Bryan Cranston -- "does that mean I can't play a homosexual?"

When you look at "Moonlight", "Call Me By Your Name", "God's Own Country", "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Rocketman"...you know what you aren't seeing? Gay actors.

I do think that is sad and the industry should do better.

There are actors with disabilities and I’m sure they get fed up with able bodied actors trying to get Oscars. There are far more people with disabilities in this country than trans.

The definition of acting is playing someone else. This is getting INSANE. Fuck the identity and representation nazis. Another case of bad logic: trans woman doing drag shows. Sorry, girls. If you identify as a woman, then dressing as one is not drag because you are not dressing cross-gender.

I think some people are upset about straight people playing gay because openly gay actors arent given the parts. There are no gay lead actors.

I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, I can see where they're coming from: a quadriplegic actor can never play the part of an able-bodied character (unless the character in question never gets out of their seat for some reason!). Giving one of the few roles that they CAN play to an able-bodied actor must seem like a bit of a slap in the face. This is true, to a lesser extent, with gay actors: studios seem quite reluctant to cast openly gay actors as straight leading men, yet they're happy to cast straight men as gay characters. As a result, gay actors' careers suffer disproportionately.

On the other hand, I think some people are starting to lose sight of the purpose of acting (and even fiction itself). There's a good point made here by author Hari Kunzru:

[quote] Clearly, if writers were barred from creating characters with attributes that we do not “own” (gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so on), fiction would be impossible. Stories would be peopled by clones of the author. Since trespassing into otherness is a foundation of the novelist’s work, should we restrict ourselves in some way, so as to avoid doing violence to those who identify with our characters? The injunction to refrain from “cultural appropriation” sounds like a call for censorship, or at best a warning to self-censor, an infringement of the creative liberty to which so many surprising people profess themselves attached.

[quote]There are actors with disabilities and I’m sure they get fed up with able bodied actors trying to get Oscars. There are far more people with disabilities in this country than trans.

Yes, r2, but quadriplegics? I doubt there are many quadriplegic actors in the world, if only because they'd be unable to play anyone BUT a quadriplegic character. Should writers and directors be banned from telling stories about characters with quadriplegia unless willing/able to cast one of the, what, maybe two or three professional actors in the world who are quadriplegic?

Anyway, I agree with r3 and the OP. Acting is about pretending to be someone you're not. If you're casting the role of a gay, trans, disabled, whatever character and there happens to be a gay, disabled, etc., actor out there who's right for the part, okay, great. Cast that actor. But you shouldn't be limited to considering ONLY actors from that demographic. Making a movie is, after all, first and foremost about creating a engaging, well-acted story that audiences want to watch— not just about providing roles for actors who face special challenges finding work.

I would argue that a movie like this starring an actual quadriplegic would never get made, because it would have no star power, so from an economic perspective it would not make sense to invest in the production.

You need a star like Cranston to draw crowds.

[quote]I think some people are upset about straight people playing gay because openly gay actors arent given the parts. There are no gay lead actors

Yes, agreed, and so I think the demand is that gay actors play gay characters. This is a natural demand, because (openly) gay actors are not cast often enough as straight characters. But I think insisting that gays play gays is going at it the wrong way and will result in ghettoization. The real demand is to let actors be actors and play whichever roles they can -- Cranston can play a quadriplegic, Bomer a straight guy, etc.

IMO race is where you draw the line. If a character is Asian, for instance, it's just ridiculous that a white actor should play that character.

From the op's article:

[quote] Last month Darren Criss said he would no longer accept LGBT scripts because he did not want to be "another straight boy taking a gay man's role".

So is Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot considered problematic now? Will the Academy demand he return the Oscar they gave him for it?

The problem is that gay character roles are extremely high in demand because they attract awards attention. Inexperienced actors also want those roles because it's often a fast track to A list status and helps them shed their image as strictly eye candy.

Part of the appeal to entertainment is watching an actor transform into a character. Would The Theory of Everything or My Left Foot have been as appealing if the lead were played by a quadriplegic? Conversely, how interesting would it be to watch Jim Parsons play a gay role in everything? Stretching beyond the limits of one's experience is what brings life to a character. And, in a select few cases, like Will and Grace, helped society see gay people as their friend, neighbor, coworker etc.

