John Stamos, Mark Consuelos, Matt Bomer coming to “The New Normal"
I love this show!
NBC’s breakout comedy the New Normal is getting some high-powered guest stars when the show returns in 2013: Entertainment Weekly is reporting that Mark Consuelos and John Stamos will both appear in an upcoming episode titled “Gaydar.”
Consuleos plays a grip on the Glee-like show Bryan (Andrew Rannells) created, while Stamos plays a coworker of Jane (Ellen Barkin) who’s of indeterminate sexuality.
The guys join fellow handsome fella Matt Bomer, whose appearance was leaked earlier on Twitter, who will play Bryan’s ex-boyfriend. All three are Ryan Murphy alums: Consuelos appears on American Horror Story: Asylum and Bomer and Stamos previously popped up Glee.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||05/10/2013|
This show is becoming the all-gay equivalent of "Will & Grace" - stunt guest stars for the sheer purpose of getting eyeballs.
I bet the show doesn't get a second season....
|by Anonymous||reply 1||12/26/2012|
It deserves a second season more than any other show on US TV now. The episode in which they found out they were having a boy was the most hilarious AND the most profound show on TV this season. It was very poignant when Bryan feared he would be the "odd man out" in his own family, and David's reaction to learning he was having a boy was the funniest thing I've seen on television in a long time.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||12/26/2012|
It'll definitely be getting a 2nd season, they've been predicting that for months now. The show is doing fine in the ratings, it's not a huge hit, but it doesn't have to be to get renewed. It's a modest hit.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||12/26/2012|
This is like something "Ellen" would have done during her "out" seasons... 15 years ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||12/26/2012|
When the term "breakout" is used, you know it will have a short life.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||12/26/2012|
[quote]I bet the show doesn't get a second season
You will be wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||12/26/2012|
This show is absolutely gaining steam. It's getting better each week.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||12/26/2012|
Any show that airs on NBC and has more than 6 viewers will automatically get renewed.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||12/26/2012|
Will Mark Consuelos and John Stamos be sharing a dressing room?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||12/26/2012|
Straight people should not be playing gays.
Would you have Tom Cruise play Martin Luther King Jr. No a black man should play the part.
Would you have Matt Damon play Isadora Duncan? No a woman would play that part.
If a person's race, sex, or sexual orientation is integral to the character it needs to be appropriately cast.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||12/26/2012|
Yes, yes, r12; I'm sure there will be a run on open, honest, uncloseted actors any day now.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||12/26/2012|
when you short, bald, ugly (you would be mean too) you can at least cast nice eye candy to look at.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||12/26/2012|
Yes R12. Also murderers should play murderers, nobody should play a lawyer if they are not one in real life and Helen Mirren should give back her Oscar, since she is not a queen in real life. What does she know about being a queen? Elizabeth II should play herself. Generally all movies should be documentaries.
Really, you can't see a difference between looks or appearances, that can't be changed or faked even with the best make-up and things like sexuality, personality, character traits etc. that can be faked with acting talent?
BTW it happened a few times that actors played a character of opposite gender and I'm not talking about comedies like Tootsie, I'm talking about dramas when the make-up and acting was so great that you would never guess that it was a woman playing a man or the other way around. Just try to watch something more than American blockbusters.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||12/28/2012|
The show does very well in the ratings. It hits all demographics.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||12/28/2012|
R16 It does very well for NBC, that's true. But on any other network it would be considered a flop. It's just that NBC shows in general have very bad ratings compared with other networks.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||12/28/2012|
[quote]stunt guest stars for the sheer purpose of getting eyeballs.
So it's like every other show on broadcast tv then?
|by Anonymous||reply 18||12/28/2012|
Jeez, in real life, I would hope that Matt Bomer could find a sexier bf than Andrew Rannels.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||12/28/2012|
No worries on that score, R19.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||12/28/2012|
R19, why do you consider him non-sexy? He looks beautiful to me, except his nose is too small for his face. I don't like the way he plays his character like some sort of cartoonish nancyboy, but he looks sexy to me.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||12/28/2012|
How about a portrayal of gay dudes as masculine mainstream guys? That would be worth watching.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||12/28/2012|
I also don't find him sexy. I don't know, there is something plastic about his looks and appearance. Maybe he is handsome, but he always looks very fake, both on screen and in real life. Also Bryan's personality is very annoying for me, and that makes him (the character not AR himself) very un-sexy. All in all, I also can't see someone like Bomer being attracted to him. Of course maybe Bomer's character will also turn out completely un-sexy too. Hard too imagine, but who knows. :D
|by Anonymous||reply 23||12/28/2012|
I am surpised this show is from Ryan Murphy. His shows don't usually suck until season 2. This one was rotten from the start.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||12/28/2012|
R22 Yes, it would, but unfortunately it seems we will have to wait for it for some time.
