A disturbing trend is sweeping television: Writers are killing off all the gay characters! Every time we make strides (like the hot gay cop in Southland), we see our favorite homos being wiped clean from scripts. Injustices!
The website AfterElton looks at recent gay killings, following the — SPOILER ALERT!! — double gay deaths of Barca and Pietros on Starz’s insanely homoerotic Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Perhaps the only solace we have with those deaths weren’t motivated by their sexuality, but by greed (and lies). So, yay?
The list of gay characters recently killed off includes Big Love‘s Dale Tomasson (the Mormon who couldn’t deal with his homosexuality), as well as Felix on Battlestar Galactica, True Blood‘s coroner, and Torchwood‘s Ianto Jones, lover of John Barrowman’s character (which spawned accusations of homophobia).
But all is not lost when it comes to our fare gays on television. As mentioned above, Soutland‘s John Cooper, played by Michael Cudlitz, is still well and good in the show’s second season on TNT. Then again, he is LAPD, so opportunities to kill him off are high. There’s Glee‘s Kurt, who’s not exactly in a high risk career (unless you consider “high school” to be exactly that). Modern Family‘s Mitchell and Cam don’t seem destined for death. And the only one who’s gonna kick it on Drag Race are RuPaul’s heels.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
But AfterElton‘s list is notable for all the characters being killed off on violent and physiological dramas: Damages, Sleeper Cell, In Treatment, The Sopranos. So, word of advice for actors looking for work: If the show calls for you to play gay, make sure the script breaks with “[LAUGHTER]” more often than not.
Erick
You forgot to include the incredibly hot and badass Sam Adama and his hubby from Caprica in the list of safe characters, he is very important to the story so he should stay put, at least for a while.
Jonah
I can’t understand if this is being presented as scandal, or just disappointing fact.
Ianto’s death was very much NOT homophobia. His death, like the death of many of the other Gay Characters on television is much more the opposite, where the death is meant to tug at the heartstrings of the audience.
If anything the death of a Ianto Jones was an acknowledgement that it is every bit as natural to love a person of the same sex as it is to love someone of another sex. Without that love, Ianto’s death would have meant nothing.
Scott
Kevin and Scotty from Brothers & Sisters have been left off this list as well.
Cam
What about Kevin on Brothers and Sisters? He’s gay, married to Scotty and a main character.
Bill
Seriously, why would we expect them to treat us any differently in the land of make-believe than they treat us in our everyday REAL lives.
Seriously. What’s to understand?
They torture and murder us for being LGTB in the real world. Why should their ‘art’ not reflect that as well???
Hetero is as hetero does.
Scott
Sadly two more gay characters are about to leave our screens.
Kyle and Fish, the first gay couple to have sex on daytime soaps, are being written out of their show, One Life to Live in mid-april.
http://www.tvguidemagazine.com/soaps/one-life-to-live-kos-kish-4337.html
terrwill
The only somewhat realistic Gays on the TVs now as stated above are Scotty and Kevin. And Cam and Mitchell on Modern Family are portrayed in a positive light. The Gay couple on Desparate Housewives are kinda sorta portrayed ok and recently they are atttempting to give up the partyboy lifestyle and adopt a baby. Andrew made a return appearance, however Cherry gets mixed marks on his portrayal of him. He has not exactaly been the good son, mostly in a bitch match with Bree. Then he settled down with the doctor, but as of late he is fcuking Brees delivery boy. Eric on Gossip Girl had a fairly LTR at only 15. And Ryan Murphy stated that Kurt is going to have a serious relationship with a jock type boy when the series resumes after Idol………….Bill in #5 kinda hit it on the head. The straights in red states would prefer not to see the Gays on the TVs in a real life dramatic situation. Because it may make them look at their sons and daughters in a differnt light. Again, its easier to laugh when they see the Gays and the networks are following the ad dollars…….
Ian
@Erick: You got it so right, Sam Adama is a groundbreaking character in that he’s COMPLETELY out, openly married to his husband, is “macho”, and HE’S the one more often than not on this show so far who does some of the killing as a mob hit man.
