There’s been a bunch of discussion on The Movie Blog about the sexual orientation of Alexander the Great, none of which I will go into now. But it looks like the big wigs over at Warner Bros. have also been having some heated talks about it as well. Digital Spy gives us this:
Execs at movie studio Warner Bros. apparently believe that the scene, which sees Farrell – who plays bisexual warrior Alexander the Great – romping with Francisco Bosch (Bagoas, a Persian eunuch) would be too much for the general public to take.
“Alexander was almost certainly bisexual, and Oliver Stone wanted to portray that,” a source told the news org. “So there are scenes between Colin and women, but there’s also some passionate scenes between Colin and Francisco Bosch. “Some of the suits at Warner Bros. think that the movie-going public just isn’t ready to see that. There’s some pretty heated arguments going on over it.”
Ok, as much as I’d hate to admit it, I think the exec’s at Warner probably made the right choice in axing the scene. The fact of the matter is that the general movie going audience just isn’t ready for that kind of thing in a major Hollywood release, and after all, this is a business. They want to make money for their company, and they will make decisions based on what will help them make the most money… who wouldn’t? This isn’t a moral issue. The moment movie executives believe gay scenes in films will increase box office returns you can bet there will be a whole lot of it. For now, they probably made the right choice. Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments section.
Great movie. And yes, it is true he was bisexual. Matter of fact, before Christianity, it was normal for Romand and Greek societys for bisexuality, most nobles were.
I just kind of stumbled on to this page here, and having just watched the DVD last night (I can do that because I work in a video store) i was a little disappointed that the full scene wasn’t put on either of the 2 discs. I am a homosexual, and I really wanted to see the full scene (they’re hot ^_^). Am I disappointed? Not really…
Contents of the 2 disc DVD directors cut issue:
Disc 1 – Full lenght movie
– Special Features: Director’s Commentary
Disc 2 – Special Features
– Behind the Scenes
– Scoring the movie (music)
– Trailers
I was very disappointed with the special features given in this movie, not even some extended scenes or deleted scenes.
However, movies kicks some serious ass!
I am really pleased to read comments from so many intelligent people. Though we do not all agreee, We are communicating and that is Fantastic. I personally think the key to this matter is ” Acceptance ” not judgement. Hard to do… as a human being. I am not the smartest person, but like many frizzy haired, trailer trash, hillbilies I have an opinion.
I am a christian, who believes that history should be depicted as it is, not as to what we feel we can handle as citizens/ inhabitants. However, this was a judgement call that was based on bottom-line profitability, as a movie should be.
So how about Hollywood creating a movie that is about being provocative as well, being marketed as such, and let’s see who goes? Mel Gibson did it, If there is truly a market for a more homoerotic movie then let a producer take the risk like Gibson did. But,Let’s get to the naked truth. Or are we so foolish as to believe that this life as we know it, is all there is. As a christian I think not!
My girlfriend and I would welcome the movie with the scene as long as it was a true depiction with or without the homo scene. Bring it on! Hetero’s be hetero, homo’s be homo, homophobes be homophobes… but let’s be honest, I hang with you and recognize the ability to disguise your disgust and bigotry with religion, family values, and well articulated thoughts.
As heterosexuals lets educate ourselves, minds, children and pull this world together! Homo’s are here to stay…
Interesting how everyone is arguing over something as innocent as a kiss.. Being gay, I cringe at watching str8 couples kiss, but that doesn’t keep me from a movie or even take the time to mention it. But then enter the double standard, you str8 guys can’t stand to watch 2 guys kiss, but it is all right if 2 or more women, preferably more, make out. Funny that no one sees some kind of hipocriticism with that, or perhaps it is because you choose not to pay attention to your hipocracies. You think it is “HOT” because somehow you think you can get in on the action, but have you stopped to think that if they wanted a guy included, they would include one? Think about that.
balmysquatedtape
Oh god guys, you and the directors have lost the plot. Firstly you cannot describe someone of this period as gay. The Greco-Roman empire have long engaged in sexual activity with all manner of people normally if they were in a position of power, like Alex, they could have a choice of adolescent boys women and slaves, i.e. in most part, their social inferiors. In these empires and cultures sexuality has often been an expression of dominance and control; as it is today perhaps some would believe this has been inherited conventional heterosocial and heterosexual expression.(Read Foucault’s ‘Were the Greeks Bisexual’ for more…) Modern day sexuality is only a momentary occurence and as fickle as a fashion experiment. Homosexuality only becomes defined and therefore incriminable come the 19th century in relation to religious beliefs and an (socio-economic) attachment to procreation. Homophobia likewise is part of this trend of defined sexuality as is Gay identity.
If Alex performed sexual activies with men then it is Stone’s or any other director for that matter, resposibility to render these histories with accuracy and sincerity. Heterosexuals who are opposed to seeing this so called ‘man-love’ would quite hypocritically, be appeased by watching some ‘woman love’ which as a current trend objectifies the female and makes a mockery of the lesbian community, who have no interest in pleasing the already over-pleased, heterosexual man.
That the board took the decision to censor the film speaks volumes about the west being a fair and open society.
The west shows such horrendous things in their movies that non-westerners can’t see such films in their movies.
In any case American movies enjoy depicting gory scenes — not to mention filthy, sticky monsters.
Do you mean the macho american guys will break from watching a male and a eunuch have sex on screen.
The fact of the matter is that your heterosexual society is a sham. It has survived because of strong checks that the society has maintained by oppressing bonds between men.
The society knows that the moment it relents on its stigmatisation and sets free bonds between men, ‘heterosexuality’ will break into pieces and there will be no takers for the identity.
For it knows very well, that ‘heterosexuality’ is unreal, unnatural. It needs to be maintained, to be supported. That almost all straight men would want to have a relationship with a man if only the society was not hostile. Just like they did in the days of Alexander.
If male sexual desire was limited to the 10% of gay population, as your heterosexual society suggests, there would have no need for such a strong panic at just showing a small sex scene between a man and a eunuch.
I’m gay, but i think that movie sucks, and not for lack of gay love scenes, but just cuz movie sucks in general.
Ti be honest, god how that movie sucks :-))
not like it really makes a difference axing the scene.. the whole movie (without the scene) more than implied his sexual orientation as swinging both ways..
what a big deal for just a few stupid scenes. What a bunch of hipocrits. Alexander had a male lover and female lover.. good for him. why are you going to hide it on the movie? what kind of truth would be that? we are not getting anywhere with such a close minded people.
Ok so was he gay, wasn’t he… I couldn’t care less….
I am of greek origin and very proud of my people’s history and culture.
But if there is no proof of Alexander the Great being bisexual or homosexual, then they should definatly state in the begining of the movie that some things said could not be accurate.
It could have been as simple as that.
When I learned about Alexander the Great in greek school, our books were written by hellenics and never mentioned that he was bi/gay.
Some people maybe never heard of this story and doing so by a movie that ‘may’ not be accurate, isn’t the best way. Especially about one of the most important people in hitsory…
My opinion…
Eleni the greekette / Montreal, Ca
I was not trying to “preach” or “push” Gods word on anyone – just ASKING people to ACCEPT that SOME PEOPLE have faith and LET THEM BE.
The TWO main points i was tying to make were these.
* I didn’t descriminate Gays – and in return i would like it if people would be equally considerate and not descriminate God and chritianity which (in Europe moreso) is 90% of the peoples beleifs.
* ALSO just a warning that it is written that Gods wrath will be upon those who blashpheme His name – so be careful. You and others may not beleive in God – But God beleives in THEM. Weither they do or do not want to beleive doesn’t change the way He will reflect on them.
I did not want to ask people to “bow down to god and repent” but rather be careful and considerate, and i thought i was in the right place in doing so…
Thank you all.
While I agree Sandra’s comments were inflamitory and unnecessary, it’s probably an equally bad idea to preach “wrath of God” stuff to people who don’t even believe in him. You’re definately not winning points with anyone that way. But thanks for playing…
I have a few things to say about some of the posts put up on this Forum.
Firstly – If you have made a comment that may be descriminating people who read the Bible… those people include = _SANDRA_ then i would have to say that YOU are as CLOSE MINDED as people who would’t accept that Alexander was gay.
I urge ANYONE who has the integrity to post comments that may Challenge the faith of other christians, or restrict the ability for someone to feel comftorable about looking into such a matter should watch out. Judgment from God will be upon those who put down the words of our Lord and Creator. As said in Leviticus 24:16 –
“And whoever blasphemes the name of tge Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land…”
I urge people to FEAR Gods wrath if they plan on blashpheming it.
Thank you
John Campea,
you said the most prejudiced comment in this page was Sandra’s saying the Bible is Fary Tale. There were people saying homosexuals should be hidden, should be not allowed to live. And you believe being gay is adopting a life-style. You compare public displays of affection with telling about animal hunting. There are people saying atrocities here and the most prejudiced comment FOR YOU (scoping as in “not for everybody”) is an atheist telling religious people that they believe in non-real non-proved stories.