Despite all the buzz, TNN isn't as groudbreaking or progressive like some people like to advertise it. It's not the first time the comedy show uses over the top cliche as an entertainment. The difference with TNN is that probably there is much more cliches squized into one show at once than it happened before.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||12/28/2012|
I'm sure this will piss off the Bomerites but I don't think Bomer is all that. Take the blinders off, Bomer fanatics, not everyone is into him or his Ken doll looks. WTF that Andrew Rannells isn't good enough for him? Seems Rannells has no problem attracting hot guys like Gavin Creel.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||12/28/2012|
If anybody seems pissed off, it's you R26
I have no problem with the fact that someone doesn't find Bomer attractive. I don't get it ;) but I'm fine with that. People have different tastes.
But you obviously seem to be personally offended that someone dares not to find Andrew Rannels hot. LOL Grow up, not everybody will like everything and everyone you like. It's time to accept it.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||12/28/2012|
Typical Bomer fanatic response. No I'm not personally offended. I actually think Bomer is cute enough and seems nice enough in his personal appearances. It's some of his fans just like the AC's fan threads that populate DL who are annoying as hell. The first thing out of their mouths is always how someone isn't good enough for their idol and how could he possibly be attracted to so and so.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||12/28/2012|
R15...equating gay people with murderers?
Fuck you bigot.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||12/28/2012|
The truth is they both have crazy eyes.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||12/28/2012|
Gavin Creel is cute but he's certainly not Matt Bomer. not by a longshot.
I thought Creel was dating someone else?
|by Anonymous||reply 31||12/28/2012|
I've heard of Bomer, but the other two must be "elder-gays" because I have no idea who they are - even after Googling them.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||12/28/2012|
Those fans are annoying, r28, though in this case I think it's more likely that the bitching was coming not from one of the Bomer stans, but from the assholes who think certain types of gay men can't attract attractive partners.
Just check out the old TNN threads: they're full of complaining about how unrealistic the show is because a manly-man like Justin Bartha's character would never stoop to dating someone like Brian. It didn't have anything to do with Rannells' looks, but with the issues some posters have with their own sexuality.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||12/28/2012|
R32= 65 years old. Honey, you don't know who Kelly Ripa's hot husband is? You're OLD baby!
|by Anonymous||reply 34||12/28/2012|
Look, Andrew is not remotely hot, not even the tiniest bit. There's not an ounce of sex appeal in the guy...he's the young Liberace of our era. Funny, cute in a pixie doll kind of way. But he's as asexual a person as he could possibly be.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||12/28/2012|
I don't happen to think that those of us who prefer manly-looking/acting types have "issues with our sexuality". For Chrissake, there are entire gay sub-cultures of guys who are manly-looking and acting who prefer the same types, to the exclusion of all others. That's been around for years ane years and probably always will be. Neither right nor wrong, it just is.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||12/28/2012|
I wasn't talking about people like you, r36. I like a certain type of guy, too (and Rannells isn't it), so I'm not saying that finding him unattractive means you have a problem. But the complete refusal of some posters to accept that a Brian-type could end up with a David-type, and the vehemence with which they express their viewpoint, does indicate issues.
The complaints weren't "I don't find Rannells hot," which is a perfectly valid complaint; they were "A masculine gay would never stoop to dating a flaming queen. Unrealistic! Unrealistic!" Sorry, but that kind of black-and-white thinking based on stereotypes is unhealthy.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||12/28/2012|
Rannells looks fake to me too. Like, plastic and not trustworthy. His smile is weird too. He is like an older guy trying to act as a chirpy 19- year old. Quite annoying.
Bomer on the other hand. Yum. Pure yum!
|by Anonymous||reply 38||12/28/2012|
How about some portrayals of masculine bisexual dudes?
|by Anonymous||reply 39||12/28/2012|
I don't watch this show although I'm going to try to check it out on Netflix, but wasn't the Captain Jack I(John Barrowman) & several characters from Torchwood bisexuals? He seemed masculine and hot enough.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||12/28/2012|
OK Bomer fans. It looks like the New Normal episode involves David & Bryan setting the Bomer character up on a date with their friend Gary played by Michael Hitchcock. So is Michael Hitchcock good enough for him? He seems older but then that's what Bomer seems to like in real life.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||12/28/2012|
Just out of curiosity R29 how low is your IQ?
