Gay Hollywood movies: Out of Sight? (What happened to Harvey?)
 

I just read an interesting article regarding the state of gay movies. If you're curious follow this link:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20153963,00.html

Sort of an empty article; it doesn't really tell me much more than I already figured. There aren't a lot of gay-themed scripts circulating and the ones that are have a hard time getting made, which isn't new or different from 95% of scripts in circulation.

I never realized Out of Sight was a gay movie?
I need to rewatch some of those prison scenes I suppose...

How do they calculate the percentage of gay characters? Do they just go by who is openly gay? In a lot of cases you just wouldn't know.

A good example of a film that has measurable gay representation, without the film being a gay movie, is The Family Stone. It's this matter-of-fact inclusion that seems to scare Hollywood too often. Furthermore, scripts that actually have a gay central character seem to be ignored by the major studios as a rule. Why? I'll never know. I think everyone is bored silly with the boy meets girl plot. It's all we've watched for 100 years. Hollywood could at least remake butchered gay scripts (Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Gentleman's Agreement). I'm tiring of the mass appeal, formula stuff.

Major movie studios don't make movies to further a social message. They make movies to make money. They aren't making gay centric films because those films do not make money.

Brokeback Mountain domestic take was $83M

Independence Day took in $186M

And BM box wouldn't have even been that without name actors and the controversy surrounding the film. A gay romantic comedy wouldn't even break $25M.

Considering Brokeback had a budget of approximately $14,000,000, it made a huge profit. In glaring contrast, look at 3:10 to Yuma which was budgeted over $55,000,000 and is a bomb failing to break even.

Another wk, another underwhelming, vapid EW article... just my opinion. Brokeback was a one-time phenom, much like The Passion was for religious films. I think execs see this and as a result neither have been followed with films of the same stature.

You'd think so, but what exec in their right mind thought "In the Valley of Elah", "Rendition", "Lions for Lambs" and "Stop-loss" would make money? There's also the question of R rated films, sure some are necessary, but a lot aren't.

Message movies are very prevalent esp come awards season, but very few seem to make a dent at the BO.

I disagree. The Mayor of Castro Street is in the works and Milk just may beat it to the local cinema. However, these films need advertising $$$. In & Out, The Birdcage and Philadelphia were all heavily advertised and made tidy profits.

You're right, those were all critical and commercial successes. But doesn't that just undermine the article and prove it wrong? That movies with gay subject matter (not to mention gay characters) have been and are continuing to be made?

Those movies were released 10 years ago! The article is talking about post-Brokeback Mountain Hollywood. Considering the $178,000,000+ box office it generated internationally the lack of another serious gay-oriented film is shocking.

Didn't you just say 2 Harvey Milk biopics are in the works?

You people are nuts. The Harry Potter films are doing great box office, with more to come!

Haa, haa! We can hope Dumbledore will express his orientation. Maybe we'll see a flashback of a torrid embrace?

While The Mayor of Castro Street and Milk are "out there", the former is, unfortunately, not certain by any measure.

Right now, no movie is for certain with the strike just around the corner. But there are gay-themed movies being developed. You say it is "shocking" that Hollywood didn't immediately jump on the gay bandwagon after Brokeback, but gay-themed movies have always been few and far between. The fact that these movies can be made and be successful (the most important thing to the studios) is great, but I wouldn't count on flurries of Brokeback spawn, ala Die Hard (Brokeback on a plane, Brokeback on a boat).

I'm not expecting a flurry of films. One film during the two years after Brokeback Mountain would have been appropriate and appreciated.

The article uses this example:

"And in 2002, Chicago proved that the once moribund movie musical could make serious money, opening the door to Dreamgirls, Hairspray, and the upcoming Sweeney Todd."

..and that was for a five yr old movie. It's been two yrs since Brokeback, and we have at least one (possibly two) films in production... so I guess we'll compare it to Chicago in three more yrs.

That's a good point I hadn't considered.

Appropriate? Who decides that? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I don't know what you are asking for. There are films in production, maybe more than we know about beyond the two Milk biopics, and there are sure to be more on the way. I don't think gay-themed films are ever going to be as regular as a Harry Potter movie, one every year and a half.

Appropriate from my perspective -- I don't work in Hollywood and I am unaware of anything in development other than the two Milk films. Since In & Out followed The Birdcage by just two years maybe my expectations were bit high.

How about V for Vendetta? Non-traditional romance of sorts, several very sympathetic gay characters (some would say even the main character?) and overall theme.

I wrote that one off as a mindless, big action movie. Also, the gay aspect wasn't mentioned in the gay media I read. Marketing is the key to success for many movies. Hmmm -- maybe I should do a rental.

You should check it out for sure - it's anything but a mindless action movie.(one of the more thought provoking in recent yrs) Frankly that's pretty surprising you didn't read anything about that aspect of the story... The violence/terrorism angle was pushed in the mainstream reviews (and previews). For different reasons I think many folks would've appreciated an accurate trailer for it.

Will do, thanks. Frankly, I'm a bit miffed I missed a film with a gay character or two.