee-jerk vitriolic reaction is typical of Bernie Bros. Anything to denigrate people who don't agree with your politics. Did you address where in Bernie's platform I might find advocacy for gay male representation on TV, which has been declining due to campaigns by the far left? No - instead you jump straight to attack dog mode. No moderation, no tolerance, no respect, no decency. This is why Bernie will lose and frankly I am going to enjoy seeing him lose. Not because I dislike Bernie - but because of (an aggressive number of) his supporters: the latest deplorables. Congrats on snatching the title from Trump's fans. His failure to condemn them, and try to reassign the blame for THEIR antics to his critics, is really hypocritical and downright deplorable. |
|
dylan
Junior Member
Posts: 288
|
Post by dylan on Mar 13, 2020 16:06:39 GMT -5
Oh why thank you for bringing "Bernie Bros" and Bernie Sanders - who has been fighting for LGBT rights since before you were born and voted against the Defence of Marriage Act, which most Democrats voted for - into this discussion. Suggesting that he and his supporters are anti-gay is just absurd. Under his leadership as mayor, Burlington held the city's first Pride parade. What a joke. www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/32-years-before-scotus-decision-sanders-backed-gay-pride-march . And I'm dying to know just one example of so-called "Bernie Bros" saying anything even remotely anti-gay. Their vicious campaign against Pete Buttigieg, which Bernie falsely tried to blame on the Democratic establishment. Your knee-jerk vitriolic reaction is typical of Bernie Bros. Anything to denigrate people who don't agree with your politics. Did you address where in Bernie's platform I might find advocacy for gay male representation on TV, which has been declining due to campaigns by the far left? No - instead you jump straight to attack dog mode. No moderation, no tolerance, no respect, no decency. This is why Bernie will lose and frankly I am going to enjoy seeing him lose. Not because I dislike Bernie - but because of (an aggressive number of) his supporters: the latest deplorables. Congrats on snatching the title from Trump's fans. His failure to condemn them, and try to reassign the blame for THEIR antics to his critics, is really hypocritical and downright deplorable. Care to elaborate on Bernie supporters' "vicious" campaign against Pete Buttigieg? I'm sure there were some nasty tweets, but that was because he was a horrible candidate, not because of his sexuality. Not everything is about identity politics. In that case, I suppose being anti-Bernie means you are antisemitic? I don't think so. And it was hardly "knee jerk". But it was worth pointing out that Bernie Sanders is very pro-LGBT rights. Although his campaign doesn't mention advocacy for gay representation on TV, whose does? It typically doesn't come into political campaigns, especially when tens of millions of people are living in crippling poverty - including LGBT people who are literally living on the streets. I think that is more important than what is going on on TV series, don't you? Bernie hasn't hesitated to condemn attacks from his supporters, by the way. Oh and thanks for calling me deplorable, it sounds like the vitriole is coming more from you rather than from me. But believe what you like. Oh and thank you for comparing Bernie supporters - who are fighting for universal healthcare and other humane policies - to raging lunatic Trump supporters who live and breathe hatred towards all minority groups. I appreciated hearing your full opinion on the movement. |
|
dylan
Junior Member
Posts: 288
|
Post by dylan on Mar 13, 2020 16:21:30 GMT -5
I'm sorry for jumping into attack dog mode. It just infuriates me when all Bernie supporters are lumped into one group just because of a handful of angry people on twitter. Of course I believe that gay men deserve more representation on TV, and I'd imagine most other Bernie supporters feel the same way.