I think every religious person should keep in mind that, although they believe in the Bible or in the Qur’an, those books are NOT proved right. They are a prescription of life and not a description of it. Science describes and is open to change if it finds out the world has proved their theories wrong. Religious Rulings prescribe and try to fit society to them. As an Atheist myself, I get pissed off when people throw their religious rules on me and say I’m the one with prejudices when I say their books are not valid sources of world description.
the film is relly good.i like it VERY MUCH!!and colin farrel in it is like the god eros!!!
ohh by the way….if anyone has any pictures and related stories of francisco bosch as bagoas, please forward a link or anything, and its truly sad that he is pushed aside even though heph was the true love here in question, makes me wonder if the scene where bagoas gets dismissed is where heph (jared) get to ask alexander to let him plzz that night that was cut as well..anyways …wondering…anyone???
I think its sad when so many men think that just because they find something not to their liking that they have the right to spoil the hot man sex visions for those of us who happen to love it. And before anyone takes any gay guy shots at me, i happen to be 100% female.
Alexander the Great has been a hero of mine since my childhood days. Besides being a military genius, he was so far ahead of his time in his thinking concerning the breaking down of barriers between peoples and nations that he was misunderstood by his contemporaries. His inclusion of peoples of different races/nationalities into his army & “political” structure of empire, caused much resentment in his Macedonian “regulars.”
His disfunctional family was reason enough to encourage his finding love “outside” in his friends. A cup of water constantly being drunk from needs to be refilled. His giving of love to others needed to be returned. There were, as far as we see from historical records (predjudiced as they were)only two men/boys in Alexander’s life that were able to give totally unselfish love to him, Hephaistion and the Persian Boy, Bagaos. I believe their love relationships to be pure (agape) rather than self-seeking. Alexander needed this love to accomplish what he did. It is too bad that our societal norms would see this expressed on the screen (even in a toned down & “acceptable manner”)as being too much for people to handle. This is who Alexander was and to understand and apreciate who he was needs this
integral aspect of his life explored. We should be as tolerant as Alexander was.
By the way, I wish I could find out more about Francisco Bosch who played Bogoas in the movie. His role shouldn’t be pushed aside so easily.
hello gentleman and ladies, this will be my first posting and i just recently watched alexander, however i was quite upset after reading that a gay
scene from it would be erased…if u do notice on and i had to see the movie to prove it to me, if a bunch of men are goin to decide wats marketable and wats not…that’s ok, after all they are spendin their own money to make, however i would like to be asked if first wat i would think of seein such a scene in a movie before decidin if the audience would not be ready for such a thing…(i know we’re kinda of goin bak on wat u guys had mentionned previously and it took some time to read it all, but i feel i would like to put my share in it)and i do agree wit some of u , u do see a lot of girl-on-girl action and its considered to be ok, and m not complainin about it either (although i am gay) but i do think that if ur goin to portray someone that historical u might as well protray everythin about them, cuz i can guarantee u that their love life is a huge part of them, he loved men and women so wat, actually back then, men love was considered more passionnate and significantly true love as women were primarly for child bearin ( and i dont mean to offend any women out there), but then again that was before christ, and m not goin to go in a religious talk here….the point is u do not see gay people stand up and try to get lawsuits out of a str8 scene, of course NOT, becuz its the norms of society, well guess wat, those norms are bein discriminatin to watever queer action goes on if that includes any forme of difference (gay, lesb, bi, trans, 2spirited..and the list goes on), the world needs to acknowlegde that everybody is different, and as u can see, man love is not somethin that appeared in the 60’s as some people think, and its CERTAINLY NOT a choice, i can tell u that right now, becuz NOBODY, and i mean NO ONE likes to be discriminated, put down, or tell u how low or less of a human being that makes u,but alexander in the contrary was A GREAT MAN, a man that conquered most of the east empires, and a man that had the MOST SIGNIFICANT LOVE for his best friend and lover hephastion…and i do regret that the scenes were deleted but the aggressively NON PASSIONNATE (i think)scenes oh him and dawsons were not even though his true love was OBVIOUSLY NOT HER….i just wanna say that just becuz u find out that there is a gay scene in a movie that was a historical portryal and decide not to see and seem very involved into the discussions over it (assumin most of watched it and know wat we’ re talkin about), i would say then it would be just as easy to walk on the street and see some gay guy bein bashed and not even lift a finger to help him…i feel like i wrote a book so i will loof forward to more discussions over this, even though he just made another bi movie, i can assure u its not epic, some of u might know wat m talkin about…cheers and lets keep on discussin it does educate one…
and one more thing about what you write about Europe and America. I just can’t understand that. I am European and it’s hard to believe what you wrote here that America is so moral and Europe is not. Just come here and turn MTV on! Look at those American clips! There is almost no difference between them and porn movies. Almost naked ladies running around rappers! Guys kissing several women at the same time. That’s how it looks like. And some of those rappers do real porn movies and make fortune on that. And you say that Europe is unmoral?
So much sex in American TV and they just can’t put one gay scene in it… no… That would be to hardcore. Ridiculous
Ok so now my little point of view :)
As we all know and as it has been already said this is Hollywood – the movie must be moral so that schools may see it and the producers can make big $.
But hey – I am gay and if someone would make a movie about my life and cut that “gay” part from I wouldn’t be happy about that. That is a part of personality and it has got big influence on life… you can‚Äôt just skip that.
How would you guys feel if someone would shot a movie about you and for example cut everything about your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/etc.? The hall movie and the story becomes fake and you can’t clearly see why do some things happen and why does the guy from the film act and think that way.
Some of you really need to grow up, being narrow minded just shows why the terrorists want us all dead. They can not handle anyone being different. to put it very simple.
And yes it is the exact same thing.
Interesting.
This conversation is drifting but I live near Toronto one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world.
I used to think I was predjuduce if I did no agree with or accept “everyones” culture. Now I realize as long as I respect their right to their beliefs and customs, I am not prejudice.
I don’t have to understand . . . just accept.
I never have figured out why the chick/chick thing is so acceptable in society yet the dude/dude thing is such a big deal. I think chicks are just more comforrtable with themselves.
My Opinion.
What I’m disappointed is the scene is between Bagoas and Alexander and not Alexander and Hephaistion…the couple that actually mattered.
(by the way I have read “The Persian Boy” and used to sympathize with the eunuch but after seeing “Alexander” I feel as if he is just a insignificant brat)
I salute you my gay brothers.
Wow, so it’s not okay for you sorry excuse for human beings to watch a movie about a bisexual/gay man? I guess it would be okay if it was a lesbian right? Idiots.
Also, gay guys watch your straight movies all the time, we don’t ****ing complain about it. BTW, there’s too many of you rednecks.
Frankly, if you’re not gay, you can’t understand what I feel about issues such as gay pride parades and the representation of gay people on film. Gay pride parades are about feeling pride in who you are while the rest of society is telling you to be ashamed. It’s about visibility, and refusing to be shoved aside and ignored by politicians and filmmakers who would use our lives and accomplishments as fodder for campaigns or box-office revenue without giving us our due. These parades started BECAUSE we were being erased by the rest of society, so that they didn’t have to deal with the effect their ignorance had on us. Watch THE CELLULOID CLOSET and THE SILVER SCREEN: COLOR ME LAVENDER, two documentaries which discuss the issue of gays in society and on film at great length, and you’ll get an inkling of what it’s like to have real people, and characters from books heterosexualized to protect the people in the audience from it. THE LOST WEEKEND was about an alcoholic writer tortured over his sexuality. The movie became the story of a heterosexual alcoholic with writer’s block. The 1947 film Crossfire was based on an actual incident concerning a gay-bashing incident in the army that resulted in the murder of a homosexual who was led on by some officers who wanted to teach a homo a lesson, and proceeded to hit on him, lure him back to their place, then rape and murder him. That story became, on film, the story of anti-Semitism and murder, the homophobia of the crime completely erased. Even today, the homophobic murder of Matthew Shepherd is being twisted into a drug-related killing by 20/20 who ignored the mountain of evidence that prove irrefutably that homophobia was the key motivating factor in his murder.
Gay characters on film were routinely depicted as lecherous predators, outright monsters and murderers, nelly-perverts and lascivious lesbians, or depressed suicidal freaks. I think it’s ridiculous that movies about accomplished gay people have to be defended for not pretending that the sexuality of these people had nothing to do with their lives. I read somewhere on this message board about someone claiming that gay people are prejudiced against straights, and that gay people wouldn’t have accomplished what they did without straight people, who really help gay people a whole lot. Well, gay people are denied civil rights by heterosexuals, so really, we’re not being helped all that much by ALL wonderful wonderful straight people in that regard. And the issue raised by “Victor”, earlier on, whose eloquent comments have gone noticably ignored by all you non-prejudiced people, was not that straight people have not contributed to the accomplishments of gay people, but that when famous figures in any walk of life, who were gay, are depicted on screen, the fact that they were gay was erased, and not only erased in some cases, but changed to being heterosexual. Gay people with great accomplishments worthy of filmic treatment should not have their sexuality wiped out because the public is uncomfortable with it. If you want to make a film about that person, then don’t whitewash their life. If you as a filmmaker want to make a film about a gay person’s life but want to change them into a straight person, then don’t make the film, period! That person may not have wanted to be closeted by you, or have their sexuality looked down upon or erased as if it didn’t exist or didn’t matter. Why make a film about any person if you think part of their life shouldn’t be acknowledged? Just don’t bother. Being disgusted by man-on-man action is homophobia. I am not heterophobic because I do not fear any aspect of hetersexuality. If you are not homophobic, then you are not afraid of any aspect of homosexuality. If you are so afraid of seeing gay sex between men, you have a problem. You are afraid of looking at it because it disgusts you. Fear of homosexuality IS homophobia. It’s absurd for someone to try to say they’re not homophobic because gay sex disgusts them. That’s like saying “I’m not racist against jews or blacks, but if a movie has jews or blacks in it, I’m not seeing it”. Surely you must see the stupidity of such an argument. Sex isn’t all there is to being gay, but it does exist, and trying to stamp out any image of it in movies because you won’t see that movie otherwise is not a defensible position. Until heterosexual sex is eliminated from the screen, then you have no call to complain about sex betweeen two men on screen. If you don’t like it, then don’t see the movie. If you’re upset that it’s included in a biographical film about a man you admire, who happened to be gay, then tough s***. You don’t get to erase that part of that person’s life because you’re uncomfortable with them having sex with a man. You will have to learn to deal with it instead of complaining that the filmmaker included it in the movie, because it belongs in there! Otherwise, don’t see the film. (We all know that you have no problems with two women on screen, the only form of homosexuality you don’t fear). And reducing Alexander’s most meaningful relationship, in a film purporting to represent ALL that he lived for, to a bunch of smoldering glances and mascara’d men, is NOT being honest or respectful or progressive. Conversely, what exactly was the artistic purpose of the sex sceen between Farrell and Rosario Dawson in this film? No one has provided a justification for that scene’s existence in the film.