As for R28 if you don't want people to think that you are personally offended or having a meltdown because people have different taste than you, the next time just don't scream WTF, don't call people fanatics etc. when they dare to state their opinion that is different than yours.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||12/28/2012|
Personally I don't find Michael Hitchcock attractive. But a lot depends on personality. I can change my opinion about someone's looks a lot depending on their personality, intelect, talent (in actors case).
|by Anonymous||reply 43||12/28/2012|
If you have a hard time believing Bomer would date a less attractive, INCREDIBLY gay man, then you may want to check out his ex's Facebook page. Seriously, you need a coat of asbestos to get through it.
No, I'm not linking it. It's easy enough to find if you know his name.
The Rannells-Bomer pairing is not as crazy as you think.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||12/28/2012|
R29, take your meds and get some sleep.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||12/28/2012|
R15, AU contraire!
'The Queen' was played by the Queen of England!
|by Anonymous||reply 46||12/28/2012|
These cast additions just might make me watch it.
I tried, but after just three episodes I checked out, as I found it insufferable.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||12/28/2012|
Who says that Stamos and Consuelos aren't gay? My dar says otherwise.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||12/28/2012|
R21...because he's not sexy. Not even the tiniest bit. And it's not because he's femme, either, there are femme guys who are very sexy.
He's just not sexy. Zero. Nothing. He's the epitome of asexual. You don't get the smallest sexy vibe from him at all. He completely projects asexuality.
Matt Bomer is pretty but he also screams sex appeal. You could completely see him being into dirty, wild sex. There's just something that sexy people give off that makes you hard. something that makes you sense that they'd be as knock out in bed. Rannells does not have that at all. He seems incredibly bland and vanilla. Once every Saturday, only oral, and a very quick clean-up afterwards. Handi-wipes at the ready. Wouldn't even get his jammies dirty. He just has no vibe that he'd be hot in bed. None.
And that pinched face doesn't help. He has a face made for comedy. " If John Ritter and Carol Channing had a son" face. He's good looking but, again, he's completely vanilla. Whitest face on Earth.
So no...it's not believable that Bomer and Rannels would have been lovers. Because Bomer seems like someone you could put in a sling and fuck all night. Rannells seems like a sweet guy who still sleeps with his teddy bear.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||12/28/2012|
I think Rannels has talent but he is now playing 2 gay characters on TV. I fear that like Mark Urie and Sean Hayes that he will be typecast for the rest of his career.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||12/28/2012|
R49 is a cunt. What an asshole. Just because you don't find him sexy, then the person is asexual. Post your picture, asswipe, and see what the DL says about your sex life.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||12/29/2012|
TNN has become a parade of "Hot Men Who Would Never Fuck Ryan Murphy, Even If He Were Willing to Pay."
|by Anonymous||reply 53||12/29/2012|
If Rannells is playing a successful Hollywood producer, then there are plenty if hot men who would fuck him.
R51, Andrew Rannells looks like this. When you look like this, you are going to get offered gay roles. Saying Andrew Rannells is typecast as gay is like saying Samuel L Jackson is typecast as black.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||12/29/2012|
I'm a "cunt" because he's not sexy? Hon, I didn't make him "not sexy." funny how you don't seem to have a counterpoint to what I'm saying. Because you know it's true.
As for showing my picture, you show me yours first, Icabod Crane. My guess is that you've got the pinched face thing going on too.
Keep in mind that I never said I didn't like Rannells. I said he seemed like a sweet person. That's only an insult to a sad old cow like you.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||12/29/2012|
R49 exemplifies the stunning stupidity and vapidity of the Bomer Fan who imagines he's the arbiter of what's sexy and what's not. What a pathetic post. If you really want to see what a sad cow looks like get yourself a mirror pronto.
And by the way, there are plenty of people who find Bomer not remotely sexy because they don't have Ken doll fantasies. For the movie Magic Mike for instance, they'd choose Joe Manganiello over him every single time.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||12/29/2012|
Why Andrew Rannells fanatics are so pressed? One would think it's everybody's duty to find him sexy. God forbid if you don't. LOL
|by Anonymous||reply 57||12/29/2012|
So R12 should gay actors not play straight roles?
|by Anonymous||reply 58||12/29/2012|
I don't watch the show, but there is no need nor expectation that Andrew Rannells be considered sexy. I am not attracted to the dude, but so what, he is ostensibly not in a role that requires him to be considered sexy or hot. If he were in a role that required him to be a hot athlete or frat dude, then he might have a problem.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||12/29/2012|
[quote]Why Matt Bomer fanatics are so pressed? One would think it's everybody's duty to find him sexy. God forbid if you don't. LOL
There, fixed that for you.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||12/29/2012|
[quote]I think Rannels has talent but he is now playing 2 gay characters on TV. I fear that like Mark Urie and Sean Hayes that he will be typecast for the rest of his career.
