Heroes Producer Speaks Out on Axing of Gay Character Zach
Last December, after a series of marketing efforts that appeared to hype Zach (played by Thomas Dekker), one of the characters on the hit show Heroes, as gay, NBC suddenly appeared to pull the plug on it.
Now, Heroes executive producer Bryan Fuller tells website popgurls the story behind the controversy and reveals that Dekker's manager said she would pull him from the show because he was up for a role on FOX and she was afraid that his playing a gay character would affect the network's decision to hire him.
Says Fuller: "[Making Zach gay was] absolutely was a path that we were going to take. In the first meetings when we were sitting down and talking about the show, one of the things about the show that Tim said that he wanted all these characters to represent different people in the world and we had an Asian guy and an Indian guy and… a whole bunch of white people. He just wanted it to be a united Benetton cast. I said that's fantastic, but if we have this many people, then we need to have a gay character. If you want to represent the world, that's certainly a demographic that we need to hit. [Tim completely agreed and] was thinking Claire's best friend might be a good person – and I couldn't agree more. So we were definitely going down a route of making [Zach] the gay character and having him have a big role in her life and sort of teaching her to come out about her ability and embrace herself and actually using the coming out metaphor and the gay metaphor in that instance as a fun piece of storytelling."
He adds: "There was an unfortunate miscommunication and when the script arrived that had the line in it, 'I would take you to homecoming but you have to know that I don't like girls that way.' The actor [Thomas Dekker]'s, manager threatened to pull him from the show because he was up for the John Carter role in The Sarah Connor Chronicles and she didn't want him playing a gay character because it might affect FOX's interest in hiring him. It got really ugly...
...It's unfortunate and really – we only took one line out of the script. In really, in all of our minds, the character was still gay but we couldn't say it explicitly. I was very upset by it – I was not happy about it at all. There were times I had to avoid talking about it because we didn't want to have a negative reflection on the show. The show's been such a positive experience for so many people, we didn't want to get hung up on the fact that one actor's management felt that it was a career killer for him to play a homosexual which, as a gay man, I found incredibly insulting. We had episodes planned for him to be in, and she pulled him from the show altogether. So that's why he sort of disappeared."
Shame!
PopGurls Interview: Heroes Bryan Fuller [popgurls]
Posted Apr. 23,2007 at 1:20 PM EST by Andy Towle in News, Playing Gay, Television | Permalink
Matt,
I wasn't suggesting that you struggle with homophobia based on that one little post. My opinion that you struggle with homphobia is based on a plethora of things you've posted here. Most of what I see posted on these pages and signed 'Matt' bears the thought process of someone is either A) straight, homophobic and disingenuously attempting to portray themselves as gay or B) gay and terrifically unaware of his own internalized homophobia.
You say you are gay, and I choose to believe that. And that leads me to believe you harbor some deeply homophobic sentiments. We all have it to a certain degree. It's part of the trauma of growing up in a culture where we are second class citizens. And a psychotherapy office is a perfectly acceptable place to work on the issues created by that trauma. Personally don't think there is anything wrong with seeing a psychotherapist to work on one's issues. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with pointing out to someone that they could benefit from such help. In my book, it's sort of like saying, "Hey, I think a doctor could help you with that sore throat." It's not my fault that you choose to believe I'm maligning you.
xo,
peterparker
Posted by: peterparker | Apr 23, 2007 4:35:35 PM
Scottevill, alright he's not THE executive producer, but one of the "co-exec producers"...
It doesn't changes much to what I'm getting at:
Which is that. if he's willing to go after this actor and manager publicly (with allegations that are quite incriminating) it must mean the issue is very important to him. So why didn't he campaign for it during casting? and why didn't they replace the role as it was suggested by others?
To me this excercise sounds like outing-gossip (which I despise), and a lot of blame laying.
Posted by: Da | Apr 23, 2007 4:37:59 PM
Have you been to therapy to deal with your own internalized homophobia, Peter?
Posted by: Matt | Apr 23, 2007 4:40:38 PM
And just because I have different opinions, why does that make me have internalized homophobia?
If I went to therapy and confronted this internalized homophobia wouldn't that be brainwashing me into thinking differently?
