My Favorite Show, changes in Heroes affecting personal family values Options

[Teorwyn]

My biggest problem with the debate is the levels that it's reaching. My own view is this: I do not agree with homosexuality, on both personal and religious grounds, but that does not mean that I am going to go after anyone who considers themselves to be homosexual. I may not agree with or like it, but that is my opinion and I should not force it on anyone. Likewise, I expect to receive the same treatment from the gay/lesbian community; disagree with me, but please do not force your own values on me. If more people acted that way, tensions would probably be a lot lower. Let's keep things respectful and reasonable.

[RiddlerHanjinome]

Folks, let's keep to a good rule in here: if your comment doesn't further the discussion in some way other than flame-baiting, then posting it might not be a good idea. Remember, Thumper, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all".

I'm not going to ask you all to get along, but how about we don't feed the trolls, yeah? This is already a topic that's bound to have people fighting way too heavily for one side or another.

[Leek]

Unlike Sopranos, which, by its very premise, revolved around a mob family and everything involved in that, or Dexter, which, by its very premise, revolved around a "good" serial killer, or even Two And A Half men, which, by its very premise, revolves around a sex-addict and his brother, Heroes is a show set in the "real" world.
And, whether we like it or not, whether we support it or not, there are homosexuals in the real world. It was only a matter of time before Heroes had them on screen.


Actually, it's a 14th century Anglo French word.

For a bundle of sticks.

Still not sure how the Gay/Lesbian community got it. Same with Gay actually.

Oh Synch. I think we might need to sit down and have a little talk about reality. When you think super powers are more real then mobsters, serial killers, and two brothers living together in a bachelor pad, it might be time to leave the house a little more often :/

Either that, or I need to actually consider a move to Texas..Because reality would be a lot cooler there apparently lol

Ahhh, history lesson? It is hard to trace the origins accurately, because everyone has there version. The most widely accepted being that in europe around inquisition times, homosexuality was a crime punishable by death, or burning at the stake. Or at least it was used as evidence of one being a heretic, thus being burned. So homosexuals were refereed to the bundle of sticks used to burn them, likened to a pile of wood in how they burned etc.

So while our friends across the pond like to say it is strictly an americanized statement, which yes we have certainly adopted it with it's new definition, it didn't necessarily originate here. So my point is all of the corners of their world equally take issue with this, it isn't JUST us though we deff. are on the list of most bothered me thinks.


Here is another question: Is there anyway for Heroes to have introduced a gay character without it being perceived as "trendy" or "for the ratings"? What we might need to consider is how we perceive the act and then deal with the issues of that.

Also there isn't too much of a leap between the word gay and our present definition of it, when you think of it.

[dalbrin]

I would say the post you deleted, Riddler, and the my own supporting that post, had something to do with the current conversation.

It showed how ridiculous the OP's viewpoint is when the logic behind it is applied to anything else.

This post has been edited by dalbrin: Nov 4 2009, 09:28 AM

[Leek]

This is why I hate posts getting deleted. It makes my head confused.. We should at least leave space makers or something..

[RiddlerHanjinome]

It was flame-baiting, pure and simple. Egging someone on can only go so far before it's cut off.

[dalbrin]

Hey, you're the mod.

But all he did was take the OP's concept and reverse it to demonstrate how ridiculous the concept was in the first place. Didn't seem to be flame baiting, IMO, even if people sharing the archaic views of the OP might have responded with flames.

[OlyMendez]

And steering y'all back to the topic at hand.



Atticus, you're saying you'd like to see more "Traditional Family Values" on Heroes, and other shows-yes?

There's a bit of a problem with that in the sense that now-a-days, "Traditional" is a loose word. Family is now defined as so many things to so many people. The government has one definition, I have another, as do you. It's not fair to say that Heroes should conform to your view of "Family Values' when it means things to other people too.

For instance, a family of a gay couple and their children might view what Heroes did as forward thinking, and it sends a good message. At the same time, a gay couple might see it as insulting to just show a female/female relationship, or that it's exploiting their lifestyle.

This whole thread is actually a sticky situation. No matter what anyone says (myself included here) someone will ultimately be stepping on someone's toes. Heroes is looking forward with its story lines and characters, the same way the country is looking forward (whether by choice or not).