Your comments are ridiculous. Actors have a range of characters they can play, some larger than others. Those actors happen to be more stereotypically fey in appearance and mannerism. That is part of their package and while it makes them good for some roles, there are a lot of roles they could never play well. None of those actors are right for being a straight romantic lead, something someone like Bomer could do great, because he does fit the "type".
That isn't homophobia, that is reality. I remember Chris Colfer gave some interview talking about how people say he will could never do romantic comedies, which he agreed with, but didn't give a damn because he would rather play other roles anyway. Actors know what parts they are right for.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||12/29/2012|
Ranells has a singular look -- plasticized skin and tiny round features in a round face.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||12/29/2012|
It doesn't matter what you think of his looks, this is still a pretty funny clip from HBO series Girls where Andrew Rannells plays Lena Dunham's ex boyfriend.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||12/29/2012|
LOL @ R60. Another example how cray cray Rannels fanatics are. You can't even think about argument to make your point, you can only manipulate what someone else has written. LOL
|by Anonymous||reply 64||12/29/2012|
R61 But isn't it the whole point about what being talented means? The more talented actors are more versatile and are able to pull off more different roles. I could buy an argument about looks (although not so much, with the make-up etc.), but mannerism? That's the whole point of acting. Talented actor should be able to overcome his own mannerism and play the character the way he is supposed to.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||12/29/2012|
[quote]That is part of their package and while it makes them good for some roles, there are a lot of roles they could never play well. None of those actors are right for being a straight romantic lead, something someone like Bomer could do great, because he does fit the "type".
I strongly disagree with you there. If you get into that mindset that only people of a certain "type" can play romantic leads, you're discounting the careers of people like Fred Astaire or Humphrey Bogart or Barbra Streisand or Meryl Streep or Benedict Cumberbatch. A very good actor and a true "star" doesn't need to rely on the audience's preconceived notion of what a leading man or lady looks like; they make the role their own.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||12/29/2012|
Andrew Rannells did play a stripper in the movie Bachelorette so he's probably not trying to limit himself to non sexy parts. See screenshots.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||12/29/2012|
How on Earth did he get cast as a stripper with THAT body? Sorry, but those pics confirm it...absolutely zero sex appeal.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||12/29/2012|
R22, The New Normal has a gay main character who is a baseball-playing "regular guy." There is nothing "Nancy Boy" about him. His partner is more stereotypical, but he's a good person. So what's not to love?
|by Anonymous||reply 69||12/29/2012|
What the fuck is going? who's sexy and who's not? are you fucking kidding? Well, I think Matt Bomer is cute but never find him sexually attractive, he looks like a hysterical parody of Superman.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||12/29/2012|
I'd love a comedy show with Cheyenne Jackson and John Barrowman playing a married couple.
And Neil Patrick Harris & David Burtka could live next door with their kids.
And Gladys Kravitz would be across the street peering out from between the curtains.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||12/29/2012|
I didn't find Bomer attractive until I just saw him on some celebrity football game. He was very athletic and masculine. He obviously plays football a lot.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||12/29/2012|
That's because no one asked or cared about your opinion when casting movies R68. And as for who has no sex appeal, I'm guessing per your rants that person is you.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||12/29/2012|
R72 his dad was a professional football player and Matt grew up playing football in Texas.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||12/29/2012|
My goodness, dear. Relax. You Ranell frauleins are quite the overwrought bunch. You're quite hysterical. In every meaning of that word.
He's bland and completely asexual. Get over it. My guess is that you must be a similar type to take it so personally.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||12/29/2012|
R75 See R52 You seem repulsive.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||12/29/2012|
R76...LOL! Calm down, Mary. Seriously. You're really looking idiotic at this point.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||12/29/2012|
R77, slow night at the salon?
|by Anonymous||reply 78||12/29/2012|
R78...no, homophobic frau. Not at all. Can't get your vibrator to work, bigot?
|by Anonymous||reply 79||12/29/2012|
LOL Andrew Rannells fangirls are really hilarious. Poor things. If you have such a serious meltdown because someone doesn't find your favorite actor sexy, then I don't know what you will do when you will be faced with some real problem in your life.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||12/29/2012|
There are no "Andrew Rannells fangirls", you stupid gash.