I don’t understand why for years the number of lesbian sex scenes has been increasing and applauded as honest, and groundbreaking, but the thought of some similiar eroticism in “Alexander” creates panic in pandemic amounts amongst the men….you know I get tired in general of seeing people, no matter how beautiful or smouldering, continually up there on a big screen trying to convince me that body make-up and lighting are serious plot driving devices. Maybe I am weird, but after a while, does no one else feel like a voyeur? That door closing, me wondering what is happening behind it, is more compelling….but since we have had such a rush of exploration into female sexuality, why the fierce disgust when a historical figure’s desires are portrayed? It’s just history, right? What about Richard the Lionhearted; some say that such a manly love was an inevitable result of close campaigning with friends who faught for goals that took years to accomplish.
For the record, I am a forty year old woman with no hidden longings (I looked, just in case, in my twenties!) I just feel that sexuality is only part of one’s character, not the overwhelming definition of the whole…show the scene, don’t show the scene, but don’t say it’s not about selling tickets or scaring ‘straight’ guys away, cause we women know better. It’s not like the measles; you can’t ‘catch’ it, and it does not weaken one or render them less noble or loved. Alexander appeared to have a good grasp on separating affection from lust from love and also, how they can all come together. He also will always be commended in my mind, for chastising his men that rape and pillage was not the order of the day.
Frank,
Hey, thanks for telling me what I’m thinking.
Really appreciate it.
Is that analysis like, from, a college degree or something?
Vic
John,
In regards to the incredibly stupid Sandra comment: Thanks.
Vic
If you don’t want to watch a movie because it has a gay sex scene two things are at work:
1. You’re uncomfortable with your sexuality or you’re afraid someone may label you gay, and
2. Your a bitch. LOL.
Wow. Congratulations Sandra. That was easily the most closed minded, and blatantly prejudiced comment I think anyone has ever left on this site. And that’s saying something.
You guys read the bible? That book is a bore.
You base your opinions, and live life according to fairy tales?
You have a problem with gay sex-but you talk to make believe gods before supper?
Guys come on. We are suppose to give up belief in santa when we are children.
I completely agree with you, Dionysus. (By the way, love your name).
Enough about what the Bible says. That document says a lot of things are imorral, but times change and people have advanced and developed enough not to follow everything that is written on paper. People should think for themselves, and not relay on religion, or whatever they can find to argue that something is wrong.
Something is wrong when it hurts someone else. I really don’t see how homosexuality hurts anyone. If the two are both willing, and desire it, what is can possibly be wrong with that?
Honestly. Our culture is making such a HUGE deal out of things that frankly are not that big of a deal. You would think that it was an underground sect that would wipe people out or something. It’s really outrageous.
And that is the reason why people get so hiped up, because it feels so forbidden and unspoken of, that sometimes it might feel like a sin to even talk about such things. If we would be more open about it, then the problems of descrimination and acceptance would lessen.
It’s the same thing with nakedness in Europe. You see it everywhere. For the average American, this might seem shocking and unbeliavble. But for the European, it’s not that special, cause there are a million more out there. As a result, they are more comfortable with it and it doesn’t present such a big probelm that pornography does in the U.S.
In the Reinassance, naked people dominated the arts, but nowdays, the body and sexuality is always taboo and people say that there is something wrong with you if you don’t follow the norms.
As for me, I am very acceptant of all people. I know that one’s sexuality is not a choice, it is something you are probably born with. Culture might have an influence, but a limited one. Culture might get you to try something, but in the end it’s up to your tastes if you like it or not. People can’t help being what they are.
Whether your Christian or not is beside the issue.. this is a movie about Alexander, who was MORE than a little homo – his main love was Hephaistion – and you can be sure they spent a lot of time in the sack.
The problem with making him into a hetero superstar is that it’s rewriting history. For years, many right-wing and/or Christian homophobes and bigots have been blaming gays for everything.. and stereotyping gay people as weak and useless and laughable and somehow “less than” straights.
Well history doesn’t agree – and making movies that change the past play into this type of right-wing politics. Gay people are exactly like straight people – strong, weak, crazy, intelligent, passionate, well-adjusted, foolish.. etc. And frankly, it’s nice to have an Alexander to counteract the lame gay portrayals in the media.
This is not a porno – but it SHOULD accurately reflect his life. What happened to truth in film-making? This isn’t a bunch of Ewoks, people.. it’s a real conqueror who lived – and loved men.
And for those guys who “just don’t want to see it”.. grow up for crying out loud. No one is asking you to join in or watch close-up anal penetration. It’s a scene in a movie reflecting the real life of a famous person who happened to live many years before Jesus appeared. So grow up already.
A sex scene (even x-rated), in my opinion, is infinitely more preferable than watching the violence that leaps out of your TV several times a day. It’s funny how the same guy that thinks he’s so tough and macho and can watch someone get riddled with bullets or decapitated can’t watch some affection between men. But hey, at least you violence-junkies will get something out of this fillm too, seeing as Alexander did do a lot of butchering as well.
Hollywood movies have always been regarded as fluff and pandering to the lowest-common denominator. It’s time that the American movie-going public got a bit more sophisticated.
And by the way, Meenaxi, very good point! People talk about homosexuality being forbidden in the Bible as justification for hating gays but in the same section of Leviticus, eating shrimp, wearing polyester/cotton blend fabric and many other things were considered equal abominations – and yet no one is hating these things. People like to pick and choose their sins – it’s politics more than anything else.
Anyway… enough ranting.
THERE Is such thing as a GAY GENE. There has been a lot of studies where a Whole family has had every other male or female come out a lesbian or gay or bisexual.And i dont think GAY or LEsbian people would want to CHOOSE to be that way if they know society wont accept them, and live thru hell. THANKS A LOT .. just clarifing for the METAL pPl out there. ALSO.. I WANT TO SEE THE GAY SCENE.. AM NOT A CONSERVATIVE that is trying to make the world in my point of view. WE ARENT ALL CHRITIAN OR CATHOLIC..
well, I bet Collin Farrel is feeling stupid after doing that scene for nothing. BEsides how bad can a guy on guy be?.. anyways.. hopefully the deleted scenes come out in the DVD. CANT WAIT. lol
Ok, it sounds like everybody here is taking this thing a wee bit too seriously.
Personally, I think the whole homosexual thing is really weird. Some one try to tell me that gay people are born that way. But what about ex-gays? Were they born gay? And then suddenly they became straight? No, it’s all just a personal preference. People choose to be gay, they’re not born with or without some special gene. Maybe they just like it, maybe it was their upbringing; but come on, a thing like that can’t possibly be natural.
The soul purpose for every living organism is to breed and make offspring so that they’re species doesn’t become extinct. And people of the same sex can’t exactly do that… naturally, anyway. But who knows; if they keep going, maybe in a million years or so they’ll evolve so that they can. People could become like plants and self-pollinate themselves.
It’s not that I have a problem with homosexuals. I treat them the same way they treat me. I think of them the same way I think of smokers. It’s they’re choice to do what they do, but it’s something I, personally, would not want to do.
As for that comment about Mel Gibson, I like Mel a lot. I like his movies, and I like his personality and attitude (from what I’ve seen anyway. I don’t personally know him, of course). In the Passion of the Christ, he just showed us some of what happened to Jesus. There was a LOT more gruesome stuff they could’ve had in there that had actually happened, but I think Mel just wanted us to see what Jesus went through and sacrificed for us. And man, was I balling when Jesus fell carrying the cross and Mary caught him. The flogging really didn’t affect me as much as that did.
If Alexander really was a bisexual, then they should put it in the movie. It’s not likely that it’ll be a huge scene. Even just a small bit of something would be nice. Especially for all of those man-loving people out there. Like me.