My school newspaper ran offensive cartoons earlier this year. While they seemed funny to the artist, they did offend me. After talking to him face to face and trying to see his point of view, it became apparent to me the problem lay in other areas, that could be fixed. It's great that you are having discussions with your child about things that are happening in today's world. But you can not just gloss over things you don't agree with, you can have that discussion with them too. "I don't agree with this, but I'll let you have your opinion". Don't close off lines of communication.

[Begemot Geroi]

But all he did was take the OP's concept and reverse it to demonstrate how ridiculous the concept was in the first place. Didn't seem to be flame baiting, IMO, even if people sharing the archaic views of the OP might have responded with flames.

Thank you, dalbrin.

No, it wasn't flame-baiting. If I wanted to flamebait the OP, I would have come up with something a helluva lot more creative and controversial to say.

Which I guess I'll do here!

So, traditional family values. Who gets to define what "traditional" is?

Example: Traditional families tend to consist of a married mom and dad, and their biological children.

Keeping that in mind, let's see whose families on Heroes are non-trad:

Claire's -- she's adopted, and thus unrelated to her parents
Micah's -- his parents were divorced
Monica's -- she was living with her grandmother

Those are the only three I can come up with off the top of my head, though I'm sure there are more. Ergo, single-parent families aren't traditional and families who adopt or foster children aren't traditional either (whatever the heck "traditional" means).

Heroes is just one, huge, nontraditional show.

[bozinka]

First, I totally understand the mod stance that in this bar, we don't talk about religion or politics. It does get crazy.

I do not believe our stance is that we don't talk about it... but that when it does come up, and is relevant to the show, as this topic is... so far... please, keep it civil. Do not imply someone else's viewpoint is stupid, or even wrong, for that matter. It is their viewpoint. They are entitled to express it civilly, as are you... and not you personally Leek but everyone! Lol

To your blue metaphor, which I really love by the way to explain this lol, i think the rebuttal is should she be forced to hide the fact that she likes blue away from everyone? To keep you comfortable, because you don't want it in your face everyday. And if so, we have to take a lot of classic children's books off the shelves that use colors as a metaphor for diversity and being yourself. Because we are asking her to repress her fiendish affinity for blue inside the walls of her cubicle. Tuck it away nicely so we don't have to know you are weird, and different. If we cannot see your difference we can ignore it and then for continue to function on as a society.

Ah... I did not say she had to hide it. I don't mind if she wants to wear blue everywhere. If she wants to buy me a blue present, awesome. If she tries to convince me that blue should be my favorite color too... I'd welcome the discussion. If she insists I love blue or I'm a stupid or bad person... or some other personal judgement... then I'd have to ask her to stop. If she tries to make me have only blue items. I'd have to ask her to stop. If she tries to make me eat blue eggs and ham... I'd have to cry plagiarism!

And as to why they do add the token characters...I dunno, I sort of feels the majority of their viewing audience would be way more offended by them persecuting a homosexual or purposefully leaving them out then by adding them.

First, I am in no way asking for persecution. To defame someone based on sexuality would offend me. To purposely leave them out... meaning the storyline clearly calls for a minority of some manner, and yet tptb contrive a way that doesn't include them. That'd bother me.

It also bothers me to have them contrive to ADD someone just to add a minority and be politically correct.

In fact, in thinking of it further, imho, it should actually bother people more to have a kiss... one kiss... that obviously, or at this point seems to be, just to sensationalize the issue and show. Come on... we've all seen it... 2 girls kissing to entice viewers or be sensational. What was that singing duo that had kissed at the end of all their performances? I doubted they were truly lesbian, and to me they were playing on the '2 girls kissing is hot' which is just as disrespectful to me as throwing it in just as a 'token' gay storyline. Does that make sense?

I am a minority. I hate affirmative action and token characters. I don't want to get a job or see someone on tv solely based on race. Isn't that the whole idea behind racism/sexism/ etc... just in a different manifestation?

And I understand... prejudice and stereotypes and other hurtful things happen but still...

Off to class

[Raekon]

Keeping that in mind, let's see whose families on Heroes are non-trad:

Claire's -- she's adopted, and thus unrelated to her parents
Micah's -- his parents were divorced
Monica's -- she was living with her grandmother

Those are the only three I can come up with off the top of my head, though I'm sure there are more. Ergo, single-parent families aren't traditional and families who adopt or foster children aren't traditional either (whatever the heck "traditional" means).