It's no surprise r80 is one of the dumber people from the Bomer threads.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||12/29/2012|
Jesus H. Christ. Sexuality is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? When I lives iN San Francisco I would see the most Godawful, in my opinion, ugly, FAT, bears - but they were coupled, and happy together. I've seen pairs of bull dykes that were sow-like, inch-long hair, but again: not my type but it worked for them.
No, I am nothing to look at: fat, old, used to be pretty; not so much these days. But we all have different types we find sexy - or not.
On "Mad Men": doubtless most people cream over Jon Hamm; me, I think he's good-looking, yes, but it's Christopher Stanley who I find the most attractive; wish he were on more. John Slattery, with that white hair, is attractive to some people. Christ, Bobby Morse is still cutesy, but ancient.
Chacun a son gout, people.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||12/29/2012|
R81 Calm down, fangirl. You are in danger of having a stroke if you will not.
R82 Yes, it's true. But some people obviously don't get it and are personally offended if you dare to have different taste than them.
BTW for me personally John Slattery is definitely the most attractive of all Mad Men. I guess it might be his hair, but also his classic, slightly stern looks. He is just my type. :)
|by Anonymous||reply 83||12/30/2012|
Here he is from the Terry Richardson photoshoot. Looks somewhat like a 70's porn star here.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||01/03/2013|
He looks good in pictures where he looks nothing like himself. In pictures that capture his likeness, he looks like a cross between an albino squirrel and a Carol Channing drag queen.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||01/03/2013|
Andrew Rannells can be very, very handsome when he does not smile.
When he smiles, he looks like Missi Pyle.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||01/03/2013|
Oh God...that preview. Yikes.
Andrew looks like Shari Lewis at the very end there.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||01/04/2013|
I think Andrew is adorable.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||01/04/2013|
TNN is such a steaming pile of crapola that I hope it gets cancelled very quickly.
Not only does Andrew Rannells have that smallish plastic face and look somewhat simian, his lower jaw sort of juts out of his head, like maybe he has a few too many chromosones, or not enough. I think it's called a malo-calusion or something. He and his co-star Justin Bartha have ZERO chemistry--sexual or otherwise. I just do not buy them as a couple AT ALL, and it's got nothing to do with Bartha being straight. They sort of just don't fit--their heights, their mannerisms, their interactions...nothing about them screams couple in the least, or even hint at it.
As for the rest of the cast, and I'm too constipated and irritable to google their names, they are so incredibly one-note that it's actually hard to watch. There are very few VERY good shows on TV. Most are kind of meh, but TNN is actually BAD, like it was excrutiating to watch the two times I did. Did NBC really preview the scripts or give it any sort of direction or did they have such a hard-on for both Ryan Murphy's success and Modern Family's on ABC that they just didn't care and figured a show with some fags will be a hit. There is just NOTHING special about this show, at all. And if Ryan Murphy wasn't involved, NOBODY would be talking about it.
And I agree, all this stunt casting will start to become distracting. They did it on Will & Grace too (another show that missed the mark entirely and for all its hype, didn't really last that long or have much of an impact at all). TNN actually STARTED with stunt casting--NeNe Leakes, who is likely illiterate anyway and adds nothing to show.
Yet Modern Family continues to shine week after week. The relationships are 1000% believable (Cam and Mitch are absolutely realistic--like, frighteningly realistic) and as out-there as some of the situations are, they always somehow manage to end each show in an almost heartwarming way. In 20 years, people will still remember Modern Family the way we revere Golden Girls and Mary Tyler Moore, just as smart sitcoms that are VERY very funny. TNN will be a footnote in Ryan Murphy's obituary.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||01/05/2013|
Neither Modern Family or The New Normal are THAT good.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||01/05/2013|
R94 has obviously never watched The New Normal. Definitely hasn't seen anything beyond the pilot, if that.
Rannells and Bartha have the best couple chemistry of any couple currently on TV. The Modern Family gay couple, which I enjoy, is completely unbelievable as a couple but one can still get some laughs out of them. Nothing deep is possible on Modern Family, though, since that gay couple is cartoonish and unreal.