They should at least try it and see if people will go see that kind of stuff for future reference. And if they do keep it in there, then the least they’re going to get is a lot of controversy over it, which means the film will get a lot of attention. And that’s always good for sales. A lot of people out there like to bash Passion of the Christ because of it’s violent nature, but look how much money it made at the box office!
Ok, it sounds like everybody here is taking this thing a wee bit too seriously.
Personally, I think the whole homosexual thing is really weird. Some one try to tell me that gay people are born that way. But what about ex-gays? Were they born gay? And then suddenly they became straight? No, it’s all just a personal preference. People choose to be gay, they’re not born with or without some special gene. Maybe they just like it, maybe it was their upbringing; but come on, a thing like that can’t possibly be natural.
The soul purpose for every living organism is to breed and make offspring so that they’re species doesn’t become extinct. And people of the same sex can’t exactly do that… naturally, anyway. But who knows; if they keep going, maybe in a million years or so they’ll evolve so that they can. People could become like plants and self-pollinate themselves.
It’s not that I have a problem with homosexuals. I treat them the same way they treat me. I think of them the same way I think of smokers. It’s they’re choice to do what they do, but it’s something I, personally, would not want to do.
As for that comment about Mel Gibson, I like Mel a lot. I like his movies, and I like his personality and attitude (from what I’ve seen anyway. I don’t personally know him, of course). In the Passion of the Christ, he just showed us some of what happened to Jesus. There was a LOT more gruesome stuff they could’ve had in there that had actually happened, but I think Mel just wanted us to see what Jesus went through and sacrificed for us. And man, was I balling when Jesus fell carrying the cross and Mary caught him. The flogging really didn’t affect me as much as that did.
If Alexander really was a bisexual, then they should put it in the movie. It’s not likely that it’ll be a huge scene. Even just a small bit of something would be nice. Especially for all of those man-loving people out there. Like me.
They should at least try it and see if people will go see that kind of stuff for future reference. And if they do keep it in there, then the least they’re going to get is a lot of controversy over it, which means the film will get a lot of attention. And that’s always good for sales. A lot of people out there like to bash Passion of the Christ because of it’s violent nature, but look how much money it made at the box office!
Just wondering — at this point do we know for sure whether the scene in question was retained or cut? If it was cut, I’ll definitely wait for the movie to come out on DVD. No need to shell out good money to see a censored, abridged product.
Incidentally, aside from the debate on homosexuality and homoeroticism, there is something disturbing about a bunch of 50-60 year old guys in suits dictating what America is or isn’t ‘ready to see.’ I know, the suits put up the money to make the movie; they get a say in how it turns out. But I like to decide for myself what I want to see. I’d feel the same way, incidentally, if we were talking about a movie that was openly hostile to gay people, or a movie that had nothing to do with homosexuality at all. Free expression – there’s nothing like it, even if you don’t like the message.
If the studio hired Oliver Stone, they hired him to craft the final product. They hired him for his story telling ability and his judgement. Let the guy do his job in interpreting a screenplay that obviously called for a gay scene.
Oh, and one other thought about what people consider to be vulgar. I bet many of those who object most strongly to seeing carnal affection between two men eagerly took their entire families to see Passion of the Christ. My partner of 9 years and I went to see POTC when it came out. Talk about a harrowing experience. That movie was tough to watch from beginning to end [the flogging scene where chunks of flesh are ripped from Christ’s side was the hardest for me, personally, to watch]. My partner and I endured, however, and were both somewhat moved by the experience.
I don’t have kids and my partner and I don’t plan to adopt. But I’ll say this much: if I had a kid, say 12-13 years old, I would sooner shield him/her from the unyielding brutality of POTC than from a portrayal of affection between two men.
And yet …. Mel Gibson can make any damn movie he wants to make. Free expression ….
Salem,
The statement that I said was not bashing the religion. I do admit it was a tad sarcastic, but I did not mean for it to offend you. And I asure you that I am not ignorant.
Yeah, Kids may watch it. But I don’t really know that many kids that are interested in history, let alone know who Alexander the Great was. I think that cultured people and audiences that want to understand and connect with history and herocial historcial figures will want to see this film.
I am sure that kids have seen plenty of sex, since it’s on TV everywhere. SO what does it matter if they see it in this movie? It’s not like they don’t know how evertything works aleardy anyway.
You said that kids would see it even though it’s rated R already. Yeah, they may. But don’t you think that they aleardy saw many other rated R movies? With violence and murder and death and slaughter? Is that safer than sex? I really don’t think so. You would rather have your friend, or someone close to you be a murderer than a homosexual?
That just doesn’t make sense to me.
It’s just a movie. OK? They took it out. Are you going to see ALexander when it comes out, now that oh-so-offending scene was taken out? My guess is that you won’t. I am right, aren’t I?
Or if you are really stubbourn you will probably see it anyway and comment on it later just to bash whatever measly trace they left of the scene in the movie. Whatever.
As to your reference that there is a lot of homosexuality on TV, I am not so sure that is true. I watch TV frequently and if I have to count how many times I have seen something like that, the number would be less than the fingers on my hands. On the other hand, much to my desmay, there is a lot of lesbians everywhere on TV. No one seems to mind that. In fact, you guys like it. We women just kind of roll our eyes and sigh.
But you don’t see us acting so outrageous like some men do when they see gays on TV. There is something wrong with that. I have no problem seeing two men together. Actually, I admit that it might turn me on. Yeah, we should have more of that. I wonder if that scene will be on the DVD. I hope so.
By the way – you don’t have to post your messege 5 times. I got you on the first.
Meenaxi, I think Elisha Cuthbert is pretty perfect, but then I may be talking about something completly different!
I am not a religious person. I dont understand religion, and I dont really get its signifficance in peoples lifes. I believe in a “god” a higher being as such, but do not and will not ever follow a religion. Thats not to say I am opposed to religion, and would never condemn someone for their belief. I dislike people that ram their religion down other peoples throat, and tell them what is right and wrong. I dislike the justification for wars and atrocities as in the “name of god”. I dislike the splits and divides that religions cause (Ireland, the Middle East etc) and I dislike politicians who mulipulate people beliefs and ideologies just to serve their own purpose (Bush a prime example!)
I am not a Gay person. I dont find other men attractive (although I do say if I think a man is a good looking dude, surely even the most macho of men can do that?!). I do not want to be with a man. Thats not to say I am opposed to homosexuals, and would never condemn someone for their sexuality. I will admit, I dont want two men going at it hardcore broadcast on tv or film, but then again I dont want to see a man and women having hardcore sex broadcast on tv or shown in the cinema (thats what Porn is for!!!).
We all have our beliefs people, we all have our different perspectives. People have different sexual orientations. Thats what makes us individuals! If someones religion tells them that homosexuality is bad, then fair enough, thats your belief. YOUR belief, not everybodies, so keep it YOURS and share it with other people who share the same thoughts! If someone thinks religion is stupid, fair enough, thats YOUR belief, so keep it YOURS and share it with other like minded people.
Debate is fun, debate is necessary, difference is enjoyable. Bigotry, nastiness, stupidness however are not!
First of all…As it already is, sex is commonplace in the media. Children do NOT need to go to a Rated R movie to see sex on a daily basis. Look at the internet, look at TV. It’s easier to be exposed to what we view as “immoral, unethical, etc.” things at our very homes then having to go to a theatre.
Furthermore, because a movie shows a homosexual or heterosexual or any type of sex scene does not mean that it’s advocating or refuting it. Because they choose to show it, does not mean that they believe it is ok, normal etc.
Many religions view homosexuality as a sin, but what about the countless other number of sins? Those images are rampant everywhere. If everyone is so strongly repelled and appaled by this, what about the other things?
I usually don’t like to give any information out about myself because it tends to close some people out or even anger them. But I am a heterosexual muslim. I don’t think that matters though. What matters is being fair. If you’re condoning a movie for homoerotism, then you should also be condoning a movie with any type of erotism. Or in that instance anything with drugs, or other bad influences on children.
I love the hypocrisy in everything we do and say.
Many people claim to be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, whatever. But so many things they do go against it.
It never is religion that is wrong, it is the people practicing it.
It is alright to be honest.
It is ok to show the world that humans are imperfect.
That Alexander the Great, whom many have made a god out of, is imperfect. Show me one man, woman, animal that is.
Salem, thank you.
As a religious person myself (yes, I am Christian and do see homosexuality as a sin, but I also see a lot of things as sins, don’t forget that) I take a personal offence to the Bible, or any boo of scripture for that matter, being used as ammunition by those who do not believe its tennants. If you do not believe the Bible is scripture then you hold no claim as to make judgements on its contents. the reaason for this is that you lack a perspective that is required to reconcile these passages, and as such present them as inherently contradicting. To put it in the simplest terms, Christ loved the sinner, not the sin, and invited all to cast off their sins (whatever they may be) and come unto him. We all have habits and pre-dispositions and mentalities that affect the way we see the world. Some we still recognize as harmful (pedophilia) others as harmless (a preference for 40’s Blues over 60’s bandstand jazz) and a whole lot more fall into that big wide nebulous realm of controversial (it should be obvious what I’m talking about here).
Blue Eyes, I take certain exception to your sarcastic assault on Salem’s faith, especially in light of your pretended moral superiority.