Kat
@Jonah:
Err, Ianto’s death actually meant nothing. It was totally pointless to begin with and Jack replaced him in the span of 1 min. and 25 secs.
It sucked, really. The waste of a great and complex character for no reason at all.
Kynan
@Kat:
I agree. Apparently according to the person who killed him off (can’t be bothered to name him, just seeing his name makes me upset/feel sick/cringe), he killed Ianto off for ‘seriuz drama’ (bad spelling intended), and because Jack wouldn’t have killed his grandson if Ianto had been there.
I still can’t watch CoE past Day 3, it hurts too much to be honest. Ianto was my favourite character, and the Jack/Ianto relationship really helped me (still does through fanfiction) get through tough times :/
Anyway, I agree with you Kat. His death was pointless, and I hated that the only character in a heterosexual relationship got away unscathed with her husband and pregnancy to boot 🙁
Sorry lol, I HATE Gwen (emphasis on the hate)
toona
@Kynan:
Actually looking purely at Children of Earth, Gwen’s wasn’t the only heterosexual relationship that they focused on intensely. The Frobishers were actively shown as the standard 2 parent, 2 kids, hetero familiy unit, and they all ended up VERY dead at the end (pointlessly so as it turned out)! Also Stephen was mentioned as the product of a broken heterosexual relationship (father had left and remarried). So it wasn’t all happy families for the heterosexuals in that series either!
romeo
I was very ticked about what happened in Sparticus. It’s the rawest, and probably most factual depiction of Rome ever. Of course, it only concentrates on the gladiatorial world, most Romans had regular, ordinary lives just as we do. But the way the two lovers were disposed of just left a bad taste in my mouth. Wondered what was up with that.
Noticed that the lead actor was just diagnosed with cancer. Good luck to him on that. He’s very good in the series. I’ll be interested to see how they handle the great slave revolt that brought Rome to its knees. If the real Spartacus had succeeded, we would be living in a VERY different world now.
romeo
Whoops! misspelled “Spartacus” up top. Sorry, in a hurry.
Jonah
@Kat: How did it mean nothing? And who are you saying he replaced Ianto with? The way I remember it, he left tragically upset and alone.
Don’t think I wasn’t upset over Ianto’s death either. I waited a Month and a Half to finally watch episode five because I was so pissed they killed him.
Kat
@Jonah:
It meant nothing because it didn’t move the plot and had no consequences (Jack would have killed his grandchild with or without Ianto because he didn’t have another option) and RTD said this himself, he actually defended the whole concept of the pointlessness of Ianto’s death.
And knowing RTD, Ianto won’t even be mentioned again.
Maybe you didn’t see the Doctor Who finale but Jack already replaced Ianto with Alonzo (hello new ‘piece of arse’!) and that happened after 1 minute and 25 seconds of ‘grief’.
Jonah
@Kat:
It still meant something that he died. It meant that Torchwood wasn’t perfect. It meant that Jack may have screwed up a little bit. It meant that tragic things happen, it meant that Jack was in pain.
Whats more, I don’t see how the fact that Jack may have moved on or not has anything to do with how significant Ianto’s death was. For so many different aspects of the character of Jack Harkness, his ‘moving on’ too quickly has nothing to do with his respect or love for his late lover.
I actually hadn’t factored in anything to do with what Jack was doing in Dr. Who – I actually only started watching Dr. Who last night. Honestly though, with the lack of attention to detail and continuity of plot devices in that show, even IF Jack went and immediately picked someone up in Dr. Who – I doubt that the timeline from our perspective matches the timeline from the perspective of that charter. (Whats more, he travels THROUGH time, for Christ sakes.)
Kat
@Jonah:
Oh, that’s for sure, Jack screwed up big time. A bit hard to accept given that he is supposed to be the hero, the leader and also to have this great experience re aliens and warfare with the many years he’s been around. They spent two whole seasons telling us that Torchwood was ready… only Torchwood – and Jack – was in no way ready and now it’s no more ;P
No, really. From both a narrative and a production point of view, they had no need to kill ‘the gay character’ off. They chose to do it for no other reason than to replace him with another, similar, character.
