Gay Superman Gets Universal Horror Nights Bill and Ted Canned

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Gay Superman Gets Universal Horror Nights Bill and Ted Canned

"After becoming gay, Superman's voice and posture changes. His lips purse, his toes point inward, and his wrists become limp," says blogger Jamie Lee Curtis Taete.

Universal Studios Hollywood was, until recently, running a Bill and Ted Halloween Horror Nights show, but that all came to an end when it turned Superman gay by sprinkling him with fairy dust. You can probably guess what happens next, but if not, Vice blogger Jamie Lee Curtis Taete has a handy fact sheet. "His lips purse, his toes point inward, and his wrists become limp," says Taete. "His new voice sounds like a homophobic uncle doing a drunken impression of Richard Simmons, complete with lisps and frequent use of the word 'faaaaaaabulous!'" Universal, after what it describes in a press release as "thoughtful consideration," has cancelled the act.

"This decision falls in line with NBCUniversal's history of including groundbreaking and positive depictions of LGBT people across its brands," says GLAAD Spokesperson Wilson Cruz. The Superman sub-plot starts when Bill and Ted recruit him to help them fight witches in the Land of Oz, but after the fairy dust incident all he wants to do is molest Bill and Ted. Shortly thereafter, while aboard the Starship Enterprise - yes, I know - Superman encounters George Takei, who takes the Man of Steel offstage "to boldly go where no man has gone before," says Taete. That's the last the audience sees of him.

That's not the least of it by any means - Taite's full description's over here - and it's not surprising Universal pulled it. With a bit of luck, it might remember that 'thoughtful consideration' this time next year, when it holds the next stage show.

Source: Guardian

Permalink

image

Wow, that's... that's remarkably offensive. I feel like actual homophobic people would manage to be offended by this.

I'm mostly astounded by how this could have ever happened. Who thought this was a good idea? How many people was this idea run through before it got the final OK? I'm just... Huh.

I'm actually pretty lost here as to how this happened. I mean, for one, Bill and ted for universal horror nights? I love Bill and Ted, and to be honest, I've only seen the features of years past on youtube due to being in the UK, so excuse me if this kind of thing is a more regular feature, but usually even if the end product isn't scary, the source material fits squarely into horror. Bill and ted is a comedy movie. I don't even know why this show is featuring as part of horror nights anyway.

And to the main point, JESUS CHRIST, UNIVERSAL. Who approved this, who thought this was okay? Who hadn't looked outside recently? Because if they had, they would have realised that this kind of stunt just isn't okay anymore. Did they think they could lean on the "it's just a joke" excuse? Because that can sometimes be legitimate, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING IN THEORY, OF A COMPLETELY MADE UP SCENARIO. NOT WHEN YOU ARE INSULTING VERY REAL PEOPLE WITH A VERY FAKE STEREOTYPE.

uuuummm... what? I don't know what i just read, what is this talking about, I'm so confused, someone explain what Superman has to do with Bill and Ted and what's all this about a stage show?

When the Man of Steel was asked how he felt about this transformation, he merely replied: I'm Super, thanks for asking.

Who thought this was a good idea in the first place?

I mean congrats on catching it Universal... then again if it had gone ahead the fallout would have been interesting to watch!

DVS BSTrD:
When the Man of Steel was asked how he felt about this transformation, he merely replied: I'm Super, thanks for asking.


OT: Seriously, uhh.... what? I'm just consistently baffled that these things come to pass, and it still feels like a punch in the gut when I come across something so mind-bogglingly ignorant. Just... WAHT?!!!! Did... just... no one voice any objection?! I just don't understand!

They'll have to roll out their backup show where a Batman fights against Joker, who accidentally falls in to a bucket of fried chicken and emerges fully 'blacked up' before running off to steal Gotham's watermelon supply. There'sno way that could offend! (seriously, sarcasm warning)

It's incredible that this actually happened, then again Bill and Ted found it funny to call people 'fag' as an insult so I guess it fits in well with them.

