Why is nuSteven such a dull bore?

[Snarky Oracle!]

All the gay rights posturing, political stuff, and even portrayals of cartoonishly in-your-face raunchy hypersexuality, have essentially nothing to do with actual carnality between two normal guys.

Nothing.

So there's a disconnect between the cultural topic and the reality of male homosexual bonding. So TV shows with two dudes whom the audience feels they know have to be reined in in a fashion other couples don't -- unless you make them ridiculous/unbelievable/stereotypic/sexless/anonymous, etc.

 

[Michael Torrance]

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

So there's a disconnect between the cultural topic and the reality of male homosexual bonding. So TV shows with two dudes whom the audience feels they know have to be reined in in a fashion other couples don't -- unless you make them ridiculous/unbelievable/stereotypic/sexless/anonymous, etc.

How a culture treats women is directly connected to how it treats gay men. As an on-the-spot definition says, homophobia is a straight male's fear that someone will treat them like they treat women. Where being a man is the coveted place to be, anything that threatens that privilege is dangerous, and nothing more than a man being affectionate toward another man rather than being dominant over a woman. Lesbians are not as big of a threat, because the typical straight male thinks they can easily be made to see the light--all it takes is the right penis.

 

[Rove]

However he's just incredibly dull.

Having not watched Dynasty 2.0 I have seen some youtube clips regarding the character. A gay character on television no longer has the shock value the writers so desire. Recently here in Australia the media and public had a lot to say when Home and Away announced they were going to introduce a gay character - like it was something new and shocking. The backlash coming from the public and media was not what the producers had hoped for. Most argued, "It's about bloody time." Others had rightfully pointed out Neighbours has had gay characters on and off for years.

The fact Steven is a damp squid is down to the writing. The fact he is a bore, in a sense should be celebrated as him being gay is no longer relevant and he's become like society - mainstream. And isn't that something which should be applauded?

It reminds me of events leading up to Australia voting on Same Sex Marriage. There were the usual rent-a-crowds (from both sides) trying to get their voices heard and of course the media hounds giving those voices air-time. But it just becomes noise. In the end Aussies voted in favour of it, something our spineless politicians couldn't do, the law was changed and guess what? The sky didn't fall in.

But I would like to ask a question. What exactly did you expect from Steven Carrington? Scenes of hard-core sex? Would this be the shock value some desire? Of course this would never happen on commercial television, it's the way it is? Perhaps something a little out of the ordinary would have Steven happily married with a kid. I'm sure that would ruffle the feathers of those religious types. How dare you show a homosexual couple raising a child and splashing it across my television? But Modern Family are already doing this.

Again I ask.

What exactly did you expect from Steven Carrington?

 

[Alexis]

What exactly did you expect from Steven Carrington?

Honestly a better actor.

Other than that, I think I expressed in my original post. I expected a truer representation of a gay man in 2018. He's dull. He has no other gay friends? Is he with Sam Joe? I don't even know? Are the CW not allowed to show that? Is it just the same as 1984? Are we not allowed to see him in a proper relationship with a man?

 

[Willie Oleson]

Scenes of hard-core sex?

No, but at least as much sexuality as the other characters.
I think he's handsome, but for heaven's sake give the man some facial hair.

 

[James from London]

I kinda like him. He makes a good contrast to Fallon -- the whole jeans-with-a-belt thing.

 

[Alexis]

I liked him initially and thought over time he'd develop but he hasn't. He seems stuck somehow.

 

[Michael Torrance]

No, but at least as much sexuality as the other characters.
I think he's handsome, but for heaven's sake give the man some facial hair.

I find him plain to ugly--but that doesn't mean anything. Steven was not defined by his looks on DYNASTY, and if anything it would have been interesting to examine his psychology with a pair of good looking parents and sister and in a (gay) culture where looks are the first ten things people notice.
The problem is no character is written as an adult on that show--Sam seems to have more depth than the rest, and there is some chemistry with Anders, but that's it. The kind of things @Alexis wants to see are not part of the peach DYNASTY because no character, gay or straight, has complexity on that Atlanta version. It's DYNASTY ZERO--all the characters with none of the taste.

 

[Alexis]

I find him plain to ugly--but that doesn't mean anything. Steven was not defined by his looks on DYNASTY, and if anything it would have been interesting to examine his psychology with a pair of good looking parents and sister and in a (gay) culture where looks are the first ten things people notice.
The problem is no character is written as an adult on that show--Sam seems to have more depth than the rest, and there is some chemistry with Anders, but that's it. The kind of things @Alexis wants to see are not part of the peach DYNASTY because no character, gay or straight, has complexity on that Atlanta version. It's DYNASTY ZERO--all the characters with none of the taste.

That's basically it, in a nutshell. It's not just Steven in which lies a problem.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

How a culture treats women is directly connected to how it treats gay men. As an on-the-spot definition says, homophobia is a straight male's fear that someone will treat them like they treat women.

Jesus Christ, where did you read that......?

 

[Michael Torrance]

Jesus Christ, where did you read that......?

At least 3-4 years ago. It has been around in various forms, perhaps more famously this one
https://imgur.com/gallery/vB6vsFC

 

[Rove]

Honestly a better actor.

But would a better actor with the same appalling script work? Michael is onto something when he stated the following;

The problem is no character is written as an adult on that show

And perhaps therein lies the issue. The writing and directing. In another thread someone had posted a photo of the writing staff of Nu Dynasty. They all looked liked teenagers, fresh from completing their beginners class on how to write Soap. But if the producers target audience was the 18-39 age group and it would appear that's what they were aiming for then expect those characters to be treated as such.

Dynasty 2.0 was not aimed at me. That's fine. I can easily find something else to watch. But looking at those ratings it would appear Dynasty 2.0 is not attracting anyone.

 

[Willie Oleson]

It's DYNASTY ZERO--all the characters with none of the taste.

And even that wouldn't be such a big problem if it had something else to offer. But it's not even outrageous or hilarious.
Only the first episodes had that gimmicky feel because it was so bizarre to see the same or similar characters with new faces, but apart from that it has no identity whatsoever.