Posted by: Matt | Apr 23, 2007 4:42:08 PM
Dan, you're applying the same logical fallacy that Matt did of "all things are equal." Chevy Chase's concern about being type cast as a comedian is far different than being type cast as gay. Comedians aren't second class citizens in America. It’s not legal to fire someone in thirty plus states simply for being a comedian; nor deny them housing, nor prevent them from marrying other comedians, adopt children, or openly a part of the US military. Comedians, as a class, are not bashed verbally or physically or murdered.
As for all the characters on DH being cartoons, that’s beside the point, and, further, not the center of its huge popularity. I bet a poll would show that most viewers of the show, straight women and gay men, are most fond of Susan and Mike, and identify with their romance, slapstick and melodrama aside, just as those who watch daytime soaps do with their on-again/off-again romances between the beautiful. Or Lynette and Tom, as many problems as they have, and despite their brats. With its narrator-from-the-grave, DH is repeatedly, consciously portrayed as illustrative of lessons about Life, and that, however unrealistically, just like day soaps, is what most straight viewers take from it. And, again, a part of that is that 99% of the world on and off Wisteria Lane are heterosexual; that’s the “norm” however fractured and funny. That being gay, at best, is about the random fuck and doesn’t last more than a few episodes, figuratively and literally. The straight world may be made up of all kinds, even some with bodies in their freezers, but most are just looking for romantic love and sex and children just like Mr. & Mrs. America, but the gays are, judging by this show, primarily looking for little girls to turn into Little Miss Sunshine or little boys to turn into sex partners.
Posted by: Leland | Apr 23, 2007 4:44:11 PM
Peter,
If you would like to continue this educated discussion, please click my name and email me directly. I would welcome the discussion in a mature manner.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 23, 2007 4:44:32 PM
Having seen that YouTube video of Dekker, it did strike me that an unstated reason in all of this is that the actor is gay in real life.
Matt Dallas, who plays Kyle on "Kyle XY" is another of those actors who "seems" gay in most of his appearances, and also popped up in an episode of the Kathy Griffin show. A lot of ink was spilled talking about his girlfriends as well.
Assuming for a moment both guys are straight and just have the misfortune to set off even the most shoddy of gaydars.. hey, it happens... the real story here might be about straightguys who look, sound, and act sterotypically gay in their real lives who are afraid to play gay characters who don't look, sound or act sterotypically gay in reel life for fear of being seen to really be gay back in the real world because of---
Oh I give up.
Dekker's people really are just tools.
Posted by: Jody | Apr 23, 2007 4:51:39 PM
I have it on good accord that his manager is even gay. My friend who left the theatre life said it perfectly: homo-homophobia. Plus Fox and Fox News aren't exactly known for being "fair and balanced". Why Fox News has any credibility is beyond me...
Posted by: Cory | Apr 23, 2007 5:29:13 PM
Yes, Matt...when I was about 21 years old I did several months of therapy to deal with my own internalized homophobia.
Posted by: peterparker | Apr 23, 2007 5:45:18 PM
Matt, if the actor didn't want to play a gay role he shouldn't have taken the part in the first place. Every indication of the character I saw in the pre-publicity and everywhere was that he was gay.
Posted by: Daniel | Apr 23, 2007 5:48:08 PM
Leland--
I'm not quite sure where the first half of you latest comment to me came from; I made no reference to Chevy Chase at any point in any of my posts.
As for DH: I'm simply going to close by saying that I disagree with you on this one, and don't consider the portrayals of gay men to be out of line. The only recurring gay character-- Andrew-- is actually, in *this season* a very positive figure. Yes, he was an ass in the past, but I think that's true of most characters on the show.
Posted by: Dan E | Apr 23, 2007 6:06:44 PM
I've gotta say that barring any comments from the actor himself, I hold him accountable for the actions of his management.
And in this case, I found those actions insulting enough that I've formed a pretty strong disliike regarding Thomas Dekker.
Here's hoping his Fox series tanks and he never works again. Here's hoping that insulting your gay audience pays the dividends it deserves: obscurity.
Posted by: adamblast | Apr 23, 2007 7:06:49 PM
Zlexar what are you getting on about?