Mikey, for the same reason that you feel offended over the idea that homosexuality is being quelled and downplayed in society, people with values and ideas founded in religion feel offended by the glorification of carnal activity (glamourized violence, drug abuse, alcoholism, promiscuity of any persuasion, gambling, and the list of vices goes on) feeling that such subjects are not neccessarely beyond the pall of broach, but shoud be handled with extreme care. I cannot imagine (yet, anyway) anyone doing a romantic comedy with child molestation as a central theme, and I doubt anyone here can fathom it. I trust we have a sense of propriety enough to see the point here from both perspectives.
Before we start glamorizing the Greeks and Romans as the pinacle of societal evolution, let us remember that they also condoned pedophilia, bestiality, slavery, racism, racial superiority, the suppresion of women, and were brutal conquerors who took over the world at the edge of the sword leaving a river of blood behind them. They induldged in all the graft and opression that have become stereotypical of leadership, and were not entirely prone to the occasional genocidal campaign.
Oh, and I don’t remember who it was earlier who made the comment about the physical perfection of people in those days, you completely missed the sarcasm of “how many pictures have you seen” as the photographic camera wasn’t invented at the time, thus you have seen no pictures of them. they were probably prone to all the same genetic quirks as we are today, though guarenteed were probably in better shape as a general rule due to lifestyle. Ultimately, though, taking the busts and other art that we dig up as indicative of what the common people looked like is much akin to digging up a Red Book or Maxim magazine a thousand years from now and taking it as the template for our society’s features. We’re dealing with a medium that in inherently obsessed with finding “perfection.”
Salem, thank you.
As a religious person myself (yes, I am Christian and do see homosexuality as a sin, but I also see a lot of things as sins, don’t forget that) I take a personal offence to the Bible, or any boo of scripture for that matter, being used as ammunition by those who do not believe its tennants. If you do not believe the Bible is scripture then you hold no claim as to make judgements on its contents. the reaason for this is that you lack a perspective that is required to reconcile these passages, and as such present them as inherently contradicting. To put it in the simplest terms, Christ loved the sinner, not the sin, and invited all to cast off their sins (whatever they may be) and come unto him. We all have habits and pre-dispositions and mentalities that affect the way we see the world. Some we still recognize as harmful (pedophilia) others as harmless (a preference for 40’s Blues over 60’s bandstand jazz) and a whole lot more fall into that big wide nebulous realm of controversial (it should be obvious what I’m talking about here).
Blue Eyes, I take certain exception to your sarcastic assault on Salem’s faith, especially in light of your pretended moral superiority.
Mikey, for the same reason that you feel offended over the idea that homosexuality is being quelled and downplayed in society, people with values and ideas founded in religion feel offended by the glorification of carnal activity (glamourized violence, drug abuse, alcoholism, promiscuity of any persuasion, gambling, and the list of vices goes on) feeling that such subjects are not neccessarely beyond the pall of broach, but shoud be handled with extreme care. I cannot imagine (yet, anyway) anyone doing a romantic comedy with child molestation as a central theme, and I doubt anyone here can fathom it. I trust we have a sense of propriety enough to see the point here from both perspectives.
Before we start glamorizing the Greeks and Romans as the pinacle of societal evolution, let us remember that they also condoned pedophilia, bestiality, slavery, racism, racial superiority, the suppresion of women, and were brutal conquerors who took over the world at the edge of the sword leaving a river of blood behind them. They induldged in all the graft and opression that have become stereotypical of leadership, and were not entirely prone to the occasional genocidal campaign.
Oh, and I don’t remember who it was earlier who made the comment about the physical perfection of people in those days, you completely missed the sarcasm of “how many pictures have you seen” as the photographic camera wasn’t invented at the time, thus you have seen no pictures of them. they were probably prone to all the same genetic quirks as we are today, though guarenteed were probably in better shape as a general rule due to lifestyle. Ultimately, though, taking the busts and other art that we dig up as indicative of what the common people looked like is much akin to digging up a Red Book or Maxim magazine a thousand years from now and taking it as the template for our society’s features. We’re dealing with a medium that in inherent;y obsessed with finding “perfection.”
Blue Eyes,
Are you saying that Muslims use women as tools, and procreation purposes? First of all, DO NOT judge a religion thats extremly misunderstood! Yea, we get a bad-name from certain people on the news, but if Islam was a religion that uses women as tools, why on Earth is there so many people willingly converting to islam?
As for the gay scene. I dont have that big of a problem with gay people. Hey, its your choice and if you aint hurting anybody, I really wouldnt care. I have a couple of gay friends (one bisexual Man).
But, if its posted on the movies, pretty soon its gonna be shown on TV, (oh wait, it is on MTV, like in every other commercial) I dont have a problem, but the thing is, I KNOW kids are going to be watching it.
Blue Eyes,
Are you saying that Muslims use women as tools, and procreation purposes? First of all, DO NOT judge a religion thats extremly misunderstood! Yea, we get a bad-name from certain people on the news, but if Islam was a religion that uses women as tools, why on Earth is there so many people willingly converting to islam?
As for the gay scene. I dont have that big of a problem with gay people. Hey, its your choice and if you aint hurting anybody, I really wouldnt care. I have a couple of gay friends (one bisexual Man).
But, if its posted on the movies, pretty soon its gonna be shown on TV, (oh wait, it is on MTV, like in every other commercial) I dont have a problem, but the thing is, I KNOW kids are going to be watching it.
Blue Eyes,
Are you saying that Muslims use women as tools, and procreation purposes? First of all, DO NOT judge a religion thats extremly misunderstood! Yea, we get a bad-name from certain people on the news, but if Islam was a religion that uses women as tools, why on Earth is there so many people willingly converting to islam?
As for the gay scene. I dont have that big of a problem with gay people. Hey, its your choice and if you aint hurting anybody, I really wouldnt care. I have a couple of gay friends (one bisexual Man).
But, if its posted on the movies, pretty soon its gonna be shown on TV, (oh wait, it is on MTV, like in every other commercial) I dont have a problem, but the thing is, I KNOW kids are going to be watching it.
Blue Eyes,
Are you saying that Muslims use women as tools, and procreation purposes? First of all, DO NOT judge a religion thats extremly misunderstood! Yea, we get a bad-name from certain people on the news, but if Islam was a religion that uses women as tools, why on Earth is there so many people willingly converting to islam?
As for the gay scene. I dont have that big of a problem with gay people. Hey, its your choice and if you aint hurting anybody, I really wouldnt care. I have a couple of gay friends (one bisexual Man).
But, if its posted on the movies, pretty soon its gonna be shown on TV, (oh wait, it is on MTV, like in every other commercial) I dont have a problem, but the thing is, I KNOW kids are going to be watching it.
Blue Eyes,
Are you saying that Muslims use women as tools, and procreation purposes? First of all, DO NOT judge a religion thats extremly misunderstood! Yea, we get a bad-name from certain people on the news, but if Islam was a religion that uses women as tools, why on Earth is there so many people willingly converting to islam?
As for the gay scene. I dont have that big of a problem with gay people. Hey, its your choice and if you aint hurting anybody, I really wouldnt care. I have a couple of gay friends (one bisexual Man).
But, if its posted on the movies, pretty soon its gonna be shown on TV, (oh wait, it is on MTV, like in every other commercial) I dont have a problem, but the thing is, I KNOW kids are going to be watching it.
Salem,
I know that it states in your religion that homosexulaity is a sin. OK. Do you believe everything you hear and read?
Take this for instance: (I assume that you are a male) What if it stated in your religion that to have sex with a woman was an only allowed for procreation purposes and you weren’t allowed to have feelings for that woman, not romantic, more like aquitances. Would you listen to that? OH! Wait!
You ONLY use women for procreation purposes. OOPs! My bad.
ANd in reference to you other comment—the movie is rated R. R, not PG or G. You said that it’s not for childern, you’re right about that. That is why it’s R. Not PG. Or G…..R.
Religion is an important factor in people’s lives because it helps them turn to something in a time of need. But it’s not healthy to obsess and do exactly what it says word by word.
I am sure that you have commited numerous “sins” and have not been hated for them. If you really insist at labeling homosexuality as a “sin”, that is kind of thinking, but don’t hate people for it, just as you are not hated.
And if you’re so frightened of seeing a 2 minute scene between 2 men, then close your eyes or look away, or hug your date or whatever.
I bet that you don’t turn the channel when 2 lesbos are kissing. You can say that you do, but I know differently. So, what is the big deal? Do you think that you’ll be convereted or something? Fear not.
Mikey,
How dare you give a reasoned response on a blog site? ;-)
Vic
I take straight people at their word when they tell me they find homoeroticism hard to stomach. Telling them they shouln’t feel that way is silly since, as a gay man, I’ll be damned if I let anyone tell me how I should feel about most anything in my life. Part of being gay is not having to say you are sorry for the way you feel. Same goes for anyone, in my book, as long as they aren’t hurting me or anyone else.
Buuuuuuuut, if all we are talking about is a 2-3 minute scene in a movie, perhaps those who find it hard to stomach can just look away, or go get another bucket of popcorn, or bury their faces in their date’s cleavage or whatever else they need to do to preserve their cocoon of heterosexuality.
99.99% of the images in our culture are heterosexual. Is it so much to ask that a single homoerotic scene be preserved in a movie with a gay/bisexual hero? Or must this smidgen of queerness be expunged, even when it directly relates to the protagonist’s character, his very being?