|
|
|
|
Post by justinate on Mar 14, 2020 2:47:16 GMT -5
I'm sorry for jumping into attack dog mode. It just infuriates me when all Bernie supporters are lumped into one group just because of a handful of angry people on twitter. Of course I believe that gay men deserve more representation on TV, and I'd imagine most other Bernie supporters feel the same way. I have to apologise too. I was aggrieved by your initial response which I didn't think was justified in relation to my original post, but I understand better now because it infuriated me so much that I then did exactly what I accused you of. Let me say upfront - I don't really have a horse in this race since I do not live in the US and your president is not my head of state, other than the fact that whoever does become US President will be the most powerful man on earth - with all the ramifications that has for the rest of the world's population, not just Americans. Like I stated earlier, I don't really have any beef against Bernie, as most of his well-publicised policy positions seem acceptable to me, although I can't comment authoritatively since I only have a superficial understanding of what Medicare for All etc. mean for the US population. My country's healthcare policies are very different and all the political parties are broadly aligned on it. I only just read up on Bernie's manifesto relating to the LGBT+ community last night and generally I can't find anything objectionable in it. But what rankled me is Bernie's recent claim that Pete Buttigieg was forced out of the Democrats' nomination contest by the "establishment". Mind you, I follow the US presidential politics entirely through our leftwing publication, The Guardian, and articles published on US-based gay site NewNowNext (formerly AfterElton). From these sources, it appears to me that most of the nastiness leveled against Pete originated from the far-left, who are also the ones advocating for Bernie. I don't know if Bernie is obtuse or deceitful, but to deflect his own camp's actions to that of his critics' is, to put it mildly, hypocritical in the extreme. He's starting to remind me a lot of Jeremy Corbyn over on this side of the Atlantic - who was also adopted far-left positions and preached about a kinder, gentler politics but was not above his own manipulation and offering nothing more than mild condemnation of his most vocal supporters when they harassed and bullied opponents. Look, I don't think Pete Buttigieg was the ideal candidate for the White House. I don't think he would have ever made it onto the ballot anyway, and if he had, he wouldn't be able to defeat Trump. But he didn't deserve 90% of the vitriol he got online from Bernie's camp, which focused on him not being gay enough and not supporting identity politics (which is a tool of both the far left and far right). Pete did, however, understand one thing Bernie doesn't seem to - and never has. Compromise and moderation are key to electability. The reason people keep saying Bernie won't be a success in the White House is his inability to compromise (and this, again, is a Corbyn trait too - one that led to his downfall in the last election). A government is not, and should not be, "for the many" or "for the few" - it is for the people, all of them. The President has to govern for the masses - not just the people who elected him, which in many democracies may not even constitute an absolute majority. Until and unless Bernie shows that, he is destined to lose - because of his own stance, not because of "the establishment", who make a convenient scapegoat to avoid owning up to one's own mistakes or shortcomings. Ultimately he is repeating what he did in the last election with Hillary Clinton: making his opponent out to be the "establishment" candidate and encouraging Bernie Bros to either abstain or vote for some third-party candidate, with the end result that Trump will retain the White House. Biden (and Buttigieg) are certainly not perfect candidates - but do you genuinely believe they will be worse than Trump? Is it better to have a realistic chance of achieving 50% of what you want as opposed to 0% under Trump and the Republicans? Compromise before it's too late. Otherwise the only winners will be Trump's faction. |
|
dylan
Junior Member
Posts: 288
|
Post by dylan on Mar 14, 2020 22:11:07 GMT -5
I'm sorry for jumping into attack dog mode. It just infuriates me when all Bernie supporters are lumped into one group just because of a handful of angry people on twitter. Of course I believe that gay men deserve more representation on TV, and I'd imagine most other Bernie supporters feel the same way. I have to apologise too. I was aggrieved by your initial response which I didn't think was justified in relation to my original post, but I understand better now because it infuriated me so much that I then did exactly what I accused you of. Let me say upfront - I don't really have a horse in this race since I do not live in the US and your president is not my head of state, other than the fact that whoever does become US President will be the most powerful man on earth - with all the ramifications that has for the rest of the world's population, not just Americans. Like I stated earlier, I don't really have any beef against Bernie, as most of his well-publicised policy positions seem acceptable to me, although I can't comment authoritatively since I only have a superficial understanding of what Medicare for All etc. mean for the US population. My country's