It has taken Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Indians years of "determined disgruntledness" to force change in way their characters are written. Positive roles that are expressly written with a person of color in mind are scarce. I have tagged along on casting calls with my Black actor friend and I have seen what looked to be every Black actor in town reading for the part.
So yes, as long as there are stereotypes and narrow-minded roles of villainy, you can bet your ass that we will be "disgruntled". And since the color of our MONEY doesn't seem to bother them, I would say that we are damn well worth it!
Posted by: soulbrotha | Apr 23, 2007 7:24:44 PM
I was hopeful that the character would develop and have a meaningful role in Heroes. But alas, it seems it is not to be. Thanks to more Hollywood homophobia.
I agree with Adamblast that if Thomas Decker disagrees with his management then he should say so, his silence is tacit approval of this type of homophobia.
As long as talent management shows this type of disgust for a client "playing" gay, we will never move beyond stereotypical characters.
Posted by: David | Apr 23, 2007 8:47:25 PM
What about a wheel chair bound, blind, purple overweight actor. Where is the representation? Where is the love??
It would be nice to see a gay character on the show but you have to remember that we are a minority. I don't expect to see a gay character on every show. Neither do I expect to see every race, religion, etc on every television show, it is called reality.
Posted by: graig | Apr 23, 2007 10:03:51 PM
He did end up getting the part in the new Terminator show: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, so he'll be over there anyway. Its not like he had a huge part on this show anyway..Im sure there will be gay or lesbian hero in upcoming seasons anyway..I believe that the cast is going to change quite significantly next year.
Posted by: Chris in Seattle | Apr 23, 2007 10:55:20 PM
The suggestion that they could "just make anothing character gay" is rediculous, and slightly offensive. They intended Zach to be gay, not another character, character's sexuality is important to their development. Because Heroe's is a show built on character development and connections they can't just switch the sexuality of a character without affecting the storylines they have planned out. Luckily this was a rather minor character.
Besides I'm sure they'll represent multiple GLBT people throughout the show. I also think its safe to assume that large female welder with super hearing was a lesbian.
Posted by: lambman | Apr 23, 2007 11:53:07 PM
YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.....It took all the way to DA's comment(no. 30) for ANYONE to mention that the Producer is supposed to be a Gay man and didn't have the balls to hire a damn Gay actor to play the part of a gay person. Why the hell does a gay charector have to be played by a homophobic young str8 man instead of a gay man?
I read this blog most days(evenings actually) and read the comments if it's something that intersts me and I've noticed there are a lot of regulars on here that always seem to have good things to say about cute str8 men in the news but almost always have negative things to say about their fellow gay people in the news.
And quite often it's the same ones who critize gay men for not coming out or other transgressions and claim to be voices in the wilderness for gay rights.
So...yeah DA....your quite right, the real villen here is the producer, because he had the power to really advance someone's career who happened to also be gay.
Posted by: joshua | Apr 24, 2007 3:04:39 AM
Soulbrotha, why are you so upset? You have a show with heavy minority representation (Hispanic, African-American, Indian, Japanese, and mixed race). And you have a show where all the villans are white people.
And yet your post calls the director "fucking white" for giving Asians and Indians lead roles in what you feel is an attempt to placate a white audience. (Not a very flattering way to talk about us Asians btw).
You also say you want the show to reflect "Real Life," but then you confirm my suggestion that you'd be unhappy if a person of color was ever cast as a villan. We all know that real life has villans of all colors.
My suggestion is that you are more interested in voicing offense than in being logially consistent about what you'd like to see on TV. You don't seem interested in portraying 'reality' or certain people of color at all. I have a feeling that no matter what the director did, you'd have nothing at all but negative things to say because you get something out of it.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Rather than make vaguely dissatisfied claims, you'd like to be more specific and tell us excatly what you'd like to see on this show. Please be specific.
Posted by: Zlexar | Apr 24, 2007 12:44:24 PM
I have to say the manager made a pretty bad move. Imagine the bad PR the kid has now.