Heroes is just one, huge, nontraditional show.

- Nathan and his wife are divorsed too and they have two kids
- Little Matt were born in a divorsed family
- Noah and Sandra are divorsed now aswell so lyle is also a teenie in a divorsed family
- Elle had only her father
- Simone had only her father
- Maya and Alejandro had only each other (Orphans?)
- Sylar grew up being adopted
- Lydias daugther amanda grew up with her aunt
- Luke were growing up alone with his mom
- Meredith and Flint grew up alone with their father getting abused by him(Flint) till Meredith put an end to the madness
- Nikki grew up in a family as a adopted child in which daily abuses had taken place

I think we have yet to see a functional family in heroes cause till now we had none.
Don't tell me the petrellis are cause:

- Angela had to kill her own Man (Arthur) to save Nathans life.

[Astroman77]

It also bothers me to have them contrive to ADD someone just to add a minority and be politically correct.

In fact, in thinking of it further, imho, it should actually bother people more to have a kiss... one kiss... that obviously, or at this point seems to be, just to sensationalize the issue and show. Come on... we've all seen it... 2 girls kissing to entice viewers or be sensational. What was that singing duo that had kissed at the end of all their performances? I doubted they were truly lesbian, and to me they were playing on the '2 girls kissing is hot' which is just as disrespectful to me as throwing it in just as a 'token' gay storyline. Does that make sense?

I would argue that the writers were looking for a different story for Claire than they have told. Many people on this board think Claire has been in the same whiny rut since the beginning. "Waaaah, I am different. I don't want to be different. Why can't I be normal? Waaaaaaah!" Now they have written her to at least try to accept herself and live the most normal life a person who can regrow limbs can. It's also the first time we've had a storyline take place in college. And like it or not, sexual experimentation is often a part of that. Likewise, pledging a sorority is also a part of that. They aren't the only perspectives of college life but are valid ones. I see the writers as doing nothing more than telling a story they havent told before.

So her new BFF is a lesbian and she kissed Claire. That kiss was at the end of an ep. The next and only ep with p_Claire had several talks about it (in between not trying to be killed). There was no reason, storywise, for another kiss. Especially since Claire is still trying to figure herself out. I don't think the show sensationalized it at all. I would definitely agree that the media did.

[Leek]

Ah... I did not say she had to hide it. I don't mind if she wants to wear blue everywhere. If she wants to buy me a blue present, awesome. If she tries to convince me that blue should be my favorite color too... I'd welcome the discussion. If she insists I love blue or I'm a stupid or bad person... or some other personal judgement... then I'd have to ask her to stop. If she tries to make me have only blue items. I'd have to ask her to stop. If she tries to make me eat blue eggs and ham... I'd have to cry plagiarism!

But when we apply it to this topic, and yes I know the OP was not written by you but I apply your metaphor to Atticus, the offense has come from having to see the color blue displayed. The color blue was displayed in a positive light, or those who love the color blue were, and Atticus concluded that this gives him worry about the negative spin the show could be taking in supporting one side of an argument over another.

In this situation the claim is that the network is forcing these ideals on you. So do you take issue with that as well?

First, I am in no way asking for persecution. To defame someone based on sexuality would offend me. To purposely leave them out... meaning the storyline clearly calls for a minority of some manner, and yet tptb contrive a way that doesn't include them. That'd bother me.

It also bothers me to have them contrive to ADD someone just to add a minority and be politically correct.

In fact, in thinking of it further, imho, it should actually bother people more to have a kiss... one kiss... that obviously, or at this point seems to be, just to sensationalize the issue and show. Come on... we've all seen it... 2 girls kissing to entice viewers or be sensational. What was that singing duo that had kissed at the end of all their performances? I doubted they were truly lesbian, and to me they were playing on the '2 girls kissing is hot' which is just as disrespectful to me as throwing it in just as a 'token' gay storyline. Does that make sense?

But my issue is how are we to say that they did it solely for the token factor? As a college female myself, I can promise you that an issue like this is very very relevant. I don't go to a school with greek life, but my friends do, and they have filled me in quite enough. A lot of people experiment, a lot of people are confused, etc.

Further more, examine Claire's story line! She herself is searching for her identity, is confused, and so having a character like Gretchen come in is an excellent way to illustrate that search for self, while also demonstrating how lonely Claire has really been, how long it has been since she has had a non-super-powered friend.