I carn't stand that man!!!!. I'm a brit and last year he plagued british tv shows and even the bloody baftas trying to be the 'amusing american actor bloke.' He walked out on Bafta stage crouched over. So unfunny and meh. I thought he was trying to get in gap of the absence of Spacey.

This is fucking ridiculous. What hasn't been mentioned here is the role that actual TALENT plays in all of the above. How many paraplegic actors out there have even a modicum of Cranston's acting abilities?

As for actors playing gay roles: by all means feel free to name any who could've done a better job in, say, "Call Me By Your Name." (That goes double for Elio, considering the paucity of openly gay actors who can believably play a 17-year-old, let alone *talented* gay actors.) Also, we ALL know you cunts would've ripped it to shreds had any remotely effeminate actor played either role, crying about how Hollywood only casts stereotypical gays in gay roles.

Sorry, but acting roles should go to the actors best suited to the role in terms of their *talent*, not their sexual orientation (or disability status, or even national origin - should we ban Brits from playing Americans as well?).

[quote]IMO race is where you draw the line. If a character is Asian, for instance, it's just ridiculous that a white actor should play that character.

How about the other way around? Plenty of actors of color have been cast in roles originally intended for white actors, a trend that's only increasing post-#MeToo. Ditto gender: in the comics Captain Marvel is male, so should the studio have left the character be for the film version and not hired DL fave Brie Larson for it?

[quote]I think some people are upset about straight people playing gay because openly gay actors arent given the parts. There are no gay lead actors.

Ben Whishaw seems to be doing just fine with his career.

r10 has it right, these are plum roles being stolen by straight actors. There's plenty of advantages to being straight, why can't there ever be any advantages to being gay?

Actors who are already well-known then become disabled may still get parts. Guillaume Depardieu (Gerard's son) lost a leg and was still offered parts before he died at 37. Lionel Barrymore also comes to mind. Of course both were highly sought after before their disability, and came from major acting families.

It's not like this is a documentary, it's meant to be a popular movie designed to draw in crowds. In the great country of FRANCE where this movie was first made (this is the American remake) the filmmakers cast two very popular French actors. The film was a massive hit.

[quote]Ditto gender: in the comics Captain Marvel is male, so should the studio have left the character be for the film version and not hired DL fave Brie Larson for it?

Just wanted to correct R14's ignorance:

How about Daniel Day Lewis in The Last of the Mohicans?

Shameful.

r1 You know what you see when you watch 'Silence of the Lambs', 'Jagged Edge', 'Manhunter' and 'Hannibal'? Somebody who is not a murderer playing a murderer. You know in your heart they have never killed anybody and it makes it fake. Only murderers should play murderers on screen or it just ruins the reality of the film

^^Huge career opportunity for Chris Watts!^^

R14 Captain Marvel has always been as a female.

I think you’re confusing Carol Danvers (Marvel’s Captain Marvel) with Billy Batson (DC’s Captain Marvel/Shazam) r14.

I don't get it. Gay people have been playing straight since the dawn of Hollywood. They played it onscreen in addition to off, but gay people have been sinking their teeth into meaty roles intended for straight people for decades. I'm not gonna' get mad if a straight actor wants to indulge in a little onscreen pickle tickle for a role.

Here's something that won't get discussed - part of acting is speaking. Quadriplegics require aid breathing with a mechanical breathing apparatus. This leads to a stilted and (sometimes) quiet speaking style. If you listen to Christopher Reeve in this clip, he is rushing to get his lines out before the air in his lungs is exhausted, and he doesn't really have the lung ability to force his air out when speaking to project his lines. I doubt this would translate to a quality cinematic experience.

Are there exceptions? Probably. But are there enough exceptions who are top-tier actors? Doubtful. Acting is acting. Pick the best actor for the role, and call it a day.

[Quote] Making a movie is, after all, first and foremost about creating a engaging, well-acted story that audiences want to watch

It is?

[quote]Gay people have been playing straight since the dawn of Hollywood. They played it onscreen in addition to off, but gay people have been sinking their teeth into meaty roles intended for straight people for decades. I'm not gonna' get mad if a straight actor wants to indulge in a little onscreen pickle tickle for a role.

When in history has an out gay actor played a str8 role in any major Hollywood production, R26? Never. That is why they stay in the closet. When you miss the point you REALLY miss the point.

