« Afterelton.com: What Does the Future Hold for Noah's Arc? | Main | Jamaican Bishop: "I will fight homosexuality and lesbianism with every fiber of my being!" »

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Comments

Lad

I honestly dont think Noah's Ark needed to be nominated for an NAACP Image Award. I personally have seen better acting on Flavor of Love, College Hill and I Love New York 2. The show was truely a kee-kee in every since of the world. The show wasn't that "groundbreaking" because it was like as a GAY BLACK MAN IN CALIFORNIA. I didn't appeal to me, who lives in Washington DC.

As far as a movie, it will do about as much as Patrick's first movie "Punks" did or it will be like "Dirty Laundry" and the date keep getting pushed back! Am I hater for saying this? No!

Come one now, "Noah's Ark" in the same nomination with Grey's Anatomy? There is no comparison by a mile! The show was cute for LOGO but not cute enough for it to have only lasted for 2 seasons. I work for Viacom and know the politics. The ratings were not all that exceptional! I saw Neilsens reports weekly of the show.

Sorry Miss Cannick, I have to disagree with you this time!

D.B.

Personally I like the show Noah's ARC especailly me being a hetro female. It was different totaly 360 froma "Will & Grace" perspective. It refelected different levels of life not just from a " Black gay male" stand point. When I watched the show I saw 4 well educated men that were diversified as far as their outlook on life but their loyalty to one another. You had a friend who was like the mother hen of the group (Alex), then you had the one who always looked at things from a logical stand point but who was religious and didnt feel like he was compromising his beliefs being gay (Chance). Plus you had the free spirited friend and we all have one of those who at the end of the day did not apologize for who he was and what he did (spoke how he felt whether you liked it or not). Lastly you had somewhat the baby of the group, but always wanted true love and found it and just like many of us do continue to fight for it even if it felt difficult sometimes. Personally I think it deserved an image award for best break out series. However if it was allowed to continue to grow and mature you probably would have saw more in depth conflicts and scenarios that these 4 black gay men go through everyday. I really MTV, Viacom, and Logo would rethink about their cancellation of Noah's Arc and bring it back on. I can't wait to buy the second season DVD, because 2 me the first season was hallarious but real intriguing.

Paul

Logo owns Noah's Arc. It owns all the rights to Noah's Arc. Nobody's "taking it" anywhere.

Da

I agree with you Andrea, Will & Grace is another example of a terrible show in my books.

It was marginally funny, not very well written or acted; and I know of so many gay guys who said they didn't relate with any of the characters but the one played by Megan Mullally (who was a heterosexual female on the show).

And once again, that show got mad love in Hollywood at The Emmys (83 nods, 16 wins), the Golden Globes and GLAAD Awards during its 8 seasons run, largely because of its considered groundbreaking portrayal of homosexual relationships. And because it had an audience..which Noah's Arc also had at Logo.

So I wish people were not quick to use the cope out explanation that Noah's Arc "sucked" as a reason why it wasn't recognized more. Sucking alone has never stopped Hollywood for recognizing shows they had an versed interest in acknowleding.

Andrea

Will and Grace was not well written I disagree. In fact, Will and Grace catered to the prejudices of a white heterosexual audience. Will and Grace was a so called gay show made for straight and gay white Americans. Will and Grace at times was extremely racist and myopic. And Brokeback Mountain the only reason why white gay men cared about that movie was because the film had two attractive male leads. And the mainstream press made a big deal about the same sex storyline. I found the movie Brokeback Mountain LAME AND TAME. I fear for Noah's Arc. I think this so called Noah's Arc movie is a COP OUT. I really do. Because the "movie" will be so small and will hardly reach a larger audience. And I think that's what Polk really wants,he wants his show to reach BEYOND the so called "gay community" to reach Black Heterosexual America. And I think having the show on BET is where Noah's Arc should be. I think the whole NAACP fiasco is just another example of the struggles we gay blacks endure. We get the racism from the wbite queers and the homophobia from the black heterosexuals. Its a tug of war and I think Polk should SEND his show to England or something, He should try the BBC or Channel 4 in UK. He shouldn't just wait on America he should think about a world market. Its not right the way the show has been left hanging.

Andrea

I am really so dissapointed in the NEGATIVITY about Noah's Arc. Was the show the best thing since slice bread? NO. But it does NOT mean the show did NOT have merit. For one thing the show GAVE A FACE TO GAY BLACK AMERICA. And to the haters CAN YOU DO A BETTER JOB? The reason Noah's Arc has NO RECOGNITION IS DRUM ROLL PLEASE.....It deals with black gay people. As far as the mainstream media and White Gay America is concerned everything gay means everything MUST BE WHITE. I mean it can't be more obvious then that. Its an example of the entrenched racism at MTV LOGO CANCELLED the show. And I think the show being on LOGO was a MISTAKE in the FIRST PLACE. I think it needed a BIGGER NETWORK.