I guess this is just the people I hang around but there's a profound difference between 'campy' and gay.

So if he was outright declared 'gay' then yeah this is stupid. If not then...well the fairy dust just turned him effeminate.

Either way this whole concept sounds ridiculous.

At least it isn't comic canon.

P.S. Thanks

P.P.S. But seriously, who thought this was a good idea? Even ignoring all the different groups, both pro-and anti-gay, that would be offended by this... it simply isn't funny. These jokes are all too obvious and predictable.

Someone thought this was a good idea. A stage writer came up with this. He received a paycheck for doing so

Mod Edit - Please add spoiler tags for large images

Almost makes sense. To people like that, the idea of "turning gay" is some scary shit.

Conversely, to less stupid people, people like that are some scary shit.

"Horror Show" indeed.

Hold on a sec... Is THE George Takei a real part of this? Can we hear the gay man's opinion please?

you know, it's funny. im trying to get my writing career going by selling a well composed and thought out script. and then i saw this and thought to myself "if the standard bar is that low, i think i need to bring my script back from orbit"

Caffeine_Bombed:
Hold on a sec... Is THE George Takei a real part of this? Can we hear the gay man's opinion please?

No, there was someone dressed as Lieutenant Sulu, because as you know, when an actor comes out as gay, that obviously means that every character they ever played was also gay.

Urgh, lots of people getting offended on behalf of other people. Again.

I dont find it funny, dont get me wrong, but at the same time I dont think it merits such an outcry.

Fasckira:
Urgh, lots of people getting offended on behalf of other people. Again.

I dont find it funny, dont get me wrong, but at the same time I dont think it merits such an outcry.

I was just wondering when satire automatically became bigotry... And seriously, some of the "legitimate" portrayals of LBGT are more offensive than anything I read above. Is this really what we are coming to? Whining about everything any anything? This is almost as stupid as the rodeo clown who got fired for making fun of Obama...

Andrew_C:

Caffeine_Bombed:
Hold on a sec... Is THE George Takei a real part of this? Can we hear the gay man's opinion please?

No, there was someone dressed as Lieutenant Sulu, because as you know, when an actor comes out as gay, that obviously means that every character they ever played was also gay.

Ah I see... Well in that case, fuck this noise.

I'm reminded of this particular event from here in the UK some years back (below). Context can mean a world of difference.
In this case I don't feel it's "heterosexuals being offended on behalf of homosexuals", I just think it's quite an out-dated, cheap form of humour. I'm not offended, I just don't find the "stereotypical gay" act funny in the same way I wouldn't laugh at blackface comedy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1572959/BBC-reverses-decision-to-censor-The-Pogues.html

theApoc:

I was just wondering when satire automatically became bigotry... And seriously, some of the "legitimate" portrayals of LBGT are more offensive than anything I read above. Is this really what we are coming to? Whining about everything any anything? This is almost as stupid as the rodeo clown who got fired for making fun of Obama...

I think you are confusing unfunny, juvenile toilet humour and satire. One is a protected form of free speech in the USA, the other isn't.

I am sincerely hoping this is the start of a career downturn for these talentless juvenile hacks. The sooner people like them and (*gag*) tosh.0 go away the happier I will be.

Yeah, this is a bit problematic.

I suppose if the act somehow used the stereotype to its advantage somehow, like subversion, then it could be funny in the hands of some decent writers.

But if the punchline is simply "Superman is gay," then it's going to offend people because they're the butt of the joke for simply being who they are.

Reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKtGXd_C4EY

I gotta be honest, I don't really get the offense here.

"Modern Family" is considered by most to be an excellent depiction of a gay couple (Mitchell and Cameron), but both of them often act in stereotypically effeminate ways. Same with characters from "Will and Grace", "Glee", and "The New Normal".

Ok yes, it is, at its core, stereotyping, but when stereotyping is very clearly utilized in a joking manner (as it is here) I find it significantly less damning.

