methodwriter85 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Ryder was there and came in with Unique and Dreadlocks dude. Melissa couldn't make it, apparently. Yeah, I thought I saw Dreadlocks guy sans his dreadlocks. His eyes are still pretty damn distinctive. Link to comment
camussie March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Those 3 came in together because they were the 3 winners if the glee project. Link to comment
phoenixrising March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 One thing I did actually like about Tina/Mike not happening was that during I Lived when Mike and Matt danced together, I was able to pretend they were together (and you can't tell me otherwise.) 2 Link to comment
KaveDweller March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 As Kurt and Blaine are both males, whose egg can that possibly be? People can use anonymous egg donors just like they can use anonymous sperm donors. That doesn't make the writing any better, but it is an option. 1 Link to comment
caracas1914 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 I seem to recall something about Rachel not knowing who her biological Dad was, which was sort of a joke because one of her Dads was black. Link to comment
Florinaldo March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) We are kind of assuming that Kurt and Blaine would have played the equivalent of Martha and George in an LGBTQ production of Virginia Woolf (at Lincoln Center, no less!) but the other couple in the play would be much closer to them in terms of age and a better fit. For all we know, the older couple may be a lesbian or transgender one; that would make it truly LGBTQ. Whichever roles it was it the mind of the writers, it showed that the two guys were as highly successful professionally (both as performers, contrary to some of our speculation) as in their personal lives as a couple, predictably perhaps from everything the show has presented over the seasons but still credibly depicted. The only sticking point was Rachel being the surrogate; even if the egg was not hers, such arrangements can get complicated because the "mother" gets attached to the child in some cases. Rachel could get overbearing with her child-rearing advice. Let's hope that she and Jesse starting their "little co-production of our own" as he put it will keep her well occupied, although that might not happen very quickly in real life because someone like her could want to return to the stage, for a while at least. As for the second episode-no way would a mid 20s Rachel put her life on hold for almost a year for anyone let alone to be a surrogate mother! Can a musical about Jane Austen be so physically taxing that she can't appear in it for a number of months into her pregnancy? Besides, actresses do take maternilty leave and then return to ongoing productions, so it would not be that long of an absence. She'd have to get back in shape but that is something actors and actresses do all the time. True, but they had more characters this time. I'm not sure how it would have worked, and when certain people would have fit in. Yeah, it was kind of messy...but it was really fun, and worked for me. It worked for me also; the way "I Lived" was staged conveyed perfectly the fun and pleasure of performing, a basic premise of the characters' motivations over the seasons; fun can be messy at times. Mercedes' farewell was also a well-staged number. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed all the numbers in the second hour, something I can't say about that many episodes of the show. Too bad they could not find the time to tell us what happens to Figgins and Sheldon (I guess that if a performing arts high school is possible, one with a very heavy sports curriculum can coexist to maintain balance in the district, and provide Beiste with a job). I agree that the main achievement of Glee was that it existed at all (and allowed us to get to know a very good cast, through its reconfigurations over the years). I can only imagine what good having such a queer-positive show around would have done when I was in high school. And that was only about 15 years ago; things certainly have come a long way. Edited March 23, 2015 by Florinaldo Link to comment
caracas1914 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Can a musical about Jane Austen be so physically taxing that she can't appear in it for a number of months into her pregnancy? I thinking hiking up to Pemberly on stage quite be quite strenuous. 3 Link to comment
ComfySweater March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 I thinking hiking up to Pemberly on stage quite be quite strenuous. Upstage isn't that hard no matter what backdrop they roll past you. 1 Link to comment
caracas1914 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Upstage isn't that hard no matter what backdrop they roll past you. On a treadmill it can be, believe me. Link to comment
fakeempress March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) I'm trying to imagine a pregnant Rachel frolicking on stage as famous spinster Jane Austen. The Jane Austen Society will be all in uproar! Edited March 23, 2015 by fakeempress Link to comment
ComfySweater March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 On a treadmill it can be, believe me. I'll bow to your experience on that one. That sounds like an OK Go video nightmare. Link to comment
