|
Someone asked me the other day, why couldn't they have cast two gay actors in the roles instead of Straight actors. I thought about it for a minute and tried to thank of any gay actors (that are out) that could have played these roles? Harvey Fierstien? Nathan Lane?
It wouldnt work. |
Nathan Lane is gay? I'm out of the loop lol.
|
Perhaps Rupert Everett would have done a pretty good job.
|
Alexis Arquette?
|
I thought Alexis is having an operation to become a woman?
|
I don't think being a gay or straight actor would make a difference in these roles. Gay or straight, we all have the same parts.:) But it seems the gay actors that are "out" would be far too flamboyant to pull these characters off. I can't honestly think of an openly gay actor that isn't...uh, you know...a little effeminate. Am I wrong on this? I'd love to be corrected. I can't wait to see this film, mainly because I'm a big fan of Ang Lee (yes, I liked "The Hulk"), but anyone I've mentioned this to has turned their nose up at it and derided it as a "gay western". I seem to be surrounded by homophobes anymore.
|
Originally Posted by riley_dude
Someone asked me the other day, why couldn't they have cast two gay actors in the roles instead of Straight actors. I thought about it for a minute and tried to thank of any gay actors (that are out) that could have played these roles? Harvey Fierstien? Nathan Lane?
It wouldnt work. How about Chad Allen? He did Dr Quinn, so he knows about the horseriding. Rupert nice too, but he's so British, I dont think I could believe it if he lost his accent. This is from a 2001 Advocate article: While I was filming Kiss Me, Guido, another gay actor asked me if I was going to do an interview with the reporter from a gay magazine who was on the set that day. "Yeah, he's a friend," I quipped as I scrunched my bleached blond hair. The actor responded, "Well, I'm not meeting with him. It's nobody's business who I sleep with." I could tell where this was going. "Of course," he continued, "you'll probably be on the cover, Mr. Openly Gay Actor. I don't wanna play gays for the rest of my life."
Originally Posted by Grimfarrow
I thought Alexis is having an operation to become a woman?
|
Originally Posted by riley_dude
Someone asked me the other day, why couldn't they have cast two gay actors in the roles...
|
Originally Posted by Grimfarrow
MUNICH is an unknown quantity, and the director has won many times before. Plus, with gay marriage such a contentious topic, Hollywood will surely try to pat its own back by voting for a film that is the most "progressive".
On a side note, I might be up for seeing Brokeback, but I laugh every time I see the poster because it makes me think of South Park. |
Simple - most reviews aren't out yet for MUNICH, while Brokeback has been widely reviewed since its debut at Venice and Toronto. Plus, a Spielberg film comes out pretty much every year (two this year, in fact), so excitement about another one can't really be *that* high, I don't think. I for one think that he should take a break for a while - please.
|
SF Chronicle article
Landmark plans to open "Brokeback" in its Oakland, Berkeley and Palo Alto theaters next Friday. Nationally, the film will premiere next week in 18 other markets, including Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, Seattle and Washington, D.C. Still wider release, pending the performance of the film, is slated for January. |
Pretty crappy since I had already made plans for dinner beforehand in that area. |
Originally Posted by riley_dude
Someone asked me the other day, why couldn't they have cast two gay actors in the roles instead of Straight actors. I thought about it for a minute and tried to thank of any gay actors (that are out) that could have played these roles? Harvey Fierstien? Nathan Lane?
It wouldnt work. What I wouldn't give to see James Gandolfini and Brian Dennehy in the title roles . . . grunty needs to be alone for awhile now. P.S. - If a film is only opening in fucking L.A. and NYC, then it's not really "released" on Dec. 9th. I hate December for this reason, plagued as it is with these platform releases that artificially limit the audience for art films to those two cities. |
Originally Posted by Grimfarrow
Simple - most reviews aren't out yet for MUNICH, while Brokeback has been widely reviewed since its debut at Venice and Toronto. Plus, a Spielberg film comes out pretty much every year (two this year, in fact), so excitement about another one can't really be *that* high, I don't think. I for one think that he should take a break for a while - please.
|
Originally Posted by lamphorn
That's a fair opinion of Spielberg's recent output (my god I hated The Terminal). But to indicate that Munich will not get much Oscar attention because people haven't seen it yet is silly. It will be seen and reviewed well before the Oscar ballots go out.