Rannells and Bartha have established a very deep connection in an amazingly short period of time for a new show. If you haven't seen it lately, you need to give it another look because they are making some seriously wonderful shows there now.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||01/05/2013|
r94 sounds like Max Mutchnik esp the amusing burn on Will et Grace to shield his bitterness.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||01/05/2013|
R96 is secretly in love with Andrew Rannells
The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of beauty is not ugliness, it's indifference.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||01/05/2013|
[quote] They did it on Will & Grace too (another show that missed the mark entirely and for all its hype, didn't really last that long or have much of an impact at all)
R94 - Will & Grace ran for NINE years on NBC (I doubt TNN will run half that long, if it gets past Season 2).
As for impact, Vice President Joe Biden said it was because of Will & Grace that he first started changing his thinking to embrace marriage equality, and then because of Biden's statements last summer President Obama - THE FIRST SITTING PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY - came out in favor of marriage equality, and it was a part of the Democratic Party campaign strategy, and helped get him re-elected. I would say that is undeniably a TREMENDOUS impact, wouldn't you? Asshat.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||01/05/2013|
Definitely had an impact on American culture, as well as other countries around the world; yet limited in some of the same ways that New Normal currently is.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||01/05/2013|
Will & Grace may have brought gay characters into households for the first time, but it did nothing in the realm of normalizing the idea of gay relationships, as WILL BARELY HAD ANY.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||01/05/2013|
Will and Grace was a great and funny show for the first few seasons before it turned into a one dimensional self parody, like a lot of shows do. FRIENDS popularized the wretched stunt casting so that every episode became an event.
And Joe Biden really needed a TV show to remind him that all people should be treated equally? I'm sorry, but are we supposed to cheer over that? That's like saying you didn't care about the plight of the elderly until you caught GOLDEN GIRLS reruns.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||01/05/2013|
People on here bitch about any and every show that has a gay character in it. Yes, TV shows have impact, even the dumb ones that you're turning your prissy little noses at.
You think black people in the 70's didn't whine and complain about the stereotypes about the black welfare queens that was on Good Times or the fact that Florida was the maid on Maude or that Sanford & Sons lived in a junk yard. Yet those little shows are now considered classics today that helped bring black people into the lives of people who didn't have much contact or use for them before. It humanized them for people.
That's what shows like Will & Grace, Modern Family & The New Normal does. And they have an impact, much more than all your bitching and whining does on here.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||01/05/2013|
NBC just played a commercial for this show during the NFL Playoff Game featuring a shirtless Bomer and drag queens. LMAO!
I can only imagine the freak outs across the heartland. Good for NBC.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||01/05/2013|
If Matt does not want to be know as a "gay actor" he is not doing a very good job picking projects.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||01/05/2013|
I must agree with R107. I'm a huge fan of Matt Bomer, but I don't like some of his choices. First, he should learn to say no to Ryan Murphy.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||01/05/2013|
People coming out had the impact. TV shows entertain...that's it. Biden can say whatever he likes. Will and Grace did not lead to marriage equality. Having friends and loved ones come out did that.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||01/05/2013|
There's not only anecdotal evidence but there are numerous, numerous studies that have been done about the effects of media and television on views of minorities.
You have to realize that in the past there were a lot more gay people who were closeted and still are especially in non urban communities. For many, a TV Show like Will & Grace was their first contact with Gay people, and when they turned out not to be the monsters and molesters that they were told about, but instead people just like them, this started an evolution in their thinking.
TV shows have an impact and you can see it from the comment sections on any current gay themed shows from the straight viewers who watch.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||01/05/2013|
R110...you're living in a dream world, hon. The real world has changed because more and more people had the courage to come out. The AIDS crisis also did a lot to open people's minds, particularly since many people reacted so badly in the beginning. Media does not lead, it follows. As society became more tolerant, shows like Will and Grace became more accepted. That's reality.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||01/06/2013|
R110 I read comments sections frequently and I don't see what you say. Yes, I see a lot of positive comments from straigth viewers, but they didn't change their minds because they watched the show. It was the other way around, they started watching a show and gave it a chance because they were already open minded and tolerant before. People who are prejudiced don't even start watching shows like TNN or Will & Grace etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||01/06/2013|
From the psychological research paper: "Can One TV Show Make a Difference? Will & Grace and the Parasocial Contact Hypotheseis.
Some Excerpts: "The possibility that Will & Grace could reduce prejudice against gay men is supported by research investigating parasocial interaction. “Parasocial interaction” simple refers to the phenomenon that viewers form beliefs and attitudes about people they know only through television, regardless of whether such people are fictional characters or real people. Communication researchers have described parasocial interaction as the mass mediated equivalent of interpersonal interaction. Perhaps because the human brain typically processes media experiences similarly to how it processes “direct” experience, people often react to televised characters as they would real people (Kanazawa, 2002; Reeves & Nass, 1996).