If you can’t stand to watch, then look away — or don’t go to see it at all and wait for it to come out on DVD so you can fast-forward through the scene. But don’t lobby to chop up the movie and deny everyone else just to conform with your particular sensitivities.
As for Salem, the Muslim who objects to homosexuality on religious grounds: this is a movie. Depicting a gay person does not constitute advocacy of homosexuality. It simply recognizes a historical fact. Movies portray all kinds of people doing all kinds of things. If the only acceptable images are those that do not conflict with the Koran or the Bible, films are going to get very boring very quickly.
Look, I’m Muslim, and it CLEARLY states that homosexuality is one of the biggest sins a person can do.
I dont hate gay people, I just feel that it shouldnt be as out there as it is.
Meenaxi,
people (I mean conservators and idealists) want to see the world with their preconcepted models. Anything that goes beyond they recognition of normality, is abnormal and thus must be hidden away. In the last decades, we’re living the rise a Yes or No, Good- and Evil-axis type of society. And in a such polarized world view, anything that does not fit in a schemata must be something completely against “the norm”, “our ways”. It makes sense to suggest Alexander was bissexual in a movie instead of portraying him as gay, alcoholic and sadist. And I don’t think gay people would feel comfortabale either with the image of alcoholics and sadists being mixed up with gays and I don’t think the army would be pleased with a gay general in the movie theaters. I don’t think this story would please a single soul if it were truely portrayed. So I won’t complain anymore, but I won’t take the word “homophobic” from whoever took the scene away and from whoever wouldn’t watch the movie only because of a gay character.
Personally,
I don’t think this is an issue of society’s hypocrisy, homophobia, heter/homo/any sexuality, “ready” or “not ready” to accept, open/close-mindedness.
It’s an issue of history.
Why can’t something today be potrayed as it really was?
Then again… this is one persons perception.
It just annoys me how everything must fit in perfect black and white squares…even when deep down we all know that it’s never like that.
Victor,
I agree with you reality is masked up when it’s portrayed back to society. But that’ll never change. Let’s tell people they should read Quintus for the truth (and tell what the truth is if they don’t want to read the book)…
Wow, John, is this the longest thread you’ve had on the site or what?
All I ever said was that I didn’t want to see a scene like that. I didn’t say I didn’t want to watch the movie because Alexandar was bi- or homosexual.
Is there nothing that you folks feel strongly about not seeing? Is there nothing that you’d rather not watch because it just bothers you on a gut level? I cringe when I see two guys in a romantic whatever. For me it’s instinctive… just makes me cringe. That makes me bad or wrong? I don’t think so.
I also can’t stand to watch real scenes of real surgery on TV… it’s not a conscious thing, I just get queasy and grossed out watching it. Does that mean I’m anti-surgery??
Yeesh.
Vic
John C.
It is YOU who’s obviously not getting it.
It is O.K. for someone who choses not to see the movie because it depicts a gay scene.
At the same time, however, it can be regarded as homophobic.
Growing up gay in a straight world, i never made a conscience decision to exclude a film that depicted straight sex scene because i grew up with the notion that that was “normal” or natural.
The reality is that gay sex scene would be questioned, at best.
Had we all grown up in a world in which homosexuality was regarded as normal as heterosexuality, all of this debate would have been nonexistant.
John, ask yourself, why would someone avoid a film with a gay subject matter?
The fact that people would consider it even an issue is indicative of just how conservative Americans are compared to, say, Canadians or Europeans.
This is a byproduct of homophobia, not just some sort of a natural disgust or aversion to homosexuality; because my friends in Norway where i partly grew up never expressed a dislike of or even a disintresest in a gay scene in movies. Why? Because they didn’t grew up in a hyper-masculine culture like Americans, where men still rule. (Hence the lack of controversy regarding lesbian sex scenes.)
And i say their discomfort is fine; but it is a reflection of homophobia. I don’t think you are necessarily homophobic, but most of my straight guy friends would see a film if they’re interested in the story.
Now, if you ARE interested to see it, and hesitate due to the gay subject matter, then, John, you have some degree of homophobia, which is as much a part of America as apple pie homeboy.
Otherwise, then we’re cool, right?
Ummm, David? Are you talking about people in general, or are you refering to me? Cause it seems like you are…
I’m confused.
People well allow their children to see violence in films and on television. Will allow their children to play violent video games. Yet they disapprove of Homosexual (male) content in films. So let me get this straight, if you had a choice you would rather your child be a killer than homosexual!? What a joke some people are!!!!!
I kind of agree with Marty, but I also agree with Eye-Lashes. (Hi there Eye-Lashes, do you like the candy? you know what I am saying!)
I have read the Bible and I know most of what Jesus taught in the new testament, as well Abraham in the Old Testament.
It is very true that there is a part of the bible in the Old T. that states that homosexuals should be shunned and will go to hell. I am wondering what Abraham was thinking or what God was thinking as well when He came up with that. Ummm, I may be wrong, but doesn’t God love everyone? If you read the Bible carefully you will see that some sections contradict with eachother in small, but significant ways. Abraham said NO, it’s sinful!, but then we have Jesus that comes along and tell us all that we are brothers and we should love eachother. Now, I know he probably didn’t mean it *that* way, but still, he never strictly specified, did he? And they say that love comes from God, and if you are a man, who can love only men, is that your fault?
That is where The Old T. is getting to contradict. It’s love, so is it sinful just because it’s different?
The people who first labeled homosexuality as an outrage were the Jews by the way ( I looked it up). The Greeks and Romans had no problem with it, they practiced it all the time, but the custom began be looked down upon with the fanatics who preached afterwards, labeling everything.
One of the reasons it’s so widely unaccepted is because a union between 2 men will not produce an offspring, which is what God said was necessary. Ok, maybe hundreds of years ago when the globe wasn’t overflowing with people, but now?
I don’t think that we need to worry about human exsistence in that sense right now,we have more than enough; so many in fact that probably our resources will be exstict soon. More than that, Humans are different than animals because we experience higher level of emotions and we are the most developed mentally….but it wouldn’t hurt to improve once in a while. So, we feel more, do more, want to find a purpose, we seek to understand who we are and what is important to us. That is our main goal in life. The old ways change into new.
Some people live in the past, and cannot possibly understand it, but it’s not their fault. Things have been etched into their brains and they grew up beliveing certain things. It’s like a computer being programmed – once you fill it with documents(beliefs), it will get full, and you can’t add new ones unless you delate the old. And that process is impossible for most people who belive strongly and have no will to broaden their undersatnding. Again, it’s not their fault; it’s simply too late.
Sometimes when you read the Bible, you get the feeling that even God does not know what exactly he wants. He can change his mind too. Remember Noah’s ark. He whiped out the entire population, but then he felt bad and promised Noah that He will never do such a thing again, because it was the wrong way to go about things. So, we go from total violence to pacifism – Jesus ( sent by God again) Now, instead of the whole population dying, God sent His Son to be killed alone. This was proven more effective because Christianity became the most popoular relegion due to his sacrifice.
Esencially, a pattern that can be observed is that even God can sometimes make mistakes. I say that all of the homosexual men out there shouldn’t worry. You are not going to hell, and you are not dammed for eternity. You are an important part of society that is not getting the respect you deserve, but I am sure things will change in the future.
Like God said, Blessed are the hungry, poor and opressed, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
I’ve read almost this entire post. I’ve seen some pretty stupid comments made, about people not wanting their children to see it and Old women, as well, as if children and old women are just going to WANDER into the damn theater and be strapped down and FORCED to watch a gay porno.
Such lame, close-minded, IGNORANCE!!! I’m SO SICK Of it!!!! It’s the 21st century! For the love of God STOP THIS!!! (YES GOD…because HE made us!!! HE MADE Gay people!!! If we are condemned to go to Hell, WHY Did He even bother to create us in the first place?? If people are going to use The BIBLE as an excuse to hate us, if they are going to use RELIGION as an excuse to keep us down, to alienate us, and to justify their own freaking stupidity, then they need to realize that GOD made us who we are!!! He knows all that is, was, and ever shall be until the end of all things, so he KNOWS about gay people, he created the world that allowed us to be.) So you can’t sit there and say God is sending us to HELL for being waht we are, because he MADE us who we are..he made EVERYTHING!! And don’t tell me the stupid speech about free will, because God created everything that was knowing full well what was going to happen. What kind of FREE WILL is it to do something that you are assured will send you down to the burning pits of hell to be devoured/tortured by demons for all of eternity ?? And why did God make it feel so good to have gay or straight sex PERIOD?? He knows everything, and if you argue that he didn’t know gay people would be and that they have a free will to NOT be “gay” then you are a fool who doesn’t know any gay people nor have you had any conversations with them outside of calling them a “fag” on the street.
The Bible and hatemongers and homophobes can’t support their arguments or their hatreds. I beleive there are even MORE hateful people out there than they are admitting. They wear a MASK of political correctness becuase it’s considered uncool nowadays to be hateful or a bigot, so they lie and pretend that they accept us and have no problem with it, but then they get on these forums and on the internet and act totally different. They LIE to the world around them about who and what they are to be accepted and appreciated. THAT is what gay people have had to do for millenia. How does it feel?
