Why is nuSteven such a dull bore?

[Alexis]

In 2018, a time when everyone seems to be embracing and relishing in diversity why is an out Steven such a damp squib? I get that Steven is supposed to be sensitive and to a point tortured, even if not by his sexuality now. However he's just incredibly dull. He's meant to have been tapping Sam Joe and yet they haven't really had any hot/steamy scenes and now they are just living together as room mates? Or are they in a relationship as was implied a while back? That's not even clear at all. It's like not that much has changed from the 1980s. They have said he's gay then seem to be all about neutering that except for in name only.

I'm not expecting Steven to be that stereotype gay guy but I'd like to see him at least have a real relationship with a man. On screen. Commit to something. And why is he so buttoned up and conservative? He's not that unlike Jack Coleman really with his uptightness. Yes, he has the obligatory gay quips here and there but he's such a bore. He doesn't really inspire, I cant imagine a young gay guy wanting to be like this Steven. Is being gay that un-fun?

He doesn't need to be a promiscuous gym bunny shagging everything he can get his hands on in the pool-house but it would be nice to know that he does have genitalia and it does get used. This Steven is just so un-sexual. It's partly in the writing for him and partly to do with his casting. The actor has like zero chemistry with anyone, much less any men.

Something major needs to happen with this nuSteven. He needs to come alive. Maybe he needs to go work on an exploding oil rig in the south china seas or something and come back a new man?

 

[Michael Torrance]

He is saving himself for the right (size) man.

 

[Alexis]

He is saving himself for the right (size) man.

But we know he's already done a meth head and Sam Jo queen of trashiness. So I mean... Yea.
He just needs a personality. And maybe to get ripped.

 

[Willie Oleson]

and now they are just living together as room mates?

Oh geez, it's Steven II and Chris Deegan all over again.
Something we forgot to list in the "Dynasty Mistakes That NuDynasty Should Avoid"?

Yes, he has the obligatory gay quips here and there

Every time I see him I think of the gay neighbour from Desperate Housewives.

 

[Michael Torrance]

Every time I see him I think of the gay neighbour from Desperate Housewives.

What a painful memory you brought back. Especially the guy who was also in the Jetta commercial and I thought he was so good and hot in that, and then the show proved that one minute was all the acting he had in him.

 

[Alexis]

I'm actively wanting a nuDynasty recast. Who'd have thunk it?
Life imitates fart.

 

[Soaplover]

Maybe the showrunners are afraid to offend hence why they've watered both him and Sammy Jo down from their original counterparts in the 80s.

 

[Alexis]

Maybe the showrunners are afraid to offend hence why they've watered both him and Sammy Jo down from their original counterparts in the 80s.

It's kind of impossible to water Steven down anymore than Jack Coleman's version. I mean what is watery-er than water?

And why should people be offended more now in a more accepting and diversity embracing time than the 1980s were? Have we really gone backwards in 30 years?
I'm not buying that. There have been more exciting depictions of gay men on TV since then. Lots! Look at True Blood, hell even ABC 's Revenge was doing more.

 

[tommie]

Being gay is Steven.

 

[RottenSkipper17]

Unfortunately, we now live in a world where not only pretty much a lot of people get offended over every single thing, but also anything that is remotely perceived to be "progressive" or "liberal" tends to be automatically labelled "SJW propaganda".

So yeah I agree that there's a good possibility that the producers might be very nervous about pushing the envelope further when it comes to Sammy Jo & Steven and they just decide not to show much of their relationship on-screen in order to avoid backlash from a certain group of conservative viewers.

Also it could be because of the target demographic the CW might be focusing on. Now, if Dynasty were to be airing on another network like FX... it would be a totally different story. Steven & Sammy Jo might be able to show a lot more skin on screen and of course a lot of other characters might end up throwing more slurs in their direction like in "The Assassination Of Gianni Versace". And if we got a writing team on par with the one on that show, we might end up getting a vastly more improved and stronger show.

On the other hand, I kind of agree that Steven, acting wise, is kind of bland but the writing for him personality wise isn't too problematic and we definitely need someone on this show that hasn't had their moral compass completely corrupted. I think a good recasting choice would be Adam Campbell who played Greg Walsh on the NBC sitcom "Great News".

From what I've seen of him so far he's a great actor and he's actually pretty good looking. Plus he can do a British accent (this is assuming that Alexis is actually going to turn out to be British), so I guess we can kind of pretend that Steven inherited the accent from her.

What's even more interesting to me is that there are shows like "The Haves & Have Nots" and "If Loving You Is Wrong" that are not afraid to feature gay storylines. On the former show we have a female black attorney named Veronica Harrington who is disgusted by the fact that her son Jeffrey is gay and her ex-husband David is horrified by the notion that she wanted Jeffrey to remain in prison for a crime he didn't commit just to punish him for being gay.

 

[Alexis]

How come America is so way back when it comes to gay people on TV? I just don't get it.