What’s that supposed to mean? Because I just don’t see the point. Does it mean that gay characters are interchangeable? They are disposable and replaceable?
Consider that when they filmed the DW finale they were telling the actor who played Alonzo that he was “the new Ianto”… so, what was the need to get rid of the old one? You see, I have a problem to get behind the idea of a complete replacement with a carbon copy.
You’re right about ‘the lack of attention to detail and continuity of plot devices in that show’ and I can see your point about the different timelines from our perspective. Only it’s not the case, first because Jack doesn’t travel through time (he only does that when he’s in the Tardis, Jack doesn’t have his own mean to time travel) and second because there’s a nice little interview with RTD (the Confidential special they do after each DW episode) in which he explains how Jack in the finale scene is mourning the events of Children of Earth, so it’s right after he left, and how he and Alonzo are ‘the perfect couple’.
That means we won’t see Jack grieving, not for his lover nor for his grandson, we won’t see him being effected by the loss, we won’t see any character development. He’ll be back all grin and flirting and shagging the new boytoy: RTD told us to get over it. End of story.
When characters get killed off for no reason and their whole story get belittled like this (they get replaced, they don’t get mourned, they don’t get mentioned again – see Owen and Tosh but with Ianto it would be even worse because Jack was supposed to love him)… what is the point, really?
romeo
Incidentally, Barrowman’s special on homosexuality is finally on BBC America tonight. Apparently, he talks about all the latest scientific research.
Jonah
@Kat:
You’re clearly more familiar with the who-verse than I, and I’ll concede to most of your points here, but still, I hardly thing that Ianto’s death was an act of homophobia, as this article seems to be implying. I mean, do you?
And now, a question: Is Jack and this other guy he’s with now going to show up a lot in DW? You seem to imply such… am I misunderstanding?
Kat
@Jonah:
First, let me apologize to you Jonah because I’ve somehow spoilered the Jack’s scene in the DW finale for you. Sorry.
No, I don’t think Ianto’s death was an act of homophobia to be honest. Or at least if it was it was unintentional on the writers’ part. But while I don’t (won’t) believe the killing off of Ianto had anything to do with him being excessively labelled as ‘the gay one’ in CoE it is also a fact though that gay characters are those who always are treated as expendable in movies and tv series, like this article and also the one on AfterElton point out. It’s undeniable that they’re always minor characters and they’re always those to kill off when drama is needed.
One has to wonder, since the writers and all those involved in the promotion for CoE put a lot of emphasis on the relationship between Jack and Ianto, they even called it a ‘love story’ and specifically asked us to notice the interesting similarities and differences between the two relationships presented in the show – meaning that between Gwen/Rhys and that between Jack/Ianto – well, what should we think then when at the end Gwen and Rhys end up unscathed with a baby and the gay couple is one dead and one broken and was depicted as a non-loving and non-caring relationship throughout the whole 5 episodes?
Anyway, to reply to your question even if it may be another spoiler:
From what I know, Jack won’t be in any new DW episodes, at least that’s what John Barrowman says, as apparently the new DW showrunner, Stephen Moffat, wants to focus on his own characters and doesn’t want to reprise old characters belonging to RTD.
And, as I was telling you in the previous comment, both RTD and John Barrowman are kind of ‘pimping’ the new character of Alonzo as the ‘new Ianto’… Alonzo is played by actor Russell Tovey, and they’re all pretty much saying that they hope he will be a new addition to the team in the next Torchwood series.
So you see, the conclusion is that they killed off Ianto for no reason, really, then went and replaced him with a very similar character. We already met Alonzo Frame in a DW episode and from what we’ve seen I’m afraid he’s nothing but a Ianto’s surrogate.