Da

I don't doubt the show might not have been all that (I haven't seen more than a few scenes on youtube)..

But the question is whether or not Noah's Arc shouldn't have been recognized by the NAACP for the groundbreakiness of it - as far as being an all black cast show on a national TV network; and depicting gay blacks (?).

For instance : Brokeback Mountain, which (to me) was a failure of a movie, on top of potentially presenting a negative shallow image of gay relationships, was showered with praise at Hollywood awards & it was endorsed by our rights organisations which includes GLAAD.

The hype and endorsement I believe preceeded the movie release. Noah's Arc on the other hand didn't recieve the support it could have used to be recognized by NAACP. It's interesting to wonder why..

This said, I'm not a big fan of the NAACP awards, and I don't advocate shows/films that don't deserve it to be awarded just because they deal with homosexuality, but I can't help but note the general unfairness & hypocrisy on both sides of our orgs when it comes to giving acknowledgement to black gays.

Well let me take a gander at this and the previous poster hit it on the head. Viacom's holdings include MTV as well as other media/entertainment companies such as BET and VH1. Viacom reported record earnings last year (primarily due to DreamWorks); however, though MTV, Nick and other of its holdings did well, they did not do as well as expected. At this point in time, MTV is going through some blood letting as a result.

MTV recently announced 250 layoffs and they are restructuring their advertising and affiliate networks. They have been restricted to smaller road shows (the way they reach advertisers) and, in essence, big brother (Viacom) has a foot in it.

With that, MTV who has as one of its many interests LOGO, is in a wait and see mode. Wait and see what else Viacom wants them to do.

MTV has also promoted Lois Curren to President, Entertainment & Programming which means anything they had in the can may go on hold.

With job slashing, new President, and Viacom being a bit pissed about MTVs poor performance, the only other word I can think of here is FREEZE. Everything's on hold until Viacom gets happy and every quarter this year is on watch until performance improves.

I add this because I like the stock market and have shares in Viacom (not MTV) and their MO is to bend them, shake them, any way they want until the dollars line up. Otherwise, no go on any new show unless it's already out there or comes to them gratis.

My two cents after taxes (or -2 cents after the Dow's drop earlier this week) is Noah's Arc may see a return but it may not happen until after the blood letting and after a few more heads roll.

Not really a fan of the Image awards either, and don't get me going on the R Kelly scandal, good looking guy, but way too creepy for me, but, he is still so popular, I guess they could ignore a little thing like an allegation of child abuse.

About the quality of Noah's Arc, the $64 question is this, why would Polk or the network put out a product that didn't have visibly high standards? Goes back to the one thing, money. Even though its owned I think by Viacom, they are not going to spend big bucks on production if they can't get it recouped. This is why I don't see a movie, they are way too tight with the coins for a big screen movie, done right.

But, its all part of the growing pains, and hopefully, something good will come out of this first step of showing black gays.

Cadence

I'm not crazy about the image awards. Every since they gave R. Kelly a special award just after he was indicted on charges of having sex with a minor, I haven't been able to take the awards seriously.

Since the show has "image" in the title, I'd think the show would would honor people and events that present a positive image, but the nomination for Queen Latifah's Bringing Down the House, shows that they care more about money and visibility, than they do about positive images.

As for Noah's Arc, obviously Logo should have seen the value in submitting the show, but I would not say that the show was up the the early quality of Will & Grace, or is of a quality to be shown on network or premium cable. I loved that the Noah's Arc portrayed a positive image of Black gay men, but the writing, directing, and acting were in serious need of help.

the show was a comedy? i barely even cracked a smile. it was more like a tragedy.

if the show were all white people (with the script it easily couldve been) no black gay person on the planet earth wouldve watched it.

nunya

I'm not surprised that Logo or the Image Awards would be hesitant about submitting the show. You can't possibly be blind to how (seemingly) the majority of the black community feels about the gay community, and I know a lot of non-blacks aren't blind to this, either. So it doesn't surprise me that an Image Awards rep would fail to refer to a relationship with the gay community, nor does it surprise me that the Logo execs would question submitting the show. I think the execs probably had several concerns...and I think a concern about the show having an audience is valid, considering that a lot of *gay* people didn't even know about the show. When I first learned that a TV station--ANY TV station--had a show on about gay black males, I had to see it to believe it.

I also think the black community's struggle with homosexuality is probably one reason why black people probably WOULDN'T view the show as uplifting to blacks--probably just the opposite. And there are obviously some gay blacks who didn't care for the show. As a gay black female, I tuned into the show in hopes of gaining insights into what life is like for gay black males, and I don't think I learned anything at all. I was quite irritated with the show--I felt it was stereotypical (and not in the "it's a stereotype because it's TRUE" sense) and rather shallow, especially in comparison to its gay white counterpart shows.