SadieT March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) Probably would have made more sense for Rachel to have donated an egg, but Ryan needed that visual of her being pregnant. Yeah I don't see the point of Rachel being the surrogate but not supplying the egg so I'm assuming she's not only lending out her womb but also her egg. I would assume the whole point of asking her specifically would be because Kurt and Blaine wanted their baby's biological mother to be someone they know and love, otherwise they could have easily used a donor egg and paid a surrogate. Which Rachel knows given she saw how messed both Quinn and Shelby got as a result of doing the same thing. I can't see Rachel putting herself through that. Exactly. She saw or experienced it from all angles and knows how difficult it was for everyone involved, including herself as the child in question, so I don't see her being a surrogate as a selfless full circle moment, I think it's idiotic and ridiculous and something she would never do in a million years. And Rachel saying that she did it because "they’ve given up so much of their lives to make me happy, the least I could do was give them 9 months of mine"... what the hell is that about? First, Kurt and Blaine never gave up anything for Rachel. They were very supportive friends and were there for her through everything but we never saw them sacrifice their own happiness for hers. Second of all, let's say that in the 5 years they skipped ahead they did make some sacrifices for Rachel, what could they have possibly "given up" that would be on par with a baby and the physical and emotional toil it would take on Rachel, not to mention the damage it could possibly do to her career? Unless Rachel is currently housing one of Kurt's kidneys and part of Blaine's liver, I can't see anything they could have "given up" that would compel her to make such a huge life altering sacrifice. So stupid all around. Edited March 23, 2015 by SadieT 9 Link to comment
dmmetler March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Overall, not horrible. I would have changed a few things, mostly in the "Dreams come true". The biggest is that the time jump was too small. It would have been much more viable had it been at least 10 years. Other things. in the Harvey Milk scene, have one of the little kids, maybe the one next to Blaine on the Piano, give one of the guys a hug and say "Hi, dad!". If Rachel is pregnant for the Tony Awards, have it be her child with Jesse. Make "Don't Stop Believin'" the final song, showing one of the earlier clips, maybe from the first sectionals, and then segueing into the entire cast in a reprise. Do pop-overs for other characters who had long-time runs as to "What are they doing now", including Britney/Santana, Quinn, Puck, Figgins, Bieste, etc. And have one of those pop overs be Sam next to a young woman with a statement "Sam still volunteers with the New Directions, but is pursuing his degree in X at Lima University. The new vocal director at McKinley is Beth, (adoptive daughter of Shelby, daughter of Puck and Quinn), who got her music education and vocal performance degrees at NYU. I can dream.... But, overall, it felt like a fitting series finale. Despite the mess this show became, I'm going to miss these kids. 2 Link to comment
LydiaMoon1 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) - But really, I hate the meta middle finger from RIB here: their justification for Rachel getting all the solos is that “she needed it more”. It's pathetic alright, but not the way they meant it in the episode. And how they had Mercedes' mom(?) say that it only made the WOC stronger to be neglected and considered less than the white girl by their teacher (who should know better). Fuck that. Yeah, they can GTFOH with that mess. So it was alright if Mercedes cried as long as Rachel didn't have to? Well, that was mighty white of you, Glee. BTW, that wasn't Mercedes' mother. That random with the idiotic advice was listed in the credits as "chuch goer". They never cared about Mercedes' character enough to give her a mom. Glee also never cared about Tina. I didn’t hear any mention of where Tina is career-wise, and she started and ended the finale pushing Artie in his wheelchair. Wow, talk about your happy ending! RME. And while RIB are dislocating their own shoulders patting themselves on the back for being so “groundbreaking” on LBGTQ issues, they took the completely chickensh*t, cop-out route on Samcedes. Was I supposed to find it romantic that Sam is still blowing up Mercedes’ phone five years from now while he's stuck in a series of increasingly unfulfilling, disposable relationships? Umm, ‘cause I don’t. It just makes me feel sad for Sam. As for Mercedes, I don’t know if she should feel flattered or file a restraining order, because that situation could go either way. I can’t believe someone actually gave money to these racially-insensitive phucks to do anything concerning the hyper-charged OJ trial in their new show. Yeah, that’s not going to end well. Edited March 23, 2015 by LydiaMoon1 2 Link to comment
AndySmith March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 I didn’t hear any mention of where Tina is career-wise She was starring in Artie's movie. Link to comment
