Is the concept of a gay "Hart to Hart" offensive?

Boy, you got me. My first impulse is, “jeepers, what planet are these people FROM?” and then I see that it’s Steve Martin, so maybe I’m missing something. Is it funny? Am I being too kneejerk PC?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/12/television.gay.reut/index.html

I have to say that it sounds “unpleasantly stereotypical” to me, not “fun and silly”. Why does it have to be interior decorators? Does that make it funnier? Why couldn’t it be, oh, say, two gay guys running a real estate agency, or a State Farm office?

And why does it have to be “gay” guys at all? Why can’t it just be “two guys”? Is it because “Hart to Hart remake with gay interior decorators” is an easy “high concept” series to sell to the network, yet more evidence, if any was needed, of Hollywood’s creative poverty?

Or am I missing something?

Paging Esprix…

How is being an interior decorator an unpleasant steroetype?

Alan Cumming? I am so there!

It doesn’t seem offensive to me. If done correctly, it could be very funny.

Are you offended by the Designer Guys on the Discovery Home & Leisure channel?

Yes. It’s offensive. Remaking Hart to Hart in any fashion is a crime against humanity.

When I first read the article I rolled my eyes. Great, a stereotype coming to fruition. Then I realized, hey, there are a lot of gay interior decorators out there. And hey, that is a kind of job that you could be out investigating homes and getting involved in kooky kapers. Then I thought, hey, it sounds droll and tedious. Then I thought, hey, it’s TV, BFD.
As a gay man who has a standard accounting job, who highly dislikes “I Love Lucy”,who doesn’t go to gay bars, who has friends are mostly straight, doesn’t go to pride, who makes being gay as important as me being left-handed, and who is very comfortable with who I am, do I care that some gays are portrayed as interior decorators? Nope. Stereotypes are there because some people do fit them.

I don’t have cable, so I don’t know the Designer Guys. I’m not saying I’m “offended” as such, it just seems kind of…unfunny.

And I just wondered whether anybody else thought it was “unfunny”, too.

I think Will and Grace is unfunny for similar reasons, DDG. I am in a minority position, though, so there ya go.

It’ll probably be a runaway hit. People seem to like effeminate gays on TV screaming like 12 year old girls about fabulous clothes.

I find that irritatingly stereotypical.

It might just be funny because it takes solid jibes at those stereotypes. Perhaps one of them will look like Al from “Home Improvement?” Perhaps they are constantly doing interior decorating work for bumbling, inept heterosexuals? Perhaps the only allusions to their relationship will be matter-of-fact and done tastefully, comedically and positively.

(Then again, perhaps I’m dreaming - this is Hollywood, after all. :frowning: )

(Then again, Steve Martin has style, grace and tact, so hope does spring eternal…)

I’ll say I’d watch it and give it a fair shot.

Esprix

When I first heard about this project, I was under the impression that it was being done in a serious manner - a drama about gay decorators solving crimes. “Murder, She Wrote” in drag. At that time, I didn’t think it was offensive, unless you mean “offensively stupid”, in which case, guilty as charged.

However, now that I know Steve Martin is behind it, and that it’s a parody of sorts (I assume), I’m curious. As a huge Martin fan, I have high hopes. Of course, I’m a huge James Cameron fan also, and Dark Angel is a travesty, aside from the parts where Jessica Alba wears tight-fitting clothes. So it could go either way.
Jeff

You obviously have been spared the agony and ecstasy that isBobby Trendy who has single-handedly, or rather, limp-wristedly, set gay rights and acceptance back about 40 years.

But he’s my favorite thing on TV. I want him to have his own reality show.

As to the OP… I think it depends entirely on the execution, as with anything.

I liked Hart to Hart when I was a kid.

If they were to have the characters not be an amalgam of the worst stereotypes of gay men, I’d be watching it.

so, does it mean they will get a grumbly voiced butch lesbian to play the role of Max?
“It was Moider”

If this is anything like “Will and Grace,” I won’t watch it.

Initially, I was willing to give W&G a chance, and watched it for a while, because I thought it was interesting that a generally conservative country had progressed to the point that it would regularly put the show in the top twenty ratings-wise. Eventually, though, it started to irritate me; I think it’s basically a 21st-century minstrel show with queers instead of negroes. “Come on, honey, let’s laugh at the cute, harmless, stupidly stereotypical homos.”

I’m probably overreacting. Still, I’d hate to think that could be the model for this new mystery show. It’s Steve Martin, though, and I like to believe he’s better than that, but this is network TV, after all. The concept is not inherently offensive, but the execution certainly might be.

Anyone else think the title was typoed and tried to imagine how two deer could be gay?

Deer? What did YOU think it said?!

Why do they have to be gay at all? Is that going to have anything to do with their ability to solve crimes? I don’t remember Simon & Simon described as “Two heterosexual private detectives who live on a houseboat.” If the only reason they’re gay is because it’s funnier that way, well, I don’t get the joke.

Now if they were ducks, we know that would be funny.

Even better - it could be Queer Duck.

Esprix

**Duck Duck Goose wrote:

And why does it have to be “gay” guys at all? Why can’t it just be “two guys”?**

Like Bruce Wayne and his ward, Dick Greyson? :wink:

However, the “remake” is tagged to Hart to Hart where an integral facet of the show was the crime-solving couple’s continuing romance. A pair of straight guys who were deeply, romantically, in love with each other would be…um…odd.

I should probably state at this point that I never cared for the original “Hart to Hart” to begin with. The “continuing romance” thing always made me wanna go “ew” just a tiny bit.

I’m with Dorothy Sayers who once said something like she admitted that the Lord Peter Wimsey stories with “continuing romance” sucked as detective stories, whereas the ones where Harriet Vane was either not present or in the background worked much better as detective stories.

Anyway, thanks for the input, guys.