And as far as showing everyone that gay black males are just like everyone else and have some of the same problems...well, if you're referring to relationships, *maybe* it showed that. Other than that, I don't think the show did anything that hasn't been done before, except this time it was done with gay black males. It was too relationship-focused, despite the fact that they threw in "issues" every once in a while. Aside from those relatively few times, I didn't see anything about the gay black male struggle, unless all gay black males care about is finding and keeping a man...which, hey, that's the show "Girlfriends."

So even though it's somewhat sad that the show is gone, after watching an entire season of it on Logo I wouldn't go crazy about it not being submitted for an Image Award or any other award. And I'm not surprised Logo pulled it or doubted that particular show. It seriously was "fluff," and I do think that black gays shouldn't accept a lackluster show for us, especially when it will inevitably be compared to other gay-centered shows that are white and will possibly be used to say "There is not an audience for this" when the real problems are 1) the station it's on (sorry, but basic cable or Showtime v Logo?? You've got to get real), and 2) the show is not good enough.

I understand that it was a comedy/male soap, but that's just not what we need. Being gay is kind of "in" right now, and we need to be using that to our advantage. I feel as if white gays are clearly gaining more acceptance in society, and their shows are one of the hugest reasons why. I know a lot of people of all backgrounds who want to see a black gay show, so everything is in our favor--we just need the right show, and "Noah's Arc" wasn't quite it!

Well, I loved the show, but, didn't see it as a show that changed my world, or anyone else who saw it, it was a comedy for goodness sake, that showed 4 close knit friends, no more no less. If, it made some black gay men and women feel good, that's great, but, it was a comedy, not a documentary, and for it me was just nice to see black gay men in a positive light, although in a life style that isn't like mine. And, yes, I do think it stinks that it was canned under the lame guise that a movie is in the "works" as if anyone really thinks that will ever happen.

As far as people who say it isn't about "race," sorry, but, everything in this country is about race to some extent, although in this case, I don't think it is, since this is a obscure network at best, and they are going after a certain market, and from what I've seen, I don't think the people of color community is that target audience, just like most of the main gay publications, and I don't really have a problem with that,as it means I don't have to support Logo with a subscription nor any magazine.

Mason

The show sucked. Period.

It wasn't insightful. The comedy was spare. Fine, we got to see black gay men on television, but why should it win awards just because of that fact? Will and Grace was incredibly well-written. The writing on Girlfriends is even of a higher quality than Noah's Arc. It just didn't cut it. Even if it was the top show on Logo (which they deny) it didn't increase the profile of the Network, which could've happened if it were a more challenging show. It was limited in talent on all levels and that's why it failed.

Stop crying racism. We need to demand more from our artists and thinkers and not just settle for what works. I agree with Rod on this matter. Hollywood is all about dollars. No one cares about black, white, gay, blue. Buck up.

Mason

The show sucked. Period.

It wasn't insightful. The comedy was spare. Fine, we got to see black gay men on television, but why should it win awards just because of that fact? Will and Grace was incredibly well-written. The writing on Girlfriends is even of a higher quality than Noah's Arc. It just didn't cut it. Even if it was the top show on Logo (which they deny) it didn't increase the profile of the Network, which could've happened if it were a more challenging show. It was limited in talent on all levels and that's why it failed.

Stop crying racism. We need to demand more from our artists and thinkers and not just settle for what works. I agree with Rod on this matter. Hollywood is all about dollars. No one cares about black, white, gay, blue. Buck up.

Jaye

if giving a platform to a group of black men, even in the most "fluff" (your word and not mine) of manners via a fictional tv show, that has taken the world by storm, given people, male and female something to feel good about, themselves included does not "uplifted the image of blacks" then nothing ever will.

its ok for Girlfriends, Law & Order, Bernie Mac and the like to be considered in the past but not Noah's Arc? and why, because this particular fictional story did not match your worlds view, because maybe they were too whatever or not enough whatever for you? does that make it unworthy of its due...as the first of its kind...

i am appalled..because they deserve more than that..they deserve more than they have gotten from Logo and they deserve more than they have gotten from a lot of blacks, especially the NAACP.

While I don't think it "uplifted" the image of black gay men, still some of the most loathed and hated men in the country, it wasn't the premise to begin with. Some seem to think that it was to be representative of all things black and gay, which of course is pure folly, since black gay men and women are not monolithic. It didn't once touch on anything that I can relate to as a black gay man, it was fluff, the thoughts of one man, and it was on LOGO, not PBS, so, I took it for what it was, light hearted entertainment, not the typical media portrayal of D/L losers or HIV infected black men ashamed of being gay or the flaming drag queen.

Warren

Jas, I would really appreciate a rundown of the storylines in Noah's Arc to demonstrate how this show has uplifted the image of blacks, specifically black gay men. And I mean specifics. NA dealt with issues like HIV/AIDS and homohphobia, but I'm not sure they did it in a way that was respectful, truthful and sensitive. Since the black gay community is basically split on the merits and execution of this show, a point-by-point detailed breakdown would really help with your case here.

The comments to this entry are closed.