MUNICH is an unknown quantity which is completely true - how can you say it's an Oscar frontrunner when most reviews aren't out yet, and critics don't even know if it's any good or not? You can have a gazillion ton of hype around a film, but it doesn't mean jack until the film's been actually SEEN by people. Just look at MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA and how the bad reviews are hurting this supposed "Oscar frontrunner". So tell me, how am I being silly? |
Originally Posted by grunter
P.S. - If a film is only opening in fucking L.A. and NYC, then it's not really "released" on Dec. 9th. I hate December for this reason, plagued as it is with these platform releases that artificially limit the audience for art films to those two cities.
Seriously- I've never understood why Chicago isn't. It's the third largest city in the country. Plus, it's in the Midwest, so you'd get the two coasts and the middle. |
Three words: Million Dollar Baby.
I'm not saying it'll win an Oscar. It could suck and win nothing. But the subject matter and the director guarantee that it will be scrutinized and considered very closely. And unknown? What's that on the cover of Time this week? Now, the crappy short films I made last year... THOSE are unknown quantities! |
Originally Posted by grunter
P.S. - If a film is only opening in fucking L.A. and NYC, then it's not really "released" on Dec. 9th. I hate December for this reason, plagued as it is with these platform releases that artificially limit the audience for art films to those two cities.
I'm sure the miniscule Dec. 9th release in big markets is for Oscar qualification only. |
Originally Posted by TracerBullet
You're just bitter because Chicago isn't on that shortlist. ;)
Seriously- I've never understood why Chicago isn't. It's the third largest city in the country. Plus, it's in the Midwest, so you'd get the two coasts and the middle. |
well if the theaters around me (suburb of CHI) arent gonna have it, then they shouldn't have shown trailers for it! M-effers
|
The theatre in San Francisco is sold out for all showings today. So I better get tickets for tomorrow.
That's a good sign. |
Originally Posted by lmwong1977
It usually is one of the top 3. If you look at limited releases, it is usually LA/NY/Chi. The only time SF gets short listed is for gay films. I guess IML wasn't proof enough of the big gay audience in Chicago. ;)
Dammit. |
Originally Posted by Grimfarrow
You can have a gazillion ton of hype around a film, but it doesn't mean jack until the film's been actually SEEN by people.
From the sound of it, a great film, but no Oscar-bonanza. |
Originally Posted by riley_dude
I was recently at a press screening for another movie and I overheard four guys in the theater lobby talking about “Brokeback.” They were resolute in their refusal to go see it and they couldn’t stop loudly one-upping each other about how they had no interest, were not “curious,” and were, in the words of the loudest guy in the group, “straight as that wall over there.” Oh, the wall with poster for the Big Gay Cowboy Movie on it? That straight wall? Well here’s something that everyone else now knows but that guy: he’s probably gay. Being silent marks you as too cool to care about how other men see you. It means you’re comfortable and not freaked by your own naked shadow. Did Steve McQueen go around squawking about how straight-as-a-wall he was? No, he didn’t. He was too busy being stoic and manly.
I kinda feel the same way when guys go so out of their way on these boards to say they have no interest. Really make you go, Hmmmm. Well it is a movie forum. I do not plan to see and I am not gay. You seem to have an agenda that this is the best movie ever made and anyone who does not agree with you is homophobic. |
Why in the world would any straight guy have any problem with this flick if it's true that
Spoiler:
I mean, really... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10342237/ That's pretty funny. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.