So what bothers me is how quick everyone is to say the relationship is there solely to be trendy when it carries a lot of weight to the story and characters as well.

The story would be incredibly different with out it.

There was no reason, storywise, for another kiss. Especially since Claire is still trying to figure herself out. I don't think the show sensationalized it at all. I would definitely agree that the media did.

Exactly.

[Synch]

Oh Synch. I think we might need to sit down and have a little talk about reality. When you think super powers are more real then mobsters, serial killers, and two brothers living together in a bachelor pad, it might be time to leave the house a little more often :/

Read what I said. I never implied I thought super powers were more real than the others. I said that, by their very premise, those shows were on my "do not bother watching" list.

By its premise, Heroes takes place in the "real" world- which means a broad stroke that samples from every color, gender, creed, race, or sexual orientation.

[Leek]

Read what I said. I never implied I thought super powers were more real than the others. I said that, by their very premise, those shows were on my "do not bother watching" list.

By its premise, Heroes takes place in the "real" world- which means a broad stroke that samples from every color, gender, creed, race, or sexual orientation.

As you don't watch the shows that is a judgment that can't accurately be had...


But I am confused. So you are deff on the side of being cool with the kiss correct? Because you like the for for the very fact of its diversity.

[Synch]

Do you need to get cancer before you know it's bad? My judgement about Sopranos, 2 1/2 Men, and a rather large variety of other shows is because of their premise. I don't need to watch them to know i want nothing to do with them- any more than I need to contract a disease to know it's bad.

And I'm not "cool" with the kiss, exactly. But I don't have a huge problem with it, because this show has to deal with it eventually. (And the only other ways to deal with the issue would lead NBC to being labeled bigoted or homophobic.)

[TessaBlues]

I don't feel that any show, especially Heroes, is pushing some PC agenda. The show, even at it's worst has reflected the world that it takes place it. In that world there are minorities, same sex couples, interracial couples , divorced parents, children out of wedlock, people having premarital sex and so forth. If that wasn't the world we lived in then it would be correct to say that something is being forced upon you. None of what they have done on this show has that "token" factor to it, at least not to me.

I mean there are still schools out there that have a banned book list. Like Catcher in the Rye is REALLY gunna seal the deal of their child's soul delivered into the hands of Satan.

Yeah because don't you know just thinking about buying that Harry Potter book means you are automatically condemned to hell.

Do you need to get cancer before you know it's bad? My judgement about Sopranos, 2 1/2 Men, and a rather large variety of other shows is because of their premise. I don't need to watch them to know i want nothing to do with them- any more than I need to contract a disease to know it's bad.

No, your right. Some things you don't need to experience personally to know they are bad. However, in some cases there are things that you need to experience before you can flat out say you don't like them. For example, I hate all four Twilight books, but I read all four of those suckers before I made that statement. Just to be sure that I hated them and I'll tell anyone who askes in a heartbeat exactly what I hated about them. Your opinion about something sort of holds less weight if your just making a snap judgement.

[Leek]

Do you need to get cancer before you know it's bad? My judgement about Sopranos, 2 1/2 Men, and a rather large variety of other shows is because of their premise. I don't need to watch them to know i want nothing to do with them- any more than I need to contract a disease to know it's bad.

How do you know cancer is bad? We know cancer is bad because we have all had at least second hand experience with it. We have read literature, watched movies, tivos that episode of Oprah. We have exposed ourselves to the nastiness of it. You can say it is bad and you do not want it because you are educated about it.


You aren't just saying you don't like Dexter. You are saying it is a worthless show. And you say this because..what? You don't like serial killers. So alright, you disagree with a show being about a serial killer. But that does not account for the writing and the story telling, non of which you know anything about. So there for you cannot pass any sort of credible judgment.

No, your right. Some things you don't need to experience personally to know they are bad. However, in some cases there are things that you need to experience before you can flat out say you don't like them. For example, I hate all four Twilight books, but I read all four of those suckers before I made that statement. Just to be sure that I hated them and I'll tell anyone who askes in a heartbeat exactly what I hated about them. Your opinion about something sort of holds less weight if your just making a snap judgement.

Thank you. Sincerely.