healthcare policies are very different and all the political parties are broadly aligned on it. I only just read up on Bernie's manifesto relating to the LGBT+ community last night and generally I can't find anything objectionable in it. But what rankled me is Bernie's recent claim that Pete Buttigieg was forced out of the Democrats' nomination contest by the "establishment". Mind you, I follow the US presidential politics entirely through our leftwing publication, The Guardian, and articles published on US-based gay site NewNowNext (formerly AfterElton). From these sources, it appears to me that most of the nastiness levelled against Pete originated from the far-left, who are also the ones advocating for Bernie. I don't know if Bernie is obtuse or deceitful, but to deflect his own camp's actions to that of his critics' is, to put it mildly, hypocritical in the extreme. He's starting to remind me a lot of Jeremy Corbyn over on this side of the Atlantic - who was also adopted far-left positions and preached about a kinder, gentler politics but was not above his own manipulation and offering nothing more than mild condemnation of his most vocal supporters when they harassed and bullied opponents. Look, I don't think Pete Buttigieg was the ideal candidate for the White House. I don't think he would have ever made it onto the ballot anyway, and if he had, he wouldn't be able to defeat Trump. But he didn't deserve 90% of the vitriol he got online from Bernie's camp, which focused on him not being gay enough and not supporting identity politics (which is a tool of both the far left and far right). Pete did, however, understand one thing Bernie doesn't seem to - and never has. Compromise and moderation are key to electability. The reason people keep saying Bernie won't be a success in the White House is his inability to compromise (and this, again, is a Corbyn trait too - one that led to his downfall in the last election). A government is not, and should not be, "for the many" or "for the few" - it is for the people, all of them. The President has to govern for the masses - not just the people who elected him, which in many democracies may not even constitute an absolute majority. Until and unless Bernie shows that, he is destined to lose - because of his own stance, not because of "the establishment", who make a convenient scapegoat to avoid owning up to one's own mistakes or shortcomings. Ultimately he is repeating what he did in the last election with Hillary Clinton: making his opponent out to be the "establishment" candidate and encouraging Bernie Bros to either abstain or vote for some third-party candidate, with the end result that Trump will retain the White House. Biden (and Buttigieg) are certainly not perfect candidates - but do you genuinely believe they will be worse than Trump? Is it better to have a realistic chance of achieving 50% of what you want as opposed to 0% under Trump and the Republicans? Compromise before it's too late. Otherwise the only winners will be Trump's faction. No worries, we all get defensive sometimes. I get it. Let me say upfront - I don't really have a horse in this race since I do not live in the US and your president is not my head of state, other than the fact that whoever does become US President will be the most powerful man on earth - with all the ramifications that has for the rest of the world's population, not just Americans.
Exactly, the fact that the US President has so much power is terrifying, and one reason that I support Bernie is that he wants to stop the horrors committed overseas by the US, like all the wars perpetrated to control other countries' natural resources, and the bullying and threatening of other countries (even including other developed countries like the UK) to force them to submit to its demands, whether by crippling economic sanctions or otherwise. I haven't seen any other candidate even discuss anything like that. I wasn't aware that Bernie said that Pete was forced out. I don't believe that Pete was forced out by the establishment, but I'm pretty certain that he faced pressure to drop out and endorse Biden, especially given that there were reports that Obama spoke with him when he dropped out (and also that he received many calls from top Democratic Party donors asking him to drop out, specifically in response to Bernie winning several states at the beginning of the primary). Of course I'm not going to defend any vitriol aimed towards Pete. I think it's horrible that people would attack him for not being "gay enough" or anything of the sort. It's completely unacceptable. All criticisms should be about policy. My beef with him is his policies, or lack thereof in this case. He talked a lot about vague things like 'values', which sounded nice, but he wouldn't commit to any concrete policies at all, really, and often changed his positions (like on Medicare for All, which despite his more recent misleading statements that it would take away health care choice, is widely supported by Americans, including some Republicans). He also engaged in some other questionable tactics, such as essentially faking endorsements from several prominent African American South Carolinans. It would be awesome to have a gay president, or a female president, etc, but in my opinion, it shouldn't be the main reason to choose a particular candidate. I agree that compromise is a good thing, but it depends on who the compromise is benefiting. Medicare for All, which would institute universal