"The research supporting the existence of parasocial relationships is extensive."
"Horton and Wohl (1956) note that the media present opportunities for which audience members find "no opportunity" in his or her "social environment" (p. 222). If a majority group member has little opportunity for interpersonal interaction with minority group members, parasocial interaction potentially could provide such contact."
Based on the above a research study was done. Read the link if you want to see the results: "Significant support was found for all hypotheses. Viewers perceive the portrayal of the gay characters on Will & Grace as positive. Both viewing frequency and parasocial interaction predict lower levels of sexual prejudice toward gay men. The correlational evidence is consistent with the claim that parasocial interaction and viewing frequency are causally intertwined with each other in their relationship to levels of sexual prejudice toward gay men. "
|by Anonymous||reply 113||01/06/2013|
Link on here for influence of Will & Grace on gay perception.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||01/06/2013|
R105 Shows like Good Times, Sanford and Son also led Bill Cosby to create THE COSBY SHOW, which was the first portrayal of an upper class black family on television. Cosby was tired of the same stereotypical portrayals of "poor, suffering" black people and wanted to step it up. He also refused to let their blackness be front and center and revolve around every single joke. They were people.
It will be interesting to see when a gay and lesbian themed sitcom comes out that doesn't have to have the characters reminding the audience that they're gay every two seconds, either through reinforing antiquated stereotypes or blatant declarations. If the big thunderous "coming out" announcement is deemed passe, at what point will this be considered old hat too?
|by Anonymous||reply 115||01/06/2013|
R107, R108 I agree. I think he's in danger of defining himself as a "gay" actor and so limiting himself and his career.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||01/06/2013|
These shows existed because attitudes had already changed. The networks wouldn't have put those shows on the air if that hadn't been true. You're giving media too much power. Media follows opinion changes and accommodates them, not the other way around. Only a complete fool would think that a silly albeit fun show like "Will and Grace" had any effect on society. It didn't. Society changed FIRST. Homophobia takes the credit away from the gay community, which has been working steadfastly for change, and gives that credit to TV. It's absurd.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||01/06/2013|
R115, please stop. You're ridiculous. Activists fought to make thoise changes, and television eventually caught up. NOT the other way around.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||01/06/2013|
Here's another research paper and study from the University of South Florida.
"Humor and attitude toward homosexuals: The case of Will & Grace"
I don't think the researchers and scientists who research these questions are fools. TV and media's influence on society is well known. Obviously there are many other factors involved in change as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||01/06/2013|
You're simple. These "studies" are not proper scientifically controlled studies, they are attitudinal studies which can be very easily biased.
It's the GLBT activists who fought hard to change attitudes that got shows like W+G on the air...NOT the other way around. Media FOLLOWS opinion. NOT the other way around. Folks like you are so incredibly simple minded. The people who watched W+G were people who were already more tolerant and accepting. The Phelps family were not watching W+G, hon. Get a clue, seriously.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||01/06/2013|
R119...so, in your opinion, video games are somewhat responsible for things like the Connecticut shootings? Violent horror movies and Marilyn Manson? Because you can't have it both ways.
The violence in cultural representations is a REFLECTION of an unhealthy undercurrent in our society. These movies, games, etc, are not RESPONSIBLE for actual violence. SIMILARLY, the popularity of shows like W+G REFLECTS a greater acceptance of gay people, it does not GENERATE that acceptance.
Honestly, people have become so intellectually feeble and simple.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||01/06/2013|
Andrew Rannells should be hit in the face with a heavy shovel.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||01/06/2013|
If Television had no influence and merely reflected what we already believe, then no one on here would care about whether say a gay character on the new normal was a stereotype. Why would it matter, since apparently everyone already have their set in stone opinions of gay men anyways, at least according to your post R121. And your post by the way, that's just your opinion and an opinion that many intellectual people disagree with.
From the article: "Even Fake Gay Friends Make You More Tolerant"
Gottschall (writing for Psychology Today) says viewers relate to TV characters (like Modern Family's gay couple, Cam and Mitchell) as though they are our real-life friends. "When we are absorbed in fiction, we form judgments about the characters exactly as we do with real people, and extend those judgments to the generalizations we make about groups. When straight viewers watch likeable gay characters on shows like Will and Grace, Modern Family, Glee, and Six Feet Under they come to root for them, to empathize with them — and this seems to shape their attitudes toward homosexuality in the real-world. Studies indicate that watching television with gay friendly themes lessens viewer prejudice, with stronger effects for more prejudiced viewers."
|by Anonymous||reply 123||01/06/2013|
TNN isn't perfect but it's getting better. I love that little girl who plays Shania. I realized the other day that Goldie was in those awful "Eating Out" movies.