Andrew_C:

theApoc:

I was just wondering when satire automatically became bigotry... And seriously, some of the "legitimate" portrayals of LBGT are more offensive than anything I read above. Is this really what we are coming to? Whining about everything any anything? This is almost as stupid as the rodeo clown who got fired for making fun of Obama...

I think you are confusing unfunny, juvenile toilet humour and satire. One is a protected form of free speech in the USA, the other isn't.

Wait, what? Unfunny toilet humor is not protected free speech?

DVS BSTrD:
When the Man of Steel was asked how he felt about this transformation, he merely replied: I'm Super, thanks for asking.

image

OT: I guess the easiest comparison would be if you turned Superman black and he started going on about fried chicken and watermelon or whatever. So yeah, it's pretty easy to see why people wouldn't like this.

The only reason I'm not offended by this is that it was written TO BE offensive. And thats why i think that there isn't a massive outcry against it. Because people understand that the goal of this was the be offensive to be funny. Not that i agree thats the best way to be funny

Doopliss64:

Andrew_C:

theApoc:

I was just wondering when satire automatically became bigotry... And seriously, some of the "legitimate" portrayals of LBGT are more offensive than anything I read above. Is this really what we are coming to? Whining about everything any anything? This is almost as stupid as the rodeo clown who got fired for making fun of Obama...

I think you are confusing unfunny, juvenile toilet humour and satire. One is a protected form of free speech in the USA, the other isn't.

Wait, what? Unfunny toilet humor is not protected free speech?

It is protected under free speech, the guy above is wrong. However,no speech is protected in the private sector. Free speech only means that the government cannot limit your speech, but your employer certainly can. And it doesn't even have to involve work, an employer can fire you if you write racist rants on your own free time as well as if you do it at work. This is where you've ALWAYS been by the way, it hasn't just now come to it. An employer has to make a decision, will this hurt or improve my bottom line, and act accordingly.

Ihateregistering1:
I gotta be honest, I don't really get the offense here.

"Modern Family" is considered by most to be an excellent depiction of a gay couple (Mitchell and Cameron), but both of them often act in stereotypically effeminate ways. Same with characters from "Will and Grace", "Glee", and "The New Normal".

Ok yes, it is, at its core, stereotyping, but when stereotyping is very clearly utilized in a joking manner (as it is here) I find it significantly less damning.

Easy, here are the reasons:

1. First of all, the whole "turning gay" or "turning straight" thing is already offensive. I hope you can see that without me explaining it.

2. Turning gay actually weakens superman. Being gay does not make Mitchell a worse lawyer, or Cameron a worse dad.

3. Cameron and Mitchell are complete and complex characters. Do you think its offensive to show a black person be good at basketball and speak in ebonics? No, but if he has no other characteristics then all he is is a one note cardboard cut out of a human being built up of stereotypes.

4. As someone above mentioned, the whole Takei being gay therefore Sulu is IS offensive. It basically says that gay actors make their characters gay. This has been a huge and complex issue in the acting community, especially in plays. Here is something from a little while back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek_gay_actor_controversy

5. Will and Grace, by the way, was in fact criticized by parts of the gay community for promoting stereotypes, but I think that they were generally good role models and that some of the community (like some in the Jewish community, as I am a Jew) overreact.

6. Lastly, I'd imagine a gay superman as far more a Will kind of gay then a Jack. Would turning gay actually suppress everything else that superman is? Undermining his all being and self? That sounds weird and offensive.

I really don't know what i've just read... but I do get the concept of what's going on.

OT: Not worth an outcry, but it does bring forth my attention which is concerning since others may not 'deal' with it so well. But you know what? The worst that can happen is everyone's careers going down the drain and no writer will ever risk such an event again. But who knows really. I'm just really feeling awkward that this even happened because... lol what is my only true response.