So they shouldn't make historical dramas, because they can't actually get anyone who knows what it really feels like to be at the court of Elizabeth I? Acting is pretending! Hopefully well-researched, lifelike pretending!

So the only restriction I'd ever put on casting is that if you're casting a quadriplegic character, at least look at some quadriplegic actors. It may very well be that a top actor like Cranston could do a better job with the role of a quadriplegic than someone who is actually is one, because there's so much more to acting than just having the right look or age or state of health. So maybe an unknown will surprise you, or maybe a top actor will be able to make the audience care about the character and story, in a way that is beyond your unknown quad actor. Because that's what the very best actors do, make the audience care about what's happening on the screen.

Guess what? There is a new series on Netflix called “You” which features a trans actress playing a cis woman. It wasn’t until the second or third episode she was in when I started to suspect she was trans. Obviously, she did a decent job passing. Gay actors should not be relegated to only playing gay roles, and neither should trans people. If you’re a gay actor and you can’t convincingly play a straight character, then guess what, you’re a terrible actor.

There is nothing impressive seeing a disabled person play a disabled person, it is more impressive to see an able person portray a disabled person. Get over it.

R28, Ezra Miller will be playing the Flash.

R31, how disgusting, Ezra Miller is using the pronoun “they” on HIS IMDb profile. I thought I was reading about multiple people when I was reading HIS trivia and bio sections.

Hey, R28. Point out where I said "OUT" gay actor. I'll wait.

Before you get on your high horse, try practicing reading comprehension - "They played it onscreen in addition to off."

Out or not, it doesn't change the fact that gay people have portrayed (and continue to portray) all types of roles - including leading roles - portraying sexualities that may (or may not) fit their existing sexuality.

R4: The problem with gay roles will be solved if from time to time they will cast an openly gay actor, and there are a lot, some very good, but no HW refuses to cast a gay actor in a main role (gay or straight). If gay actors will get that type of role from time to time there won't be any controversy.

Of course i think gays are probably the group that put less pressure into that kind of representation, i remember a thread here commenting about the adaptation of Days without end and most people thought it would be great if they cast Lucas Hedges and Timothee Chalamet for the roles, so people is not that eager for gay actors getting any prominent gay role

Anyway, acting is pretending to be someone you are not. I understand the people who want representation but in some cases is a big mistake (transgenders really need way more their stories being told to generate empathy than the role being played by a transgender actor)

When Ezra Miller was cast to play the flash he was openly "queer" but in a relationship with a woman.

If they cast gay actors from time to time on prominent gay roles there won't be any problem. There are a lot of openly gay actors and some of them very good. Coming out doesn't kill your career but you are only going to play secondary roles on films (fortunately tv and theatre are different stories).

I think gays are not exactly the ones who are more pressed on this, there were a discussion about the next adaptation of Sebastian Barry's novel Days without end and people here seemed to really prefer if they cast Lucas Hedges and Timothee Chalamet for the roles, so it's clear people don't think every prominent gay role must be played by an openly gay actor.

Acting is pretending to be someone you are not. And this type of things make a lot of noise on internet but the truth is the number of people who get angry with this is very small. It's a storm in a glass of water.

And in some cases is totally absurd for the cause. Transgenders need their stories to be told to generate empathy, they are a very small group and need allies way more than they need transgender actors on the main roles- It's understable to want that representation but that doesn't change that acting is not about that

I thought the point of casting was to find the right person - and best actor- for the role.

Does this mean casting directors have to choose a sub-par actor over a much better one? Should they have given the role in The Miracle Worker to someone who was blind instead of Patty Duke?

And we would have missed out on Joan Crawford if they had to choose someone else for Whatever Happened To Baby Jane.

[R18]: It's based on an autobiographical novel. I remember the critics in Spain trashed the novel, and the reviews of the film weren't good either, but it was a big success, specially in France

So many good points being brought up here. Like most sensible people, I draw the line at race. I don't want a white person playing a black or Asian character. It just feels weird and always has, even when I was a kid and would watch old movies at my grandparents' house.

Yes, I can see where, if you have similar experiences to the character you're playing, it could make it more believable in some instances, but why would you want to just play yourself? Actors do that anyway. If they're playing a breakup scene, they might think of a time they got their heart broken. Some might just use their imagination completely. All actors are different, but one thing stays the same no matter what - it's not usually interesting to watch themselves play themselves.