Hi, I just posted a comment yesterday about this subject, and I said I was for the scene staying in the movie. I still say it should be in there, and for the same reasons, but I’ve been reading a lot of the comments here and thinking about this subject. So here are my thoughts:
I read somebody’s who said that people have always been prejudiced to a group of cerain people. And I agree with that. But every single race of people has had their hard times dealing with having no freedom. And not just Native Americans, black people, and women. Those are just the recent ones. Don’t forget that our country, America, is pretty new compared to the rest of the world. The Scottish were never free until William Wallace came around (if any of you have ever seen Braveheart, an awesome movie), and there have always been slaves in a lot countries, and in fact, there still are. We’re lucky to live in America, because we have more freedom here than in any other country. If you don’t believe me, try living somewhere else for a while. Here, we can see doctors any time we want, we can have any job that we want if we just work hard enough…
So I don’t think that homosexuals have it too hard, they’re just going through stuff that our ancestors went through, except without the wars. And hopefully, it will never ever come to war. I think the difference between this homophobic stuff and say, black people, is that you can’t tell what a person’s sexuality is. You can usually tell what someone’s skin color is. And I think it scares people sometimes, when they’ve been brought up believing there’s something wrong with homosexuals, and one day they meet some nice person, find out that they really like them, and then find out that they’re gay. People shouldn’t be scared of that kind of thing. People are still just people. I could be friends with a lesbian just like I would be friends with a straight guy. It’s the same thing. It doesn’t mean I have to have sex with either of them.
But of course, and unfortunately, there will always be at least a few people who are still and will always be prejudice against a certain type of people, no matter how the laws change. What everybody’s talking about now at this site is heterosexuals being prejudice to homosexuals and/or bisexuals. And some people are. But I think it also goes the other way; homosexuals can be prejudice to hederosexuals. From what I’ve read at this site, it seems like there are a few of you out there. Everyone’s so mean and judgemental. If you want a certain type of people to respect you, then you must respect them also.
I am a very straight woman. I have no problem with homosexuals or bisexuals. If that’s what they are, then I’m not going to try and change them. It’s just not MY thing. I like men. I can’t help it. I don’t like it when I see two women kissing because I’m not into that thing. But I also don’t like to see a man and a woman making out in public, either. It makes me cringe and yell, “Hey, get a room!” And I also don’t like to see two women making out in movies, cuz as I said before, I like men. So I can understand all of you straight guys out there who don’t want this scene to be in the movie. But I would love to see two men together, woo! YEAH!!
Ok, sorry, I got excited for a moment. And it’s not like they’d be real graphic with the whole thing; when you see a man and a woman having sex in an R rated film, it’s not like a porn; so it wouldn’t be with this scene, either, or they never would’ve thought of putting it in this movie. If you straight guys out there really don’t want to watch it, close your eyes for this part. I say keep it in!!! Alright baby!!!
p.s. Sorry that this is long as hell, but I just couldn’t hold myself back.
Why go see a movie about a bisexual historical figure and be disgusted by bisexual behavior?
Such a strange dichotomy we exihibit as humans.
We can watch endless acts of violence perpetuated against one another, but yet are disgusted by acts of loving physical expression, just because it happens between 2 men or 2 woman.
Sex and Love are beautiful actions. Think hard on why you feel the way you do, you’ll be surprised that the answer is not so natural, as it is programming.
I totally agree with blue eyes. I mean, being a woman, I really would like to see more of the man thing, and I’m really disappointed that they took that manly scene out of the movie.
I do agree that kids shouldn’t see it, but that’s why it’s rated R. I’ve seen women in movies doing stuff together, and I think it should be our (meaning we who love men) turn to see something that is really hot.
I just hope that they put it on the DVD.
Where to begin. Reading through these posts has given me a great sense of loss in the “humanity” of Americans today. It seems like there is a line drawn between the “Let us be gay” group and the “Gays are abnormal” group. We have one side saying things like, “It’s due time people took notice of our contributions and gave us due props”, failing to mention that homosexuals in this country didn’t get to where they are without the help of heterosexuals. Then you have the other side saying things like, “homosexuals are a perversion of our culture and should not be tolerated and movies that condone it, like Alexander, should be stopped”, failing to realize that they have friends, family members, and loved ones that are gay themselves but are too afraid to say anything for that reason. I think that it is high time we stop arguing over what scenes get cut and what scenes stay in a movie and focus on how to bring our society together as a whole.
Throughout it’s history, America has alienated one group of people or another for what ever reason. Indians, African-Americans, women. The list goes on and on. Now the eye of the public is fixed on the gay community. People are lashing out at gays saying that the Bible tells them homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of the Lord. That it’s an immoral act, and those who participate in it are condemned to hell. My response is that the Bible is full of contradictions and how can you put full stock in something that in one instance tells you to cherish your children for they are the way to Heaven, and then in another chapter tells you that you can stone them to death if they disobey you (Doesn’t that also break the whole “Thou shalt not commit murder” cammandment?”). How many of you where Cotton and Polyester blend? Did you know that in the Bible it tells us that this is considered a sin as well? When I broach these topics, I am usually given one of two responses.
1) Your going to hell, blasphemer.
2) Your getting that from the Old Testament. We should follow more of what the New Testament says.
Curious. We can now pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe? Then why follow all ten commandments? You could just say, “Hey, I had an idol made ’cause that commandment just didn’t fit my lifestyle.” My point is, stop hiding behind a book or the beliefs that you have been trained to believe. Yes I said trained. How many time in your life have you questioned something and the response you get is, “Well, that’s just the way it is. Don’t question it”. You have a brain in your skull for a reason. Start thinking for yourself instead of following what society says is right.
Unfortunately for all man(and woman, I’m totally trying to be PC about this)-kind, I don’t believe the day when everyone on this planet stops fighting over race, religion, sexual orientation and all other taboo subjects, will arrive for us to see. Hell, it may never arrive. But then again, it seems that an inherent part of being a human being these days is to have some sort of grudge against a particle group of people. Is that the meaning of life, I wonder? Do we exist only for the sole purpose of singleing out groups of people and telling them they are not as good as the majority; because they are different? I for one hope there is a better reason for us to be here.
Oh, and just in case you were wondering, ’cause I know you were, I’m gay.
Well, I think its a good idea they took that scene out. I wouldnt want little kids seeing it, because latly there has been too much gay scenes on TV (MTV) and I dont want my little brother, or older grandmother seeing that. My school is full of lesbians and gay people, and thats becuase TV and scenes like that are telling them its normal and ok. They did the right choice.
I googled about the movie and came on this site.
As a middle aged gay guy, I don’t know why the de-queerification of a major historical figure strikes such a nerve in me, especially when we are only talking about a movie here. But it does.
In high school in the early 80s, as a lonely closeted teenager, I learned about ATG, Richard the Lionhearted, da Vinci, Michelangelo, Handel, Tchaikovski, etc. Of everything I was taught, never did a teacher even whisper the possibility that any of those historical figures was gay. [And I didn’t grow up in some redneck part of the country, either. I grew up in Seattle and attended a tiny private high school where teachers could – and did – say what they wanted and teach as they saw fit].
Only later in life did I learn that my sexuality is hardly unusual, and that some of the most accomplished and revered people humanity has ever produced were gay.
As a 16 year old, had I known that I had something in common with, say, ATG it would have made a HUGE difference in my daily life. You cannot imagine the terror, the alienation, the heartache that comes from thinking that you are the only guy on earth with feelings that don’t mesh with the rest of society – feelings you can’t understand, much less control (I know that thinking I was the “only one” sounds silly today, but remember that I was a pimply teen at a time before the Internet, Queer as Folk, Ellen, etc).
Marriage? Heck, I thought I would never have simple *companionship*. I thought I would go through life without so much as holding the hand of someone whose company might make my heart beat faster. That’s some heavy sh*t to be dealing with when you are 15-16-17 years old.
What does this have to do with a movie being released in 2004? Not a lot, I guess. Except that hearing rumors about queer scenes being left on the cutting room floor hurtles me back to my not-so-pleasant youth. It is also a reminder that a significant segment of the population doesn’t even want to be reminded that gay people exist with all the quirks, foibles and, yes, passions of straight folks. If gay people are to be included in a film, they must either be stripped of any inkling of who they are or made to be self-deprecating, self-loathing buffoons. Should they be portrayed as flesh-and-blood with the whole range of human emotions and experiences, well, that will leave half the audience vomiting in the aisles.
I know African-Americans get tired of gay people comparing the experience of being gay to that of being black (unless they are gay AND black, of course). But there is a saying in the gay community: What’s the difference between being gay and being black? A black child never has to go home and say, ‘Mom, Dad, I have something to tell you: I’m black.’
Gay people are often alienated from their families, their hometown communities and a large slice of society at large. What many of us cling to is each other. With or without legal recognition for our relationships, we are each other’s families. And knowledge of gay figures from history resonates especially strongly with us in a way that straight historical figures can never resonate with straight people.
It shouldn’t matter to me what the movie does or doesn’t show. I know it shouldn’t. But it does matter, and I am not sure that anything I type here can adequately explain why that is.
David, I have seen a lot. Of course, we can never be completely sure of the past, but from what I have seen, I honetsly like it. There is no use deying it. The Greek and Roman culture interests me greatly.