DVS BSTrD:
When the Man of Steel was asked how he felt about this transformation, he merely replied: I'm Super, thanks for asking.

You just made my morning. Also, I hate you.

Ugh... I don't know how to feel about this. I'm not sure if someone legitimately thought that pulling all of these low-brow jokes would force people to laugh from its sheer awkwardness, or if there seriously a writer at Universal that is this inept.

maxben:

Doopliss64:

Andrew_C:

I think you are confusing unfunny, juvenile toilet humour and satire. One is a protected form of free speech in the USA, the other isn't.

Wait, what? Unfunny toilet humor is not protected free speech?

It is protected under free speech, the guy above is wrong. However,no speech is protected in the private sector. Free speech only means that the government cannot limit your speech, but your employer certainly can. And it doesn't even have to involve work, an employer can fire you if you write racist rants on your own free time as well as if you do it at work. This is where you've ALWAYS been by the way, it hasn't just now come to it. An employer has to make a decision, will this hurt or improve my bottom line, and act accordingly.

Ihateregistering1:
I gotta be honest, I don't really get the offense here.

"Modern Family" is considered by most to be an excellent depiction of a gay couple (Mitchell and Cameron), but both of them often act in stereotypically effeminate ways. Same with characters from "Will and Grace", "Glee", and "The New Normal".

Ok yes, it is, at its core, stereotyping, but when stereotyping is very clearly utilized in a joking manner (as it is here) I find it significantly less damning.

Easy, here are the reasons:

1. First of all, the whole "turning gay" or "turning straight" thing is already offensive. I hope you can see that without me explaining it.

2. Turning gay actually weakens superman. Being gay does not make Mitchell a worse lawyer, or Cameron a worse dad.

3. Cameron and Mitchell are complete and complex characters. Do you think its offensive to show a black person be good at basketball and speak in ebonics? No, but if he has no other characteristics then all he is is a one note cardboard cut out of a human being built up of stereotypes.

4. As someone above mentioned, the whole Takei being gay therefore Sulu is IS offensive. It basically says that gay actors make their characters gay. This has been a huge and complex issue in the acting community, especially in plays. Here is something from a little while back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek_gay_actor_controversy

5. Will and Grace, by the way, was in fact criticized by parts of the gay community for promoting stereotypes, but I think that they were generally good role models and that some of the community (like some in the Jewish community, as I am a Jew) overreact.

6. Lastly, I'd imagine a gay superman as far more a Will kind of gay then a Jack. Would turning gay actually suppress everything else that superman is? Undermining his all being and self? That sounds weird and offensive.

1: Considering they turned Superman, a fictional character with fictional powers from a fictional planet, gay by putting fictional fairy dust on him, I think it loses a lot of the "oh well that parallels real beliefs!' idea.

2: No, but doesn't it often depict them as being terrible at sports?

3: Cameron and Mitchell have an entire TV series to become complex characters, this (sounds like) a short skit, one in which they basically ignore any complexities of Superman in favor of quick humor.

4: Sorry, but anytime you have something that's clearly humorous and intended to be a parody, saying "it basically says" sort of loses its meaning.

5: I'll agree with the overacting part.

6: Only if you take seriously something that is very clearly not meant to be taken seriously.

I don't particularly care for this skit because it just sounds like lazy writing and cheap laughs, and there are few laughs that are cheaper than using established stereotypes for comedic purposes, but I just don't find it particularly offensive.

DVS BSTrD:
When the Man of Steel was asked how he felt about this transformation, he merely replied: I'm Super, thanks for asking.

Well done, you were funnier than that entire depiction it seems.

OT: I'm not gay so my thoughts as to weather or not it's offensive are kind of mute but this doesn't seem outrageously bad just cheap, lazy bad.

Universal can afford better than this.

Ihateregistering1:

maxben:

Doopliss64:

Wait, what? Unfunny toilet humor is not protected free speech?