I don't think someone needs to be a sex worker to play one. I don't think one needs to be straight or gay to play one or the other. It's about making the audience believe you.

I think the reason so many gay and trans actors complain about not getting enough opportunities is because either they're lousy actors or they can't pass as anything but gay or trans. They're so obviously gay or trans that all they're able to do is play gay or trans. Couple that with being a lousy actor and you have a recipe for bitterness. Of course they're not getting work. They suck. I hate when people complain about not getting straight/cis roles when it's obvious to everyone why they don't get them. They seem so delusional. No one's going to buy you in this role.

This is getting nuts! And no, I am not a deplorable.

R39: That's simply not true. It doesn't matter if you are butch or more macho than Rambo, once you are out of the closet you don't get a main role (gay or straight) on a big budget studio film. Secondary roles, for sure if you are good, but main roles no (unless it's a film with a lot of main characters). I can't remember a single big studio gay film with a gay actor in the main role.

That doesn't mean you don't work, there are a lot of gay actors working without problem, but on the film industry a gay actor has a glass ceilling very difficult to overcome. And of course you can have an amazing career as character actor on films, but are out for main roles On tv and theatre is not a problem, but on films is different. And no openly gay actor winning an oscar, nominations, a good bunch, but no gay winner (and Ian McEllen is ten thousand times better than Roberto Benigni)

It wouldn't bother me if actors could be openly gay and not have their careers suffer for it. Otherwise it's just exploitation.

And straight actors playing gay is not a problem when the actor is not an homophobe or he is so worried people think he is gay that he needs to bring how much he loves his girlfriend after every couple of sentences

This modern insistence that acting roles somehow "belong" ONLY to certain people who share qualities with FICTIONAL CHARACTERS is dopey artistic fascism!

I'm a middle aged actor, I'm gay and openly so and I play straight dads on tv and in commercials ALL THE TIME! Am I ruining something for the public, or myself? What nonsense! GO AWAY SJW MILLENNIALS!! YOU SUCK!!!

I think all this identity politics madness will eventually force most actors out of the closet. Anyone who isn't a member of Lipstick Alley or a delusional Frau knows that most Hollywood actors are not straight but either closet cases or bisexuals. I've been working with entertainment for over 12 years and am yet to meet a truly straight actor, female or male. I've met many bisexuals/no labels living as straights but that hook up with same sex for fun with total permission by their spouses and with support of their friends and co-workers, that's the reality of this business. The only place I've encountered the pathetic attempt of artists to hide themselves is the hip hop community where even gay rappers still play straight to their co-workers.

The act of playing someone with a serious disability has become somewhat discredited in recent years because it's believed that producers and actors see it as an easy route to an Oscar. It takes an exceptional actor to take on a role like that and to portray it sensitively and convincingly.

It's not a black and white issue. Actors shouldn't be attacked for taking such a role, but the source material needs to be well handled.

Cranston is a Trumper. He can go fuck himself.

I refuse to see Bohemian Rhapsody because Freddie Mercury isn't played by a gay Zoroastrian actor. How dare Rami Malek take a role away from my people?

I refuse to see Bohemian Rhapsody because Freddie Mercury isn't portrayed by a talented actor.

R45: They could use Lucas Hedges "coming out" of spectrum sexuality, then you let yourself be watched with a girl and it's all ok. Gay rumours put to rest, nobody is going to bash you to play gay roles because you are a member of the community but for most people you are basically straight because they are only going to see you with girls. And even if with the years you find a gay you really like (when your career is well established) you can openly date him because you "came out" long time ago.

But no, nobody is going to coming out of the closet for this (i think people will come of the closet because it'll be less problematic being openly gay, specially if you have a previous career on tv or theatre). These people make a lot of noise on internet, but they are not relevant and studios and actors know it. One thing is quit from playing a transexual role when you know that movie won't be a hit on the box office and the backlash is not worthy and other very different playing a gay role. In fact i think people generally react bad when a straight is cast on a gay role because the heterosexuality of the actor is often remarked. Lately there's a lot of interviews when the first thing you read is"the actor playing this gay role, who indentifies as straight" and that's annoying as hell

Has the guy who played the disabled son on Breaking Bad commented?

[quote]Cranston is a Trumper

LIES

[quote] But no, nobody is going to coming out of the closet for this (i think people will come of the closet because it'll be less problematic being openly gay, specially if you have a previous career on tv or theatre). These people make a lot of noise on internet, but they are not relevant and studios and actors know it.