health care, similar to what they have in Canada, or the EU countries, or slightly less comprehensive than the NHS that you have in the UK, is widely supported by Americans. This includes the majority of Democratic primary voters in states that Bernie lost by large margins, where voters seem to have opted for Biden because they think he has a better chance of beating Trump, a questionable belief that I will get to later. However, most senators and Congress members oppose Medicare for All, in stark contrast to their constituents. In that case, aren't voters the ones getting shafted if you compromise? Of course I don't believe in majoritarian rule, where the majority can curtail the rights of the minority. But policies such as Medicare for All or the Green New Deal help everyone (except for people who are already very rich and have no problems affording private healthcare), and harm no one, with tax increases more than offset by huge drops in health care costs. All policies, regardless of what they are, will face some amount of opposition. But does that mean you should always back down? Not necessarily. I do see some similarities to Corbyn, but the main difference to me is that Corbyn was wildly unpopular, with virtually all polls leading up to the UK election showing a landslide victory for the Tories as I recall, whereas Bernie is one of the most popular politicians in the US, with especially strong support from relatively nonpartisan Independent voters. I believe you are mistaken regarding him telling his voters to stay home or vote third party. He campaigned tirelessly for Hillary Clinton in the general election in 2016, despite backlash from some of his supporters. And in the end, most of his supporters, including me came out to vote for Clinton. I believe Bernie will do the same this time around if he loses, which looks pretty likely at this point. Of course I don't think either of them are worse than Trump. Even Biden, who I abhor, would be far better than Trump. Trump's administration literally has built child torture camps along the border. It doesn't get much worse than that. But I think voters are making a mistake in backing Biden in the primary, given the lack of enthusiasm for his campaign, especially among young people who are less reliable voters and absolutely must turn out for Democrats to win a general election, as well as Biden's increasingly conspicuous cognitive decline. Biden also opposed desegregation of busses during Civil Rights and then lied about it, opposed LGBT rights as well as abortion rights until it was politically expedient to support them, has a disastrous record on criminal justice, and most recently falsely claimed that he was arrested during apartheid. See more examples of his lies here. These are things that Trump will be sure to weaponise against him (in bad faith, of course, but it will still likely be effective) if he is nominated. In fact, Trump's team has already made an ad pointing out Joe Biden's cognitive decline. Despite an emphasis on compromise, Centrist parties around the world have faltered, including the CDU and SPD in Germany, whose support continues to tank with every election cycle. Even more shocking was when Australia's Labor Party ran on a very centrist platform, and lost what was widely considered to be an unlosable election, to a rabid far-right coalition (in that article, the Guardian seemed to think that Labor was 'too bold', but in reality they provided no real opposition to the Coalition's anti-climate policies). Meanwhile, political campaigns with large grassroots support have been much more likely to succeed, such as Jacinda Ardern's campaign as NZ's Labour leader, which caused Labour's polling numbers to jump nine points in only one week, propelling her to victory shortly after (albeit in a coalition with NZ First). Unfortunately, Bernie's grassroots support has not been enough to defeat Biden due to his very low poll numbers among older Democratic partisan voters, who turn out in much larger numbers than younger voters (especially in primaries where turnout is notoriously low), and a persistent media narrative of Biden being the more electable candidate, despite Bernie's very strong poll numbers against Trump, as well as Biden's extremely dodgy policy record (see above), and the fact that more moderate Democratic presidential candidates have fared very poorly in general elections in the US in the past two decades, including Al Gore, John Kerry, and most recently Hillary Clinton. We don't know for sure whether Bernie would have beat Trump in 2016 had he won the primary, but he was polling better against Trump head-to-head than Clinton was, despite losing the primary to Clinton by a substantial margin. |
|
|
|
Post by mizuryuu on Mar 15, 2020 23:00:06 GMT -5
As much as I support a lot of what you both are saying, this has really diverted from the intended discussion of the show. Not sure if there should a thread in the Off-Topic regarding politics instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevvoi on Apr 22, 2020 14:56:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit477 on Jun 13, 2020 18:14:48 GMT -5
Love Simon was on FX today and will be on FX tomorrow at 6 am CT
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit477 on Jun 14, 2020 16:46:31 GMT -5
Love, Simon will be on FXM June 17th at 8pm Est and at 10:15pm Est
Love, Simon will be on FXM June 17th at 7pm CST and at 9:15pm CST
|
|
|
|
Post by kellerbrady on Jun 17, 2020 13:57:51 GMT -5
|
|