 

[RottenSkipper17]

@Alexis Well a lot of it has to do with religion. A large majority of people in this country are religious and many Christians (I'm not saying all, but at least most of them as far as I can tell), tend to view homosexuality as a sin. You also have many viewers that watch prime time and daytime soaps that are middle class and they tend to hold very conservative, wholesome, family-friendly values. So not only do you have this big religious component going on but you also have this big culture war going on with one group fighting to get gay representation on T.V. and another group seeing gay people as a major threat to the institution of family & marriage and they do everything in their power to basically scrub any trace of any depiction of gay people from the T.V. landscape in a so called effort to "protect the children" or whatever their excuse is. I hope this helps.

 

[Willie Oleson]

tend to view homosexuality as a sin

in a so called effort to "protect the children" or whatever their excuse is

And how about real sins, like murder? Soaps had and still have plenty of them.

 

[Michael Torrance]

Well a lot of it has to do with religion.

A lot, but not all. Broadcast TV in the US never had the luxury of taxpayer money coming its way like European broadcasters, so they can't afford to air a show that will not be palatable to enough of an audience to attract advertisers. Cable (like FX mentioned) and pay cable like HBO can air whatever they consider quality per their execs, so they can take more chances. While nowadays the European landscape, with a mix of private and public broadcasters, allows more freedom on the airwaves than in the US, I remember in the 80s when US prime time soaps like DALLAS and DYNASTY were routinely dropped from many public broadcasters' schedules (then these stations were a monopoly in most countries) despite high ratings because some Marxist government-appointed bureaucrat deemed them poisonous to the viewing public and "approved" ideology.

And how about real sins, like murder? Soaps had and still have plenty of them.

These are ok--they are in the Bible.

 

[Willie Oleson]

DALLAS and DYNASTY were routinely dropped from many public broadcasters' schedules (then these stations were a monopoly in most countries) despite high ratings because some Marxist government-appointed bureaucrat deemed them poisonous to the viewing public and "approved" ideology

But the European tv shows usually showed much more (especially nudity).

 

[Michael Torrance]

But the European tv shows usually showed much more (especially nudity).

The supposed danger often quoted was promoting capitalist greed and US consumerism--nothing to do with nudity.

 

[Willie Oleson]

That's not smart thinking because those greedy, consuming soap characters were usually very unhappy or died a horrible death.
I assume you're referring to Eastern-European countries, although I believe the US prime time soaps were very popular over there.

 

[Michael Torrance]

That's not smart thinking because those greedy, consuming soap characters were usually very unhappy or died a horrible death.
I assume you're referring to Eastern-European countries, although I believe the US prime time soaps were very popular over there.

No, I have no knowledge of what was happening there. Marxist thinking was very popular in much of western Europe, especially socialist governments and universities. I am talking for example of Norway (which is what the DYNASTY YEARS book is about) and Greece off the top of my head, but I am sure others who were around in Europe in the 80s can chime in.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

@Alexis Well a lot of it has to do with religion. A large majority of people in this country are religious and many Christians (I'm not saying all, but at least most of them as far as I can tell), tend to view homosexuality as a sin. You also have many viewers that watch prime time and daytime soaps that are middle class and they tend to hold very conservative, wholesome, family-friendly values. So not only do you have this big religious component going on but you also have this big culture war going on with one group fighting to get gay representation on T.V. and another group seeing gay people as a major threat to the institution of family & marriage and they do everything in their power to basically scrub any trace of any depiction of gay people from the T.V. landscape in a so called effort to "protect the children" or whatever their excuse is. I hope this helps.

It's a wee bit more nuanced than just the impact of religion and the religious on advertizers and networks -- American TV has had gay characters routinely for at least 20 years; in fact, pretty much every show has to have their own token gay, maybe even two.

You can have laughably mismatched couples (like the one on MODERN FAMILY) and you can even show "explicit" male passion between "hunks" as long as the characters involved aren't really three-dimensionally presented.

But when you get into the area of normal, masculine, well-developed characters the audience feels they know, there is still a reticence about showing him in a physical and emotional relationship with another normal, masculine, well-developed character the audience feels they know.

It just makes it too real somehow, even in an era where we're supposedly fine with such things.

There's no such constraints on the portrayal of lesbian relationships, however, where the individual or couple are portrayed as normal, feminine, well-developed characters the audience feels they know.

It's the double dose of testosterone that seems to be the real, covert issue.

 

[RottenSkipper17]

@Willie Oleson Well, we DO live in a culture where a lot of T.V. shows, movies and video games tend to be over-saturated with violence and gore. And yet displaying any form of sexual content still tends to be met with great controversy and backlash. It seems like many Americans appear to feel more comfortable dealing with violence than any sexual matter.

@Snarky's Ghost Now that I think about it, it seems like for some reason lesbian characters/couples tend to be received more positively and enthusiastically than gay characters/couples. Probably has a lot to do with how society views men and women's gender roles and how a male's masculinity tends to receive a lot more focus and attention.