I used to think the same till Kevin Hart. He did lose his dream gig because of a backlash of the LGBTQ community so I wouldn't take that lightly. I do think many will come out on a spectrum, because as you said, it keeps their marketability, it's a middle ground that satisfies all.

R53: Kevin Hart case has nothing to do with this. He was offensive and refused to apologize. He didn't understood a thing. Everytime he opens his mouth he worsen the thing. And of course, there were way more people getting mad at Kevin Hart hosting the Oscars than any of these cases

This is not worse than people who get mad at Daniel Craig after being cast as James Bond or Ben Affleck when he got the Batman role

[quote]Cranston is a Trumper.

Um, NO. He was a Hillary voter and in fact, even one of those celebs who vowed to move to Canada if Trump won (though, like most, he did not follow through).

There’s a balance. I don’t want to see the modern day equivalent of Olivier blacking up for Othello or Micky Rooney as a Japanese guy. But of course gay can play straight and vice versa. Why should someone at the start of their career like Chalamet or Hedges have to make some sort of overt declaration as to their orientation? It’s no ones fucking business. If someone’s bisexual, do they have to announce every month or so whether they are with a man or a woman this month to let the regulators see what roles they can be considered for ? Or do they have to stick to the very small number of parts that focus on someone being bisexual? Sense of proportion needed. .

And let’s face it The Elephant Man would have been a complete non starter...

[quote] Cranston is a Trumper. He can go fuck himself.

He's a liberal Democrat and many of his movie choices make that crystal clear.

A trans woman playing a woman is ridiculous and should be challenged. It is hard enough for female actors but now they have to compete against men for female roles? Talk about stunt casting. Cutting your cock off doesn’t make you a woman and doesn’t entitle you to play female roles. Casting should be by sex not gender. This is really getting absurd.

R59. Could be a new plot point for the musical version Tootsie.

The representation people are as fascistic as German Naziis. Fight the power. Freedom and opportunity for all!

"Lately there's a lot of interviews when the first thing you read is"the actor playing this gay role, who indentifies as straight" and that's annoying as hell "

Have you actually read "identifies as straight" in an entertainment puff piece, or are you paraphrasing or misquoting?

Because identifying as straight is quite different from actually being straight, as any closet case can tell you.

It's a Weinstein film and Harvey's Girl Kidman is in it.

R62: I can't remember exactly but there was a very similar quote about the guys (one is Nolan Gould) when that Logic video came out (they played a gay couple in the video).

And yes, there's a big difference but the intention is the same, they want the public have a clear image they are only playing gay but they are straight (even if it's not the case) on real life.

And given the fact that a lot of gay movies are about accept the sexual orientation on teenage characters i find absurd that actor who are not even 18 (and in some cases are not totally accepting of their sexual orientation) have to talk about that just because some people want character and actor being practically the same.

As i say i think it's ok a little pressure, it would be good for gay actors (it would be great if at least some of the prominent gay roles on big studios movies were played by openly gay actors) but that's all, i think everybody should be able to play whatever role they want if they are able to do it well

What r7 said. Producers want star power. They don’t even GAF about superior acting. Virtually all women over age 30 become invisible in Hollywood and no one bats an eye when the next teenage “it girl” gets cast for her fuckability factor. Thus it has been since the dawn of film and it’s completely unfair but oh well.

There’s also the Catch-22 aspect of it: there are not many actors in wheelchairs, in part because they make up such a small percentage of the overall population and in part because they don’t have much opportunity for roles, so the ones who are out there presumably have limited experience and undeveloped talent. No producer is going to want to invest MILLIONS of dollars in a film starring an inexperienced actor with no name recognition when they could get Bryan “Breaking Bad” Cranston instead.

Disability advocates can cry foul but all that’s going to do is to make it less likely that a film like this will get greenlit at all next time. Same thing is happening with films about trans protagonists. A big name star gets cast, the T activists rage at the “cis privilege,” the star backs out saying screw this it’s not worth it, and the film doesn’t get made. Alternatively the film may get made by amateurs and won’t achieve wide distribution or viewership and is unlikely to get better-than-middling reviews.