I subscribe to the same theory. Like, I will never walk out of a movie, and I rarely don't complete one once I have started even if it is terrible. I feel to judge something as a whole you must experience it. Other wise you sound like an ignorant fool. Because you are robbing yourself of the right to an argument, since you can HAVE no argument.

[bozinka]

It's also the first time we've had a storyline take place in college. And like it or not, sexual experimentation is often a part of that. Likewise, pledging a sorority is also a part of that. They aren't the only perspectives of college life but are valid ones. I see the writers as doing nothing more than telling a story they havent told before.
*snip*
I don't think the show sensationalized it at all. I would definitely agree that the media did.

But my issue is how are we to say that they did it solely for the token factor? As a college female myself, I can promise you that an issue like this is very very relevant.

Further more, examine Claire's story line!

So what bothers me is how quick everyone is to say the relationship is there solely to be trendy when it carries a lot of weight to the story and characters as well.

The story would be incredibly different with out it.

Ok - for the record, and I admit this a tad sheepishly... I have not actually seen the episode in question. That is why I am trying to not make a judgement on this specific kiss. I am merely explaining how I feel about similar situations. If it does indeed further the storyline... then great. I do not wish to sa if I would have a problem with it either way. Heh.

But when I apply your metaphor to Atticus, the offense has come from having to see the color blue displayed. The color blue was displayed in a positive light, or those who love the color blue were, and Atticus concluded that this gives him worry about the negative spin the show could be taking in supporting one side of an argument over another.

In this situation the claim is that the network is forcing these ideals on you. So do you take issue with that as well?

I understand where Atticus is coming from. By that I mean... sometimes it's good to be aware of an issue you might have, in the beginning, instead of letting things slide. So, perhaps he doeesn't really pass judgement on just displaying the color blue, really... but if his boss started saying 'In order to make your coworker happy, we are going to ask that everyone hang a blue flag in their cubicle.' Now, instead of letting the issue be decided for each person, all of the sudden his boss has put the issue front and center. Does that make sense?

I am not going to say whether or not I take issue with it. As I mentioned before, I find it interesting that, when sort of given the choice, networks tend to prefer risking angering those with 'traditional' or conservative values. This is true across the board, for any issue that seems controversial these days, imho. And again, given that the 'traditional' values crowd seems to be a larger demographic, thus worth more advertising dollars, etc... why that continued choice. Just a curiousity. Does no one else find that interesting, from a purely academic standpoint? Heh.

I don't feel that any show, especially Heroes, is pushing some PC agenda. The show, even at it's worst has reflected the world that it takes place it. In that world there are minorities, same sex couples, interracial couples , divorced parents, children out of wedlock, people having premarital sex and so forth. If that wasn't the world we lived in then it would be correct to say that something is being forced upon you. None of what they have done on this show has that "token" factor to it, at least not to me.

Actually I would agree that Heroes started with a very diverse cast and has kept it that way, which I do appreciate. They have not so far seemed to contrive much to achieve that diversity and have let it happen fairly naturally. When I speak of the token factor, it is more in regards to programming in general.

No, your right. Some things you don't need to experience personally to know they are bad. However, in some cases there are things that you need to experience before you can flat out say you don't like them. For example, I hate all four Twilight books, but I read all four of those suckers before I made that statement. Just to be sure that I hated them and I'll tell anyone who askes in a heartbeat exactly what I hated about them. Your opinion about something sort of holds less weight if your just making a snap judgement.

I do disagree here. I don't think an opinion neccessarily holds less weight if you haven't experienced something but know you won't like it or have an opinion on it. (If that is indeed what you mean by making a snap judgement.)

In this particular instance, that goes both ways. One does not have to have a homosexual experience to either know whether or not they support it. Many who do support most definitely have not experienced it, I'd bet. ;-) I would wager that to most that does not make their opnion hold any more or less weight than someone who is homosexual, does it? Just curious.

There are many things in life that I have never experienced and yet have strong opinions on. Have I educated myself and really spent time examining why I believe or feel the way I do? You betcha. I wonder how many people out there just state they have an opinion one way or the other because of the desire to be politically correct or nice or because their parents told them to... To me it's not the amount of experience but the amount of thought a person has put into their beliefs.

[wolfbro]

I'm closing this topic.

I took one look at the opening form letter and arghh.


Edit: This debate is not going anywhere good and it has already gone bad in a very short time.

This post has been edited by wolfbro: Nov 4 2009, 08:23 PM