I don't find AR very sexy when he is in his TNN character, but he's pretty cute otherwise, as evidenced by the pics posted here.
I'd fuck him.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||01/06/2013|
The New Normal is definitely getting much better with each episode. The last 3 episodes have been wonderful, in fact.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||01/06/2013|
R123...you're a mess.
No one likes negative stereotypes on shows because they REINFORCE the things people ALREADY believe. Again, they do not CREATE stereotypes, they help validate the feelings that people already have.
You simply do not understand how anything works. Even if I accepted your silly notions, I would still not accept that W+G was revolutionary and led to gay marriage equality. That POV is ridiculous in the extreme.
Media reflects US, not the other way around. We do not like stereotypes in media because we understand that prejudiced people use such things to help validate perceptions and beliefs that they already have.
BTW...video games don't make people kill people either. Idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||01/06/2013|
Both of you are right, idiots. Television reflects new changes in culture that are already happening but television Influences millions of people who have not had first hand experience with those new cultural experiences. And yes, I believe television speeds up cultural progress in those cases.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||01/06/2013|
[quote] Andrew Rannells should be hit in the face with a heavy shovel.
As his NN character, agreed.
Then again if he's Ryan Murphy's stand in, that just tells me what we already know about Ryan's douchiness.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||01/06/2013|
R127...no. That's idiotic. Television is entertainment...escapism. It doesn't "speed up" anything. It's the work of activists, and even the everyday act of people coming out, that has changed society. Television is a mirror not an engine.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||01/07/2013|
I fully agree with [R127]. It's working both ways.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||01/07/2013|
130/131= 127. We know about dumping your cookies, hon.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||01/07/2013|
I'm r127. R130 and r131 are different people. Sorry to disappoint you, r129.
And r129, you're just wrong. Days of our Lives has been following a central gay character's coming out and new love for two years now. It's been powerfully told and acted. If you don't think that every day exposure has opened some people's minds and hearts, you're in denial about the power and influence of television.
|by Anonymous||reply 133||01/07/2013|
R132 just cannot imagine that there are many, many people that don't agree with him. For some odd reason, he's very, very vested in this notion that television just some static thing that never influences behavior when it's been shown time and again that it does.
He cannot imagine there are actually people out there who've never met or openly interacted with a gay person, who do not a have a single relative who's gay, who go through daily life not thinking about it. And they watch a show like Days of Our lives, and sees this young gay couple and it does influence how they view gay people and their views on gay adoption and on marriage equality.
Television doesn't just reflect society views because people's reality are not all the same. For those that live in all white, homogeneous, rural or very religious communities who've never encountered black people, or hispanic people or gay people, television is where they see diversity.
And you'd be surprised, but people with homophobic views do watch gay centric shows. Maybe it's because they like some of the actors, they like part of the storyline, their friends have the shows on, other people talk about it and they want to be included, the television just happens to be on that channel etc. And this is especially true for soap operas for people who will not turn off their show simply because they're gay people on it. These shows may affect how they vote on the marriage equality question.
This in no way say that activists and other people aren't doing their part to effect change. But to deny the power of television for change is to deny reality. Even the fact that a straight actor, James Bartha, that was in a very popular movie, is on a TV show playing a gay character can begin to change some people views.
Even showing two gay men kissing over and over as in The New Normal changes views. The first time it's shown, there's shock and outrage by the homophobe. By the time you're into the sixth episode and they've done it over and over, people become desensitized. it's no longer shocking.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||01/08/2013|
Correction: Justin Bartha (not James)
|by Anonymous||reply 135||01/08/2013|
R134...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Losers who think television creates radical social change. No critical thinking skills at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||01/08/2013|
[quote]The AIDS crisis also did a lot to open people's minds,
Stop trying to rewrite history. People were running from gays, not viewing them with open minds.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||04/26/2013|
[quote]Who says that Stamos and Consuelos aren't gay?
Consuelos - bi - leaning toward gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||04/27/2013|
[quote]Consuelos - bi - leaning toward gay.
I wish he were leaning toward THIS gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||04/27/2013|
And ... it's canceled. I can't say I didn't expect it from the very beginning. Horribly written show.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||05/10/2013|
John Benjamin Hickey=box office poison
|by Anonymous||reply 142||05/10/2013|