When asked about Ianto’s death, RTD replied with ‘Get over it.’ while John Barrowman ‘joked’ saying “We’ve got to find Jack a ‘new piece of arse'”…
It’s a bit depressing that this comes from a gay writer like RTD because it really seems to push forward the idea of the ‘sex toy’ when it comes to Jack’s partners, that’s all I have to say.
benlayvey
@romeo: Perhaps Barca’s death will be a MAJOR uniting factor that will spark the revolts. We already see Doctore asking questions and has made it clear the consequences should he find any oddities to Barca’s disappearance. In this manner, we can see what Barca’s death meant to his colleagues and that will be the greater gift, Nes pa?
Jonah
@Kat:
I appreciate your apology but I actually haven’t had anything ruined for me yet. I knew about Jack’s cameo(s) in DW, but didn’t know who it was or whatnot.
So then, there is going to be more Torchwood? o.0
It seemed pretty well and done to me, and then there is that roumor of an americanized version…
Kat
@Jonah:
Thanks, I was feeling guilty. I’d hate to think I’ve ruined it for you.
Apparently there’s going to be a new series, or at least that’s what they keep saying. No official news from the BBC, though. And then there’s the ‘confirmed’ rumour about the American version on Fox…
What to say, I completely agree with you that CoE was pretty final. I can’t think of a way they can go on from there: Torchwood is destroyed, there’s no team and Gwen is a mum and she should think about her child first which means no Torchwood since they’ve made it crystal clear that ‘everybody dies young in TW’. It would be totally irresponsible on her part to stick around.
Also I’m afraid that there’s no way they can bring Jack back and make him behave like nothing happened. Can you imagine it, Jack coming back to… what? Gwen? While dragging his new boyfriend along? And I think they soiled Jack’s character – I mean, he kills children, he caused the death of his lover… – I may be wrong but the way I see it they can’t pretend that nothing happened by sweeping Ianto and Stephen under the carpet, even if I’m certain that is exactly what they’ll do.
romeo
@ Benlayvey #21: You make an interesting point, and I hope it’s the case, but I’m not holding my breath. The dynamic between the two lovers and their interaction with the other gladiators was fascinating in that it really managed to get outside the two thousand years of homophobia that everything is usually filtered through in most media. I had high hopes for that relationship.
I am an avid watcher of the show. However, I think the violence, though no doubt accurate, is excessive in the presentation. Because the show concentrates on the gladiatorial world, it tends to skew the representation of Rome. It wasn’t non-stop blood and gore and sexual exploitation. There was more to Rome and I wish the show, however commendably frank and realistic, could give a wider sense of the complexity and sociological vastness of the Roman world.
romeo
There could be a timewarp that restores Torchwood, with everyone and everything intact. Just musing.
benlayvey
@romeo: “I had high hopes for that relationship.” High hopes as in what? Get married and have a family? The ancient laws will make that a little difficult.
romeo
@ Ben #26: How so? In Rome, the marriage laws only applied to the aristocratic patrician families, and even there, beards were a totally accepted tradition for gay men. As the Romans themselves laughed, “the laws were made to be broken.” As for slaves and freedmen, along with ordinary citizens, they were free to do as they pleased, including having any sort of family arrangement they wanted. Incidentally, slavery in Rome was a lot more complicated thing than it appears to be in the series. You’re not confusing the Romans with the Hebrews are you?
Incidentally, the period in Spartacus was during the republic, not the later era of the emperors. Augustus tried to actually enforce the marriage laws on the aristocracy, but met with little success. One of his big complaints was all the “bachelors” in Rome. LOL Some nerve considering his own history. Then as now, Rome occasionally had its reformers, and then as now they always failed.
romeo
Additionally, “marriage” was looked upon differently in Rome. There wasn’t the hypocrisy about sexual morality and attempts at mind control in matters of sex that we have now. Roman marriage was about propagation and making sure the ruling families kept on ruling. And for the aristrocracy, for whom the laws about marriage applied (loosely), it is well documented that a surrogate male could discreetly do the deed for a gay patrician. For the Roman aristocracy, it was just the appearances that mattered. But still, there were lots of men who never married, and lots of straight men who married and kept mistresses, and lots of straight couples who married for real love. Not so different than today.
benlayvey
@romeo: I only wanted to know what your hopes are for these men. Was there any future for such relationships in the Republic’s social structure? I do not dispute the lax nature of laws that governed ancient marriage and the societal opinion concerning homosexuality but I merely assume it would have been difficult for two people of same gender to marry and be recognized by the state. Since “roman marriage was about propagation”, same sex marriage would not have been allowed not to mention the early Republic’s “Lex Scantinia” laws that regulated pederastic relations among Roman men.