jaytee1812 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 And while RIB are dislocating their own shoulders patting themselves on the back for being so “groundbreaking” on LBGTQ issues, . This might be my favourite description of RIB ever. She was starring in Artie's movie. So she's Artie fuck toy on and off screen. What a great ending. Link to comment
LydiaMoon1 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) Thank you AndySmith. I missed that line. It went by so quickly. I won’t miss the Glee that was presented to me in its final hour, and I will never watch another Ryan Murphy/Brad Falchuk show again. Same here. Edited March 23, 2015 by LydiaMoon1 Link to comment
Ceeg March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 She was starring in Artie's movie. I thought they said she wrote Artie's movie. Link to comment
jaytee1812 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 I thought they said she wrote Artie's movie. And couldn't find a good director? Link to comment
AndySmith March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) Well, whatever, she's in the movie business. Hey, it's more a resoultion than what we got for Quinn, Santana, and Brittney. Edited March 23, 2015 by AndySmith Link to comment
Florinaldo March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Upstage isn't that hard no matter what backdrop they roll past you. Indeed. I know pregnant women who worked until just a few weeks before the birth of the child which meant walking around the workplace and even climbing a few stairs. As long as Rachel manages her energy well and rests sufficiently, there is no reason to believe she can't be in that musical for a good part of the run. Unless they go all Cirque du Soleil in the staging, it would probably not be too exhausting to sing as you walk around a set replicating the gardens of Pemberley. Of course, showing Austen (or one of her pre-marriage characters) pregnant up to her ears would probably send shivers down the spine of her more orthodox fans. But then again, wouldn't these people consider such a musical as a sacrilege anyway? "Dreams Come True" sort of reconciled me with RIB's work, despite the overall uselessness of "2009" and some recent disappointment. I will be watching with interest for their next projects, althought they certainly have not won me back completely yet; but I am open to perhaps be convinced by future work. Link to comment
caracas1914 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Looking at most of the media sites/critical analysis it's almost unanimous that they preferred "2009" to the last hour "Dreams come True". Not hard to see, it tried to capture the spirit of the Original Glee premise as opposed to an hour of wish fulfillment that was the last hour finale. Link to comment
fakeempress March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 I know pregnant women who worked until just a few weeks before the birth of the child which meant walking around the workplace and even climbing a few stairs. As long as Rachel manages her energy well and rests sufficiently, there is no reason to believe she can't be in that musical for a good part of the run. I continue to laugh at the image of heavily pregnant Rachel singing, and dancing, and playing Jane Austen of all people, for 2.5 hours every night, which according to some menfolk who fancy themselves experts in pregnancy is equivalent to just "climbing a few stairs". 7 Link to comment
ComfySweater March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 They'd need to climb those stairs for several hours and then have somebody slam them into those stairs a few times. Then, only after that, make them spit out a watermelon and after that have them express something people try to tell you to eat as some kind of post-birth snack. Just fry it up with garlic and noodles. Go ahead, google that insanity. I'm sure I'll get hate from both sides for this, but it all seemed completely nuts any time anybody tried to explain it to me. Link to comment
jaytee1812 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Just curious, but do performers on Broadway get paid maternity leave? Also I know it done in the west end in London that a role will be recast for several months if an actress goes off on maternity leave. But they have no choice it's a legal right. Link to comment
Florinaldo March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) I continue to laugh at the image of heavily pregnant Rachel singing, and dancing, and playing Jane Austen of all people, for 2.5 hours every night, which according to some menfolk who fancy themselves experts in pregnancy is equivalent to just "climbing a few stairs". Dancing? C'mon, this is Rachel we are talking about, let's be serious. Anyway, as long as the choreography is minimal and not extravagant, I do not think the physical effort is beyond the ability of many pregnant singers to carry it off for a while at least. Or perphaps our womenfolk over here are more resilient than in your experience. We had a pregnant employee who kept restocking the supplies closet (in the basement) despite the effort required; I gather from your reaction that Austen purists would probably consider that too extreme in her "delicate" condition. Other