But guys, c'mon it's just a TV show. Let the writers write it and take us on a journey. I dont understand why everytime we see a gay character on TV, we only want positive representations. Are we afraid that people will think all gay people are bad? Have u no confidence in your own sense of being that you need to constantly be represented by other people? These days, the one factor that is driving the change in people's attitude towards gays are not them, it's us. We have to show good example. We have to walk proud. We have to show people that we are good citizens, good friends, good lovers, good sons and daughters. We are driving the change. People dont care about TV characters because they are fictional. Regardless of how nice they are portrayed on TV it doesnt carry the same impact as you showing it to people around you.
Let the show write itself.
To the the one with the angry comment about the flaming real estate agent, two words...Embrace Diversity.
Fendie
Posted by: Fendie | Apr 24, 2007 2:07:37 PM
"Scottevill, alright he's not THE executive producer, but one of the "co-exec producers"...
It doesn't changes much to what I'm getting at:"
DA, it *totally* changes your point, because Fuller did not cast the show. That was Tim Kring and the network.
Even so, do you honestly want to start mandating that only gay actors get to play gay roles?
BTW, there is a lot of speculation that a gay actor *did* play this particular gay role...
What you and Joshua and others on this thread are *really* demanding is that only OUT gay actors get to play gay roles. In other words, you're imposing a POLITICAL test. "Closet cases need not apply." Now, I don't like closet cases any more than anyone else, and I wish they'd come out, but all the same, I'm not gonna get behind the idea that they should be denied work for being in, and wanting to remain in, the closet.
And, please, think about the idea of only casting gay actors to play gay parts for like 2 seconds, because if you do, you'll realize that you really don't like the converse: that only HETERO actors get to play HETERO roles.
In other words, you're advocating a gay ghetto -- In a world where only gay actors can play gay parts, only hetero actors can play hetero parts... and there are a LOT more of them.
It's all horseshit--The whole point of acting is to play a character, not yourself.
And, BTW, Chris in Seattle--He *did* get the part in The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
Posted by: scottevill | Apr 24, 2007 3:20:40 PM
Oh--Chris in Seattle--I think I misread your comment. I thought you were saying Dekker *didn't* get the part. (Serves me right for leaving my glasses on the coffee table at home this morning.) Sorry :) --Scott
Posted by: scottevill | Apr 24, 2007 3:23:41 PM
And, regarding the manager... Mimi DiTrannie (he he)... I don't think we should hate her for being good at her job. She didn't create the corporate culture at Fox, which *is* homophobic.
Does anybody remember when Sandy Grushow fired Randy Stone for being gay?
Put the blame where it belongs. Not on NBC (which had no problem letting them have a gay teen in the supporting cast), not on the producers at Heroes (who didn't *have* to undertake this storyline, after all), and not on the manager, who is doing the best job she can for her client.
The blame belongs on *Fox* for being an outfit where a kid who played gay on would be disqualified from consideration for an action-hero type lead.
Posted by: scottevill | Apr 24, 2007 3:27:39 PM
Scott, we're getting a bit esoteric here, but I still think the manager gets the bulk of the blame. She was the one who raised a stink, assuming that playing a gay character would hurt her client's chances. No doubt if the kid really is gay, she's helping to keep him in the closet and claiming it's necessary for his career. In both cases she's kissing homophobia on the cheek and giving it the thumbs up to the detriment of gays in the industry everywhere. Kissing up to projected/assumed homophobia is not OK just because it makes you money.
Posted by: adamblast | Apr 24, 2007 4:35:01 PM
Joshua, thanks for the acknowledgement.
If I was to go on a Nancy-Grace-like tirade, I'd say that this producer's words very much echoes Out magazine and the other outing squad's tactics:
It's all "blame, blame, blame, blame, blame, blame.."
But personal responsibility? = 0.
--
"And quite often it's the same ones who critize gay men for not coming out or other transgressions and claim to be voices in the wilderness for gay rights."
True, but as many of us commented before, it's not necessarly gay men making those nasty comments you read. So beware of "trolls" and "trojan horses" within the gay community; those people who may be akin to us, or just pretend to be part of us, but their whole mandate and purpose is ensuring that we do not advance.
Posted by: Da | Apr 24, 2007 7:23:52 PM