The only future I see for them is to leave happily together as “friends” in a coastal villa with lots of slaves; beautiful eastern boys perhaps. While the prospect of a public/political life is dim, Barca could attempt it and is likely to be successful but will accrue scandals for not marrying or having a “family” as he climbs higher. Pietros on the other hand in his role as the penetrated will allot him a considerable degree of difficulty.
romeo
Disagree with you, Ben. As an ex-slave a “political” life would have been completely out of the question during the republic. And there would have been a limit as to how high they could rise in the social structure of Rome. But bear in mind that even aristocrats chafed under the social rules that really only applied to them. MANY aristocrats went so far as to have their names stricken from the patrician record so they could live the freer, less encumbered life they ordinary Romans were privy to. Aristocrats faced enormous responsibilities. Rome was a lot more fun if you were NOT in the power elite, provided you had the money.
True, an official marriage would not have been possible. But many working class Romans didn’t bother with marriage either, they just cohabitated. Actually, the two of them could have lived together and pursued just about any commercial enterprise they wanted to, which is likely. Barca could have continued in the arena for sure. Many gladiators were freedmen. Also, Rome had a vast entertainment complex. With their status, there would have been no social disapproval to deal with, and they could have lived quite happily.
romeo
And again, that idea of being “the penetrated” was something that was of concern mainly to the patrician class. But plenty of them were “the penetrated.” LOL As elsewhere, you could pick and choose your friends in the Roman world, and hang out with like-minded friends. As for marriage, I don’t think, given that it was unnecessary for them anyway, that it would even have occurred to them. Not sure about the republic, but I know that marriages between men did occur, under one or another aspect of the gods, remember, Zeus was bi. Even some emperors infamously married their boyfriends. Elegobolus as I recall. And I think Nero pissed off the Praetorian Guard by doing it PUBLICLY. LOL Even the upper classes in Rome were always acting up.
romeo
Elegobulus married his horse trainer as I recall. He was in full drag at the ceremony and had his title changed to “empress.” LMAO He was deposed, but it wasn’t because of the drag and the boyfriend. It was because he didn’t kill enough of his competitors when he had the chance. Later Rome was like that. You elected yourself by the sword.
Rome’s history is sooooo complex, as were its attitudes, conventions and norms. Suffice it to say Barca and Pietros could have been quite happy if they hadn’t gotten the shaft from the show’s producers. They probably could have gone back to Barca’s hometown of Carthage.
benlayvey
@romeo:
“Disagree with you, Ben. As an ex-slave a “political” life would have been completely out of the question during the republic.”
Are we sure Barca couldn’t buy his way into the corridors of power with all its loopholes? Freedmen have been known to do so. Gnaeus Flavius’ election to the aedileship in 304 BC prompted a voter reform initiative from the furious Patrician quarter. Emperor Claudius notoriously allowed Freedmen to run the Empire. He could achieve local importance in his native Carthage if he bribed the correct people nes pa?
Plus the Elagabulus and Nero cases were isolated ones. These were men who were merely testing the limits of their power and found it to have none by these acts, a scenario that saw the Senate and the Praetorian affright which ultimately did them in. The Gods are irrelevant here, Romans projected their ideals/wishful thinking upon the Gods. Jupiter married Juno–his sister–we don’t see Romans doing the same with their sisters as well. Any attempts at same sex marriage you might have heard of might have been occasioned simply by a jest. Still, I think Romans had a far better societal structure/institution that can encourage successful gay family life than ours today without prejudice and MUCH difficulty. Agreed?
romeo
Agreed.
The Roman world is such an interesting topic. All my reference books are in storage right now, so I’m having to dredge up stuff from memory, and my mind is sort of like getting lost in “Warehouse 13.” LOL