women do need a change of duties for the duration of the pregnancy though. As with most everything, carrying a child seems to be an experience that varies from one individual to another. That's just from observation, with no claim of special expertise. Rachel could be made of stuff stern enough to endure a evening's performance. Oh, and there is also that little thing you may not know about: the intermission, which allows for a brief break in the evening. Not to mention understudies. it tried to capture the spirit of the Original Glee premise And failed. Just curious, but do performers on Broadway get paid maternity leave? Also I know it done in the west end in London that a role will be recast for several months if an actress goes off on maternity leave. But they have no choice it's a legal right. The Actor's Equity Production Contract for Broadway provides for unpaid maternity leave and a right to return to their role (if a doctor certifies they are capable of doing so); it's equated to disability leave in the contract. I am not sure if performers with some clout (in lead or featured roles for example) can negotiate provisions that go beyond that. Edited March 23, 2015 by Florinaldo Link to comment
Kromm March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) I thought they said she wrote Artie's movie. No, I don't think they did. The phrasing from Tina to Mercedes was something like "the role Artie offered to you", which seems to me in any interpretation to mean acting. Or maybe it was "the movie Artie offered to you", but even that wouldn't imply writing, since Artie isn't some studio executive handing out assignments. The point is that it was clearly established it was Artie's film, and the only way he'd really have that level of ownership is if he was some combo writer/director, otherwise they would have spoken of it in terms of it being a collaboration and not Artie "offering" anything. Edited March 23, 2015 by Kromm Link to comment
jaytee1812 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 I've watched I Lived a few dozen times now, I really like it. I like watching for little things, like Amber has the most amazing shoes on, and Jacob hasn't done up most of the buttons on his shirt! As has been said before this show likes to pat itself on the back for diversity so I wondered how diverse it actually was. So just going by the characters in I Lived, there were forty people there. So: 9 people of colour* (Tina, Mike, Matt, Jake, Mercedes, Santana, Unique, Jane, Figgins) 9 people who are LGBT (Kurt, Blaine, Brittany, Santana, Karofsky, Spencer, Spencer's boyfriend, Sheldon, and Unique) 2 people with disabilities** (Becky, Artie) Of course at least four of the LGBT people are played by straight people, both trans characters by cis people and one of those with disabilities played by an able bodied actor so slightly less diverse when you consider that. *I couldn't remember whether Sugar was suppose to be white or biracial. ** I wasn't sure whether to include Emma here or not. Link to comment
Kromm March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 I'd probably include Emma, since while not physical her condition was posed as fairly debilitating, and also something treatment was only able to curb somewhat rather than eliminate. But there may be some official definition by some official organization that counters that. Link to comment
Cranberry March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Rachel could be made of stuff stern enough to endure a evening's performance. Oh, and there is also that little thing you may not know about: the intermission, which allows for a brief break in the evening. Not to mention understudies. I'm pretty sure everyone here knows what an intermission is. I also don't think that one has to be a Jane Austen purist to balk at her being played by a pregnant lady. 4 Link to comment
Ceeg March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 To be honest, it makes me uncomfortable reading men making comments about what a pregnant woman can or can't do, or should or shouldn't feel comfortable with during a pregnancy. 8 Link to comment
Florinaldo March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) To be honest, it makes me uncomfortable reading men making comments about what a pregnant woman can or can't do, or should or shouldn't feel comfortable with during a pregnancy. The logical conclusion of such an exclusionary outlook could be that men should not even look at pregnant women and form conclusions from their different individual behaviours (without being as prescriptive as you claim). Edited March 23, 2015 by Florinaldo 1 Link to comment
AndySmith March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) both trans characters by cis people Well, considering how Coach Bestie wasn't conceived as a transgender character initially, I'm not sure what they could have done about that. Except maybe have had one of the new kids have that storyline assigned to them instead, and have hired a transgendered actor... As for Unique, wasn't the actor playing her from the Glee Project? I wonder if the idea for unique came from him or from the writers. I think Alex Newell is non-transgendered? Edited March 23, 2015 by AndySmith 1 Link to comment