Hollywood is not a democracy. It’s not a non-profit enterprise there for the common good. It’s mostly a bunch of assholes who care about making money and getting power and then leveraging that power to make more money.

Grab your popcorn because the Hunchback of Notre Dame has been announced as a live action musical and SJW will come for your blood and call you ableist.

Cranston is a notorious homophobe. He even gay bashed the dude that played the blue Power Ranger. He’s an asshole.

R67 what's Cranston's connection to Billy? Or do you mean the movie?

Yeah, spill it r67. He's definitely a democrat, but I guess it's possible he's a homophobic one.

He said the blue power ranger was named after him but when Billy came out he made fun of him and though he was now fey so he was embarrassed.

Straight actors should be allowed to play gay characters. Gay actors should be allowed to be open about their sexuality and still get straight roles. A lot of gay actors don't want gay roles because they don't want to be type cast. Gay roles shouldn't be taken by straight actors for the chance of getting an award.

Lots of opinions on here but probably none from someone actually disabled. I believe the complaint about Cranston is not about him being an actor doing a role but about how when the few times an actual disabled part is available that a disabled actor is never even considered for the role. At least for gay parts, gay actors are given consideration. It's also about the fact that disabled people aren't normally considered for non disabled parts so they're getting it from both ends.

Why couldn't the best friend in a script not be played by a disabled actor for instance. I think disabled people are just finding their voice like any other minority group and asking to be represented. I see nothing wrong with that. I believe there was a lot of yelling about white actors taking parts written for Asian people. All that bitching lead to more Asian representation in TV and movies.

If the next time a disabled part comes up, maybe all this controversy will make that producer or director or studio open up their eyes and at least consider a disabled actor for a role. After all, disabled people are real and not just props for awards.

R72 read R65

Is that Kevin Hart standing next to Bryan Cranston in OP's link? Fuck him and fuck this movie. I hate kevin hart

fuck this shitty movie

In 1980, Bette Davis essayed the role of a tough, yet loving flying coach in Skyward, starring the paralyzed Suzy Gilstrap as a plucky paraplegic who just wanted to be a pilot. The TV movie was directed by Ronnie Howard and produced by "that Potsie boy from Happy Days!" (as Ms. Davis furiously exclaimed).

She objected strenuously to anyone on set who would listen (including a few visiting reporters) that "that kind of realism has NO place in the industry!" Taking a hefty swig from her "soup" thermos, Bette went on to opine "the whole POINT of acting is to bring to life someone who ISN'T yourself." She went on "Hell, La Belle Crawford wasn't dead from the waist down when we did Baby Jane (if anything, FAR FROM IT) but she rolled around that set like a PRO."

Pausing to light an unfiltered Pall Mall, she added "Too many actors today are nothing but namby-pamby pansies! Christ, in my day, we had BALLS!"

“You’ll catch more flies with vinegar.” That’s how the saying goes, right?

R73 There's always perfectly valid excuses and reasons for not hiring a members of a minority group. The excuses never change. You need a bankable star, because they're minority people they have less experience therefore they're lesser actors etc etc etc etc. That's just EXCUSES. No one of those prophetic and wise executives who made all those decisions that inevitably leads to straight, white people getting roles ever believed for instance, that an all asian cast would bring people to the box office. They also insisted that no one wanted to see a movie starring just black people.

Someone had to take chances on making movies like Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians to prove them wrong. So what I'm saying is you're making a lot of assumptions about the acting abilities of disabled actors and the draw of a disabled actor. The disabled community have a very small voice compared to other minority groups so I'm very happy to hear them speak up . Because as everyone knows, Hollywood always goes with the tried and true until they're forced into making changes.

This is what is causing more and more people to turn Right-wing. These SJWs need a kick up the ass.

[quote] I agree with [R3]

Why would you agree with someone who screams about "identity nazis"? You equated R3 with the OP, and they're not the same thing at all. R3 is alt-right rhetoric.

It's disheartening to see how much the far-right bigoted rhetoric of the Trump era has taken over here on DL. It's like regulars don't even notice it anymore.

[quote]He said the blue power ranger was named after him but when Billy came out he made fun of him and though he was now fey so he was embarrassed.

It was 10 years ago, and he didn't say he was embarrassed. He said they named a Power Ranger after him, "but it was the fey one." When the whole thing came up again a couple years ago, he apologized.

That's not even close to "gay bashing" or even proof he's a homophobe.