Hollywood says "too Gay?"

Liberace was an extraordinary talent on the piano and a first rate showman. So they make a movie about him, and they have to focus on his sex life?

At the risk of sounding homophobic; yeah, Hollywood, that was pretty gay of you. He was easily twice the entertainer of any cookie-cutter pop star we have today.

"See these rings [I'm wearing], aren't they beautiful? Take a good look. You paid for them." - Liberace

The post-modern world-view invites us to treat everything about a person as a "hobby".

Your religion? That's a personal hobby

Your sexuality? That's a personal hobby

Do I want to spend 2 hours watching a couple of guys shout and weep and be ecstatic about their hobby? Not unless it's a hobby I share. And it doesn't interest me, even if they dress like they are on the Sargent Pepper's album cover, and run through rooms full of props from The fifth element while rehearsing the dialogue from Dangerous Liasons.

Nope, thanks. I'd rather live out my own hobbies with my own spouse.

Does that make me a phobe? because I don't want to waste several hours on someone else's hobby?

reply to post by VictorVonDoom

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
So they make a movie about him, and they have to focus on his sex life?

Like The Titanic was about Jack and Rose's sex life. It's about their relationship. Sex IS part of that relationship, for sure, but if you've seen the trailers, you know there's more to this relationship than sex.

I am intrigued to see the Liberace movie because I remember when he was famous and I find his character fascinating.

reply to post by tovenar


If someone has suggested that you're homophobic simply because the movie doesn't interest you, they're wrong.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I see your point. I guess Titanic wouldn't have the box office receipts if it had been about the ship sinking. Hollywood has their formula, and part of that formula says, "There must be a relationship in there somewhere."

I suppose a movie about Liberace's talent and skills wouldn't appeal to a large enough demographic, but everyone can relate to a movie about a relationship with some strife in it.

Maybe I'm just getting too old, but I'll chose to remember Liberace in a sparkling suit playing a beautiful melody on a mirror encrusted piano. I really don't want the image of him in bed with some guy in my brain.

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I see your point. I guess Titanic wouldn't have the box office receipts if it had been about the ship sinking. Hollywood has their formula, and part of that formula says, "There must be a relationship in there somewhere."

Not so much purely a Hollywood formula. It is however about the viewer developing an emotional investment in the story. It is what separates good story telling from bad story telling. The medium for telling that story (i.e. books, music, film) makes no difference.

Here's what I don't get. When Nymphomaniac gets released in theaters, they won't have a problem. It will be rated R, but people will get to see it. But they throw a fuss about this because it's gay?

Discrimination. Rampant discrimination.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Discrimination. Rampant discrimination.

True. But to be fair, the reason Hollywood didn't buy it isn't because they are bigoted or discriminate (in that sense of the word). The reason Hollywood didn't buy it is because they didn't know how to sell it to an audience that is bigoted and discriminates.

I'm not sure why Brokeback Mountain got picked up and this one didn't... Maybe it's because this one is based on a true story... Or maybe the homophobic community wasn't as rabid in 2005...

reply to post by KeliOnyx


True, but it just seems to me that Hollywood relies heavily on that story telling device. Just look at your TV listings and find a movie that doesn't have a romantic relationship either central to the story or tacked on. Die Hard, for instance. Good action movie, but they had to tack on problems with McClain and his wife. Contrast that with The Great Escape; great story, great plot, great acting, no need to tack on a relationship issue anywhere.

I guess I'm just getting tired of the same old Hollywood fare. Give me some unusual people with unusual problems and unusual solutions. Something other than, "Can these people solve their relationship issues and live happily ever after?"

Am I straying too far off topic here?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Because Broke Back Mountain didn't revolve around homosexuality the way this one does. Also, I believe it may have something to do with the explicit connection made between spirituality and homosexuality. Somewhere in their minds, the corporates are acknowledging the fact that this movie may be about as taboo as any American film can get without actually breaking the law.

reply to post by VictorVonDoom

I see your point. I guess Titanic wouldn't have the box office receipts if it had been about the ship sinking. Hollywood has their formula, and part of that formula says, "There must be a relationship in there somewhere."

I was under the impression that Titanic was based loosely on the story of one of the survivors, who had a relationship with one of the passengers who didn't make it? And the rest was used to flesh out that little star-crossed bit?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Because Broke Back Mountain didn't revolve around homosexuality the way this one does.

Not sure I understand... They're both about a relationship between two men and they both contain sexual scenes... This is a verbal description of why it's rated R.

Brokeback Mountain's Sexual Scenes

Brokeback Mountain

The story of a forbidden and secretive relationship between two cowboys and their lives over the years.

Also, I believe it may have something to do with the explicit connection made between spirituality and homosexuality.

What? I missed that part. Where does spirituality come into it?

Talk about bigotry. If only a thread could have negative flags.

"ChurchMilitant"

reply to post by Cuervo


I like the part where they are recruiting Joshua, a 9 year old boy, into their militia.

"Don't be trapped in this culture of lies and deceit" "As our lord tells us, the truth will set us free"

Wow.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
The "ChurchMilitant" video is idiotic and the presenter is also an idiot. His logic is that all that homosexuality is about is sex between two men. Therefore, by way of deductive reasoning, all that heterosexuality is about is sex between a man and a woman.

Yeah, well sometimes I wonder about that. That might be what he thinks! Sex, and making him a sandwich.

I watched the movie. I thought the performances were fantastic, the movie itself, not so much.