Hana Chan March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Whether or not Rachel would be physically able to carry on performing late into her pregnancy is only part of the equation. It's how it would work with the show she was contracted for. Because there is only so long it could be hidden under creative costuming. It's not like a television show where they can spend the last few months filming her from the waist up. At some point, it's just not going to be possible to hide the pregnancy and it may cause a problem with the staging of the show. And that's all hinging on Rachel being in fantastic health and fully able to perform and not end up suffering some unforeseen health complications. The timing, as others have pointed out, is especially problematic. The Tony Awards are in early June and submissions for the nominations have to be made by March 31 (per the website). That means that for Rachel to be approximately 8 months along at the time of the awards that she would have had to have gotten pregnant right at the time she was doing rehearsals. It's just not reasonable to think that however much she wanted to help Kurt and Blaine have a child that she would jeopardize her ability to do the contracted run of her show. 2 Link to comment
fakeempress March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 I'm pretty sure everyone here knows what an intermission is. I also don't think that one has to be a Jane Austen purist to balk at her being played by a pregnant lady. I already balked enough for my lifetime at her being portrayed by non-pregnant AnnE Hathaway! Link to comment
jaytee1812 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Well, considering how Coach Bestie wasn't conceived as a transgender character initially, I'm not sure what they could have done about that. Except maybe have had one of the new kids have that storyline assigned to them instead, and have hired a transgendered actor... They could've not done the storyline, which was badly conceived Emmy bait from the start. Link to comment
Myrna123 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 The logical conclusion of such an exclusionary outlook could be that men should not even look at pregnant women and form conclusions from their different individual behaviours (without being as prescriptive as you claim). Oh the oppression of the poor menfolk! First we suggest that they might not actually know what it feels like to be pregnant, the next thing we're poking out their eyes for daring to look at a pregnant woman. Also, Hitler! 8 Link to comment
AndySmith March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 They could've not done the storyline, which was badly conceived Emmy bait from the start. True. Link to comment
fakeempress March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) Well, considering how Coach Bestie wasn't conceived as a transgender character initially, I'm not sure what they could have done about that. Except maybe have had one of the new kids have that storyline assigned to them instead, and have hired a transgendered actor... As for Unique, wasn't the actor playing her from the Glee Project? I wonder if the idea for unique came from him or from the writers. I think Alex Newell is non-transgendered? I think it was from how Ryan saw him during the Glee Project. According to this: "Alex wowed Ryan Murphy when he dressed in drag during a Last Chance performance on The Glee Project, which became just one of the traits incorporated into Wade/Unique. Personally, Alex says, "I feel the confidence that Unique has in myself because I thrive off of that. I've been grooming myself to not let anything get to me so that aspect of confidence is part of me." How similar is Alex to his on-screen persona? "I think the timidness that I have sometimes when I'm in a new situation is there when I play Wade, when you're in a new surrounding and you don't know anyone and you don't talk much. I see that awkwardness and that timidness." Edited March 23, 2015 by fakeempress Link to comment
Glorfindel March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) I'm a professional singer (or used to be: I'm mostly a voice coach now). I got pregnant in my last year at the conservatory. My exam (solo concert) was to take place when I was 4 months pregnant, so I thought it wouldn't be a problem. But it was: I threw up every morning and my abdomen muscles started to weaken to prepare for the baby growing inside. My physical condition had been very good up till that moment (I did musical theatre, so there was dancing and fencing too), but because of the sickness and hormones caused by my pregnancy by the time I was 3 months pregnant I couldn't sing (professionally) anymore, as my voice started to wobble and my breath control was not as it used to be. Getting even sicker from the singing itself because my abdomen muscles were constantly pushing on the womb and baby (and in the 2nd half of my pregnancy the baby started kicking whenever I sang) didn't help either. I had to postpone my exam and graduation for a year. People don't realize how physically hard singing and performing can be, and how much body control it takes. And I do believe many men have no idea what a pregnancy does to a woman's body, not just the bump you can see on the outside and the logical physical discomfort of that extra weight, but everything on the inside too: hormones, food digestion, blood pressure, muscle tissue stretching, etc. Now I know that there are pregnant singers who don't have this experience and who fortunately are able to sing well into their last months of pregnancy. But when you're the leading star of a musical on Broadway you have to be in very good shape to pull that off night after night, and sitting on a stool all night because of swollen ankles isn't an option then. Would Rachel really quit her starring role for at least half a year (if she was lucky) up to a year when her career just took off? And yes, there's also the fact that a pregnant Jane Austen would not be too appreciated by the audience, lol. Edited March 23, 2015 by Glorfindel 7 Link to comment
