I'm not even sure why we're discussing the gay issue. Disregarding the film's completely vague and poor recreation of a male male relationship (sure it was gay, but it was poorly done...his male friend was a flat, undeveloped character) the real failure of this film is on so many other levels, that it's shocking Stone is so blind to it. It was ambitious, I'll give him that, but it's lengthy boring monologues, incoherent structure, poor pacing and strange jumps in time just didn't work. It didn't give you a good history of the life of Alexander, and it failed to paint a convincing portrait of a human being. I didn't care about the character, and I surely didn't know much of what he accomplished when the film ended.

The gay issue is a big fat diversion from the truth...the movie just wasn't that good, and blaming right wingers or conservatives is a big fat cop out. There are definite issues when it comes to homosexuality that this country struggles with, but those issues have nothing to do with the failure of this film.

Better bring a truckload of cheetos and a port-a-potty, I have a feeling you're gonna be "sitting back" for a looooooong time

Yeah, I won't hold my breath or anything.

Back on topic - wouldn't it be fun if this worked the other way, like if Neil Jordan released a cut of Interview with the Vampire that contained 35% more homoeroticism for added value?

No but the people who pay his bills have a say and can u guess what they wanted?

Simply because statistics are "brought up numerous times" that doesn't mean that they are valid.

And when you say "it's been accepted..." - accepted by who? You?

P.S. - I didn't realize you were an authority on lesbianism - any statistics you can throw around to help us understand your argument?

That is an extremely spineless thing to do.

If you don't want to see it because Alexander was bisexual, don't see it.

Don't tarnish the film anymore than it already was because of bad box office.

Oh, wow, I did not know that I actually "chose" this lifestyle for myself and that I could turn "straight" whenever I wanted to. Thanks for enlightening me!

Yeah, all 2% of you. *hehe*

Mr. Lowery, you're not helping matters. I'd suggest you stop bringing up things like Micheal Moore, and how you think being gay is a choice. It hasn't much place in this thread, IMHO.

Stone seems to think so.

Mod comment - Comments like this really aren't a positive contribution to the discussion and only serve to pull the conversation away from intelligent conversation. In the future, please refrain from making comments like this.

Come over to my place and watch the special version with added male/male love

Mod comment - And, please don't take the bait when someone makes a blanket comment related to your political position or belief system. At this point, you are no more on topic than the previous poster.


I'm going to leave this open for now... but if I see any more posts that aren't sticking to the topic (without being rude), it will be closed.

I'm gay and believe in God and Jesus Christ. I believe most of the "hate and intolerance" gay folks have for the fundamentalists is a defense reaction to the fundamentalist's hate/intolerance for homosexuals. It's a vicious circle. They seem obsessed with homosexuals instead of spreading the basic message of Jesus Christ which is love. I don't hate fundamentalists but I do become very defensive when I hear them spew their hate towards gays. It's very hurtful.

Hate and intolerance is NOT the only "weapon of the minority". My "weapon" is to lead my life the best way I know how and treat people as I would want to be treated.

and I really would like to see this discussion taken somewhere else and read someone try to argue with this.

Topic: Like Lucas, it's Stone's movie -- he can do what he wants.

Sorry to get this off topic, but that statement is the stupidest one in the thread.

As far as the Alexander thing, I didn't see the movie because it just looked un-interesting to me, but I definitely don't agree with changing a movie in an attempt to generate more revenue and then blaming it on reviews and religious fundamentalists. No one saw your movie because the people that did told 2 friends that it sucked, and they told 2 friends, and they told 2 friends, and so on..

Bottom line, if you're gonna release this cut, at least have the balls to release them both.

Like your choice of heterosexual lifestyle?

Dead: sorry for posting replies to the off-topic posts....I just saw your posts after I did mine.

Okay...back on topic:

Sounds like Stone is copping out and grasping for excuses. As someone pointed out, he should stand by the film he made. I have not seen the film, but from what I have read, it's just a bad film and the bad reviews have nothing to do with Alexander's sexuality.

If the film was edited so quickly that he didn't have time to properly test it with audiences, why *shouldn't* he re-edit it based on the extremely poor reaction it got? I'm not saying he should cut the "gay stuff" out ... but, then again, having seen the movie, there's not much in it about him being gay. The most overt it gets is about as sexually suggestive as 'Spartacus' pre-restoration. I do think it's revisionist history to blame the gay thing; it seemed like they *tried* to make it controversial based on that before it came out, and it didn't really stick.

I mean, all he's said so far is "the bond between men can be expressed in different ways". That much is true, and he chose pretty much the stupidest. The nicest thing I can say about it is that he showed that gay relationships can be just as boring and passionless as you can imagine.

I hope he does re-edit the movie, but I have a feeling it would take another $100 mil or so to really make a dent in all the things that are wrong with it.

Stone's bitterness is completely misplaced. Im a "history" person, and I skipped both Alexander and Troy, because I didnt think they would be very good. Considering the reviews ive seen, Stone should be happy about all the "bad press" his movie got over the controversial scenes, because otherwise it would have gotten no press at all.

Like someone else in the thread mentioned, im just kinda tired of seeing Colin Farrel, and Angelina Jolie isnt enough to get me into a movie theatre. I know I would love to see a modern movie about warfare in the classical greek age, but only if priority is placed on the script and the details rather than what "hot new star" they can wedge into a role that is completely outside their depth

wow getting on a quite an interesting topic here. Let me say that I really don't have a problem with anyone being gay. I also think being gay is not a choice, but living that lifestyle is a sin. Its a sin to commit this. Sure you can be gay, and be a Christian. You just can't act out on those homsexual urges otherwise that's a sin. We all commit sin everyday yes, but having a predetermined notion to commit something is something quite different.

Whoops, that's actually getting off a quite interesting topic. Plenty of places to spew that sort of silliness, but not in a thread discussing the film 'Alexander' where the mods have already said *not* to get into the homosexual talk *or* the politics.

Nice way to get one more shot in.

I was looking forward to this DVD, hopefully the story isn't true. Guess time will tell...

LET'S STAY ON TOPIC THANKS

Stone hasn't made a good movie in years, regardless of the content.