I must admit, I do find it difficult to watch man on man action, but my offence lies not in the act of homosexuality, but in my own thoughts regarding it, and the imagery that pops in my mind viewing such material. I can not conclude that homosexuality is evil without first knowing homosexuality, and that involves first being homosexual. It is an outright lie to claim something is wrong, while at the same time not understanding it. Every time one becomes uncomfortable with the thought of homosexuality, it is his own thoughts and views he is uncomfortable with. Sorry, but your views are not their problem or fault, they're yours. You should first address those instead of homosexuality itself.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I'm not even going to try explaining that post. It's a ridiculous subject to begin with. Like I said, there hasn't been a single issue with Nymphomaniac, so I can only conclude that unfair treatment is taking place regarding this film. I've seen pornographic clips with no more intention than to simply provide sexual stimulus and they received thousands of views. Clearly, it doesn't take much to encourage the money wheel.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I can not conclude that homosexuality is evil without first knowing homosexuality, and that involves first being homosexual.

This statement has always struck me as being fairly ridiculous. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with those who have a stance on the "morality" of homosexuality, but to say that they would have to experience homosexuality before declaring it wrong is asinine. There are many matters in this life which we, as society, have declared to be morally wrong and even legally wrong without the majority having need to experience them first. You do not have to be a victim before you know murder, rape, assault, etc are wrong. You do not have to lose a finger to know it's a dumb idea to juggle butcher knives. You don't have to kick a kitten to know that animal abuse is morally wrong.

I've carefully read through every post on this thread. All I have to say is STOP FIGHTING! Arguing isn't getting any of you anywhere closer to making others believe as you believe. Repeat yourself til you're blue in the face, quote all the Scripture you want, make every humanist point there is, put each other down, make baseless assumptions of each other...you're wasting your time, you're all still firmly entrenched in your beliefs and you aren't changing any minds just as no one's changing yours! You aren't winning anyone over with any of this back and forth bickering, you're just making yourselves and your viewpoints look bad. The Christians here aren't being very Christian and those arguing for tolerance here aren't being very tolerant.

If you're here to share the Good News and bring others out of sin to Christ, good for you! I admire your faith and your attempt at evangelism against all odds. BUT repeating yourself til Kingdom come is a waste of time. You need only offer God's Word ONCE on this and any other thread, you need not argue your point. People will read and re-read through this. if they're interested in what you share, they'll look into it. If not, it's not for them at this time. Repeating yourself makes you look like a zealot, no reasonable person (Christian or not) likes or wants any part of zealotry. People come to Christ when He calls them to Him and speaks to their heart, not on your or my time. If you condemn any, please remember you're no better (or worse) than those you condemn. EVERY sin is equal in God's eyes, you're no more righteous or holy than anyone else. God is mankind's only judge so don't judge others. It's not your job, you'll never be as fair or just as He is and you won't win anyone over that way. Putting others down, beating dead horses, and making assumptions is counterproductive to our message. If we accept others and try to show others the right path instead of condemning and pushing them, we'll get much further altogether. Love your fellow man MORE than you love yourself, despite disagreements and sins. Trying our best every day to love and accept others despite their flaws as Christ loves and accepts us despite our flaws is true Christianity. If we show others what true Christianity is, Christ's message will be embraced. Cast feelings and personal opinions and aside when sharing teachings of the Bible and don't beat it for good measure. If they don't hear us the first time, they won't hear us the hundredth. Say it once with kindness. Then let go, let God handle it as we're to do in all things.

If you're here to try to clear the air of willful ignorance and bigotry, good for you! I admire you for standing up against prejudice and speaking out about tolerance against all odds. BUT if you think that repeating yourself is gonna change minds or enlighten people, you're as wrong as the people you're arguing with who repeat words of intolerance to you to try to change your mind. We'll NEVER shake other's foundations of belief through repetitive posts on a thread, no more than they will to our foundation of beliefs by the same tactic. Tolerance, acceptance, and love are of the utmost importance in this world. As much as everyone wants to be tolerated, accepted, and loved despite their differences just for being human beings, we must do the same for others who don't tolerate, accept, or love us for being human beings despite our differences. We can only rise above small-mindedness by being bigger people. Through love, set better examples for those who do not do as you do. Remember we are no better or worse than bigots or small-minded people, we're just further down the road of understanding. Don't repeat the message a million times or put others down if they don't see as we see, it's counterproductive to the message. Say it once with kindness and then let it go. If they're meant to change their minds today, they'll see what's been said and have a change of heart. If not, repetition and put-downs will not force the change we want to see in others. Love is the answer to the problem of conflict. Be the change you want to see, love those that condemn you.

Christianity isn't hate, it's love for all DESPITE sins! Tolerance isn't loving sin, it's acceptance for all DESPITE sins! Christianity and tolerance go hand in hand! Accept each other as flawed beings and do your best to help each other do better. If you disagree, I accept you. If you agree, I accept you. You're okay in my book either way. God bless all, much love to all.

PS. Liberace would tell everyone to stay out of his bedroom. Wouldn't you say the same if your REALLY private life was made into a movie? The film exploits the personal life of a man who's unable to keep it from being made, all for cheap entertainment and a quick buck. It would be different if he were here to approve and profit from it but he isn't. It's not too gay, it's too disrespectful. Once again, shame on Hollywood.

My issue with matters like this is, when has a movie been 'Too Straight'? or 'Too White' 'Too Black' Too *X*', and so forth

i have watched many 'Straight Movies' that involve 'Straight Relationships' and i've not felt nauseated nor disgusted, nor the need to complain about the 'Morality' of 'Straight Pictures'

they didn't make the movie 'Gay' to push this purposed 'Agenda' it was about a homosexual mans life, based on a book written by his boyfriend at the time