fakeempress March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) And yes, there's also the fact that a pregnant Jane Austen would not be too appreciated by the audience, lol. Only way I see it is if the musical was called "Jane Austen and Zombies" lol. Edited March 23, 2015 by fakeempress Link to comment
Cranberry March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 I don't know if any of you watch Nashville (I enjoy it, despite not really being a country music fan; all of the actors are talented singers and the original songs are great), but one of the actresses got pregnant and they wrote it into the show. During one episode, the heavily pregnant character was determined to finish recording her album, but every time she tried she just couldn't manage it due to the type of issues Glorfindel discussed above. I thought that was nicely realistic. 3 Link to comment
Ceeg March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Only way I see it is if the musical was called "Jane Austen and Zombies" lol. That reminds of that funny exchange between Rachel and Santana in Frenemies about "zombie Fanny" and "ghost Fanny". 3 Link to comment
Snow Apple March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 (edited) I was watching the scene with Kurt's time capsule locker again and thought how ridiculous that was. What school would let a former student take up permanent real estate? Then I remembered Will is now the principal so of course he would allow one of "his" glee kids build a shrine, especially since Finn's (RIP) picture is front and center. Edited March 23, 2015 by Snow Apple Link to comment
ancslove March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Glee has straight actors play gay characters but it also has a lot of gay actors playing straight characters. Jane Lynch, Jonathan Groff, Neil Patrick Harris. I don't think sexuality is like disability or race - actors' sexuality shouldn't affect the characters they play. Glee has never shied from casting LGB actors. 5 Link to comment
phoenixrising March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Glee has straight actors play gay characters but it also has a lot of gay actors playing straight characters. Jane Lynch, Jonathan Groff, Neil Patrick Harris. I don't think sexuality is like disability or race - actors' sexuality shouldn't affect the characters they play. Glee has never shied from casting LGB actors. It sadly does tend to outside of Glee though. I was listening a podcast with Rider Strong (Shawn of Boy Meets World) and he was talking about there's a lot of publicly closeted actors (even if Hollywood knows) so they can still get the leading man roles. And I think I heard Matt Bomer lost out on Superman because he's gay. It'll be interesting to me to see if Chris can break past that boundary, especially since he's closely associated with one of the most well-known gay characters. Link to comment
ancslove March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Oh I know there's still a strong, disappointing trend, I'm just saying this is one area where Glee has always done well. To say that the show has 9 LGBT characters and only 4 are played by LGBT (out) actors, hides the fact that the show has far more than 4 LGBT actors on its roster. Murphy, for all his numerous faults, consistently cast queer actors in every season and every type of part. 2 Link to comment
jaytee1812 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Oh I know there's still a strong, disappointing trend, I'm just saying this is one area where Glee has always done well. To say that the show has 9 LGBT characters and only 4 are played by LGBT (out) actors, hides the fact that the show has far more than 4 LGBT actors on its roster. Murphy, for all his numerous faults, consistently cast queer actors in every season and every type of part. He didn't cast gay men as any of his straight white hero boys. In fact apart from Jesse St James he didn't do it in the choir room at all. A few of guest stars, one regular, and one semi-regular does not equal consistently. 1 Link to comment
Ceeg March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 He didn't cast gay men as any of his straight white hero boys. Just because an actor hasn't "come out of the closet" doesn't mean they're straight FWIW. 2 Link to comment
jaytee1812 March 23, 2015 Share March 23, 2015 Just because an actor hasn't "come out of the closet" doesn't mean they're straight FWIW. Fair point. He didn't cast any openly gay actor as any of his straight white hero boys. Link to comment
Recommended Posts