It is protected under free speech, the guy above is wrong. However,no speech is protected in the private sector. Free speech only means that the government cannot limit your speech, but your employer certainly can. And it doesn't even have to involve work, an employer can fire you if you write racist rants on your own free time as well as if you do it at work. This is where you've ALWAYS been by the way, it hasn't just now come to it. An employer has to make a decision, will this hurt or improve my bottom line, and act accordingly.

Ihateregistering1:
I gotta be honest, I don't really get the offense here.

"Modern Family" is considered by most to be an excellent depiction of a gay couple (Mitchell and Cameron), but both of them often act in stereotypically effeminate ways. Same with characters from "Will and Grace", "Glee", and "The New Normal".

Ok yes, it is, at its core, stereotyping, but when stereotyping is very clearly utilized in a joking manner (as it is here) I find it significantly less damning.

Easy, here are the reasons:

1. First of all, the whole "turning gay" or "turning straight" thing is already offensive. I hope you can see that without me explaining it.

2. Turning gay actually weakens superman. Being gay does not make Mitchell a worse lawyer, or Cameron a worse dad.

3. Cameron and Mitchell are complete and complex characters. Do you think its offensive to show a black person be good at basketball and speak in ebonics? No, but if he has no other characteristics then all he is is a one note cardboard cut out of a human being built up of stereotypes.

4. As someone above mentioned, the whole Takei being gay therefore Sulu is IS offensive. It basically says that gay actors make their characters gay. This has been a huge and complex issue in the acting community, especially in plays. Here is something from a little while back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek_gay_actor_controversy

5. Will and Grace, by the way, was in fact criticized by parts of the gay community for promoting stereotypes, but I think that they were generally good role models and that some of the community (like some in the Jewish community, as I am a Jew) overreact.

6. Lastly, I'd imagine a gay superman as far more a Will kind of gay then a Jack. Would turning gay actually suppress everything else that superman is? Undermining his all being and self? That sounds weird and offensive.

1: Considering they turned Superman, a fictional character with fictional powers from a fictional planet, gay by putting fictional fairy dust on him, I think it loses a lot of the "oh well that parallels real beliefs!' idea.

2: No, but doesn't it often depict them as being terrible at sports?

3: Cameron and Mitchell have an entire TV series to become complex characters, this (sounds like) a short skit, one in which they basically ignore any complexities of Superman in favor of quick humor.

4: Sorry, but anytime you have something that's clearly humorous and intended to be a parody, saying "it basically says" sort of loses its meaning.

5: I'll agree with the overacting part.

6: Only if you take seriously something that is very clearly not meant to be taken seriously.

I don't particularly care for this skit because it just sounds like lazy writing and cheap laughs, and there are few laughs that are cheaper than using established stereotypes for comedic purposes, but I just don't find it particularly offensive.

I think its unfair to say "I don't find it offensive therefore it is not offensive", so I assume you don't mean to say that. Comedy can be biting and ridiculous without being offensive, or at least offending a rather small group of affected people. Are you from any minority group? Because I feel like its often hard to explain such thing to people when they're not. It is often time really hard to take yourself out of your own circumstance and the way you see the world because of them.

By the way, Cameron was a football player in high school :)

maxben:

Snip

"I think its unfair to say "I don't find it offensive therefore it is not offensive","

I never said anywhere that "it is not offensive", I only said that I don't find it offensive, and I don't understand the offense people take considering that so much other media has relied on using the "gay men are effeminate and unathletic" stereotype for cheap laughs without angering so many people.

"As someone above mentioned, the whole Takei being gay therefore Sulu is IS offensive"
THAT is declaring something offensive.

"Are you from any minority group? Because I feel like its often hard to explain such thing to people when they're not. It is often time really hard to take yourself out of your own circumstance and the way you see the world because of them."

'Any' minority group? Define minority. If I was black but I lived in Detroit, would I be a minority? If I was gay but lived and worked on Castro street, would I be a minority? If I'm a white and live in the US but I'm Jewish, am I a minority? How about a Hispanic living in El Paso? An Asian living in Chinatown? A Catholic living in the Southeast US? A white Muslim living in Texas?

Ihateregistering1:

maxben:

Snip

"I think its unfair to say "I don't find it offensive therefore it is not offensive","

I never said anywhere that "it is not offensive", I only said that I don't find it offensive, and I don't understand the offense people take considering that so much other media has relied on using the "gay men are effeminate and unathletic" stereotype for cheap laughs without angering so many people.

"As someone above mentioned, the whole Takei being gay therefore Sulu is IS offensive"
THAT is declaring something offensive.

"Are you from any minority group? Because I feel like its often hard to explain such thing to people when they're not. It is often time really hard to take yourself out of your own circumstance and the way you see the world because of them."

'Any' minority group? Define minority. If I was black but I lived in Detroit, would I be a minority? If I was gay but lived and worked on Castro street, would I be a minority? If I'm a white and live in the US but I'm Jewish, am I a minority? How about a Hispanic living in El Paso? An Asian living in Chinatown? A Catholic living in the Southeast US? A white Muslim living in Texas?

First of all, the whole unathletic thing is an archaic stereotype a la black people and watermelon. Even if we are talking about dance, that is athletic. It is based on old assumptions about what men SHOULD spend their time doing, not based on the objective athletic value and the fact that gays were and are excluded from sports by the mainstream (think about recent comments from NFL players regarding playing with an openly gay teammate).

Second, you would know if you were in a minority group because you and those you care about face discrimination and bigotry. My Jewish friend from Charleston South Carolina was told to find Jesus in her heart every week by coworkers. My muslim Saudi roommate in university drank every night because people were constantly talking about how his people are all terrorists. That is where you get the mindset of a minority, and when you hear such stories regularly from others in your group it solidifies the need for a strong community bond.

maxben:

Ihateregistering1:

maxben:

Snip

"I think its unfair to say "I don't find it offensive therefore it is not offensive","

I never said anywhere that "it is not offensive", I only said that I don't find it offensive, and I don't understand the offense people take considering that so much other media has relied on using the "gay men are effeminate and unathletic" stereotype for cheap laughs without angering so many people.

"As someone above mentioned, the whole Takei being gay therefore Sulu is IS offensive"
THAT is declaring something offensive.

"Are you from any minority group? Because I feel like its often hard to explain such thing to people when they're not. It is often time really hard to take yourself out of your own circumstance and the way you see the world because of them."

'Any' minority group? Define minority. If I was black but I lived in Detroit, would I be a minority? If I was gay but lived and worked on Castro street, would I be a minority? If I'm a white and live in the US but I'm Jewish, am I a minority? How about a Hispanic living in El Paso? An Asian living in Chinatown? A Catholic living in the Southeast US? A white Muslim living in Texas?

First of all, the whole unathletic thing is an archaic stereotype a la black people and watermelon. Even if we are talking about dance, that is athletic. It is based on old assumptions about what men SHOULD spend their time doing, not based on the objective athletic value and the fact that gays were and are excluded from sports by the mainstream (think about recent comments from NFL players regarding playing with an openly gay teammate).

Second, you would know if you were in a minority group because you and those you care about face discrimination and bigotry. My Jewish friend from Charleston South Carolina was told to find Jesus in her heart every week by coworkers. My muslim Saudi roommate in university drank every night because people were constantly talking about how his people are all terrorists. That is where you get the mindset of a minority, and when you hear such stories regularly from others in your group it solidifies the need for a strong community bond.

In that case then I have been a minority at multiple points in my life, where I was a minority there and faced bigotry, so, I guess I'm kind of a minority?? My point is how arbitrary the concept is of declaring oneself to be a "minority".

'My muslim Saudi roommate in university drank every night because people were constantly talking about how his people are all terrorists.'
Not to be a jerk, but your roommate is aware that alcohol is strictly off-limits for Muslims, correct?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here