Anyway, I am happy that you are only part beast. That can come in handy.
blue eyes, I do wonder how many pictures / or footage you’ve been able to see of these Greek / Rome? None. You have seen image’s of what people supposed they may have looked like, or how they have been described but do you really think descriptions dating back hundreds and thousands of years would be that accurate. Also I am not a great big beast (well only in certain areas, if ya get what I mean nudge nudge wink wink hehehehe)
However, I do agree with all other points you raised. Have a lovely weekend Blue Eyes
Oh, and another thing!
If they just had to cut out that scence between Alexander and Bagoas, why did they leave the scence between Aleander and Roxane? Is that so important to the movie? I really don’t think so. If they cut out the A/B scene, why not cut the A/R scene? Damn Hollywood.
SO they are not going to show the scene between Alexander and Bagoas? That is pretty retarded. I wanted to see it badly. It would have been so tasteful in a movie of this caliber.
But seriously, I too wonder why there is so much sketicisim over this thing. BIg freaking deal! Wow, two men, who has ever thought such a thing could exist? So most men will get turned off by this, but will get turned on by a couple of lesbos?
And of course, Hollywood is frantic to put that out, but one kiss between males is too much for the easily offended, virgin male audience. Please! Grow up. I really don’t think that Hollywood is being fair about this. Than again, maybe culture is also to blame. People are really strict about their views even though they say that times have changed from 50 years ago. They haven’t. Also, people have changed.
I hate to say this, but if you think about it, you fill find it true. Back then, the boys and most of the men were *beautiful*. I mean it, just look at them. Prince charming is the phrase that comes to mind when you see them. Enchanthing. Captivating. Sexual.
Now days that is not really the case. How many men do you see that mesmerize you? (regardless if you’re a male or female) Or just make you want to be around them, talk to them, be their friend? Yeah…such catches are rare to find.
I do not mean to offend, and please do not be offended, but men nowdays remind me of great beasts. Some are large and unaprochable, some are too bulky, some too raggy and thin. Of course no one would want to even imagine such things between the men of today. But between the men of the past, now there’s something worth seeing.
Where are all the beautiful men of Grece and Rome? Gone, but if you’re lucky, you just might glimpse a hidden sparkle of the greatness that was in a passerby’s eyes. We have actors now, and in them we seek some of the luster and grandeour. In what forms that may come, Hollywood decides that.
I personally think that movies should leave you with an imperssion, a feeling that you were part of something different from the present world, something of beauty. Not just that you spend $8 and stood in front of a screen for 2 hours to see something that you have seen before thousands of times.
Hey Alex.
I understand what you’re saying… I even agree with a lot of it… BUT…
Ummmm… isn’t it just as “CLOSED MINED AND HATEFUL” to tell people that they shouldn’t think what they think, or tell them what they SHOULD believe?
On the one hand, you say people shouldn’t be closed minded… but then you immediately say a person is “LAME” if they don’t want to see this movie for whatever their reasons are. That’s one of the most closed minded things you can say. Doesn’t being open minded mean that you respect another persons thoughts, beliefs, opinions? Not just your own? Or is someone only “OPEN MINDED” if they believe exactly what you believe?
Hehe… I do this too all the time. We call other people who don’t share OUR EXACT OPINION closed minded… when in reality we just exhibited the purest form of closed mindedness. We’re wierd creatures.
Ok, well maybe they didn’t cut it:
http://chud.com/news/100
It need’s to stay in the movie… If you‚Äôre not going to watch a movie just because it has a 3 min. gay sex scene, then don’t watch it, but that’s a lame excuse.
I think it’s time for the American public to move along with the rest of the world when it comes to sexuality. Everyone has different morals & religious beliefs and we need to stop being closed minded & hateful.
The more they filter homosexuality in television and movies, the longer everyone we will feel “uncomfortable” with it. I think eventually people won’t even look twice at two guys\girls holding hands or kissing in public, as long as we don’t try and hide it every chance we get.
If it’s about money and the WB wants to get rid of it because people won‚Äôt watch it, then it should stay in. The “controversy” will make even more people want to watch it.
Alexander was not “most certainly bisexual” – he was GAY. There are volumes and volumes of research compiled over centuries that make no bones about this – including the book this movie is based on. Alexander’s marriages to women in EVERY instance were part of his consolidation of power with conquered lands – arranged marriages – that’s simply “the way it was” back then. But having a male lover was also quite common at the time – especially among the military. It was nothing special or odd or controversial.
Oddly all this bru-ha-ha is over one scene with Bagoas – when that relationship was only peripheral to Alexander’s real life. Alexander’s male lover – and life partner for nearly 20 years – was Hephaistion, his closest general. The film’s character list has Hephaistion described as Alexander’s “closest friend”. Oh brother! That they were the best of friends, I have no doubt, but they were also – primarily – lovers.
As a gay man what frosts me about this is that there are THOUSANDS of examples where the homosexuality of significant persons in history (all names you would be shocked to recognize) is edited out so as not to offend the general public. We have been – and continue to be – literally, systematically, edited out of the history of the world – leaving us side-lined as pariahs about who no distasteful exaggeration is too great. I realize leaving us side-lined pariahs is the least some folks would have us be – as a number of you no doubt wish us all dead. But I’d rather be dead and open about who I was than forced to live in shadows, coerced to maintain someone else’s delusion.
This would only be an academic discussion if it weren’t for the fact that gay people are vilified in this society. Vilified, disparaged, tormented and murdered. All because your reality has been adjusted for you – this time by this movie – leaving us powerless to show you that we are integral to your world, that we have made many aspects of your life possible – and that we are pretty swell people to know and be related to… If the many gay people in your life felt comfortable enough to be themselves around you, you would have a far different attitude – no matter how conservative or religious you may claim to be – you would be more sensitive to the cruel distortions about us that go unchallenged every day.
Because of this enshrined bigotry our REALITY – the way things actually ARE – is inconsistent with the world view you have been programmed to perceive. This makes us no less gay. And takes nothing away from the incredible contributions we have made for millennia; contributions we will continue to make no matter how many movies we are edited out of – but it is simply WRONG.
They say the “Truth Shall Set You Free.”
We’re still waiting…
Victor
I think to a certain extent, the conversation here on this post becomes directly indicative of what the studio would be looking at. You have a controversial scene, nto a controvesial movie, jsut a scene, that you know would incite long-winded “discussions” such as this, most far less civil than this, and you have to ask youself “is it worth it?” What are you going to get more flack over, including it, or cutting it? While both the politik and the art and the business of film making need to be brought into question when discussing things like this, it’s really ouside our realm to be making determinations on, especially since no one here has yet actually seen any of the footage in question. Also, when demanding that things be left in “for artistic integrity” you hold a certain pre-conception that movies are inherently brillinat and the only reason why a movie sucks is because someone cramps it’s vision. Even good film makes make boring, pointless, gratuitous movies. Take Enemy at the Gates for example: this otherwise brilliant movie contains the most pointless sex scene ever when Rachel Weisz, who a scene before refused to kiss Jude Law, comes into his bunk and they have sex. It was well shot, well depicted, whatever. But it served no enhancing purpose to the story and thus becomes the definition of gratuitous. I find that quite generally sexuality is most potent in storytelling when it is alluded. If you want a good example, pick up an old Gretta Garbo movie.
As far as sexism in movies is concerned, it’s far from a question that the industry is sexist. Remember: the primary demographic for movies like this are white, heterosexual males between 18 and 35. secondary demographic are females in teh same age group who think Colin is hot. Plus it’s a pretty proven fact that sex sells. Heterosexual men are turned off by male homosexulaity, and women generally find that it’s unapealing aswell. I’d be curious if everyone here in the north American audience did an informal poll among women they know about how they feel watching two guys make out.
I think to a certain extent, the conversation here on this post becomes directly indicative of what the studio would be looking at. You have a controversial scene, nto a controvesial movie, jsut a scene, that you know would incite long-winded “discussions” such as this, most far less civil than this, and you have to ask youself “is it worth it?” What are you going to get more flack over, including it, or cutting it? While both the politik and the art and the business of film making need to be brought into question when discussing things like this, it’s really ouside our realm to be making determinations on, especially since no one here has yet actually seen any of the footage in question. Also, when demanding that things be left in “for artistic integrity” you hold a certain pre-conception that movies are inherently brillinat and the only reason why a movie sucks is because someone cramps it’s vision. Even good film makes make boring, pointless, gratuitous movies. Take Enemy at the Gates for example: this otherwise brilliant movie contains the most pointless sex scene ever when Rachel Weisz, who a scene before refused to kiss Jude Law, comes into his bunk and they have sex. It was well shot, well depicted, whatever. But it served no enhancing purpose to the story and thus becomes the definition of gratuitous. I find that quite generally sexuality is most potent in storytelling when it is alluded. If you want a good example, pick up an old Gretta Garbo movie.
As far as sexism in movies is concerned, it’s far from a question that the industry is sexist. Remember: the primary demographic for movies like this are white, heterosexual males between 18 and 35. secondary demographic are females in teh same age group who think Colin is hot. Plus it’s a pretty proven fact that sex sells. Heterosexual men are turned off by male homosexulaity, and women generally find that it’s unapealing aswell. I’d be curious if everyone here in the north American audience did an informal poll among women they know about how they feel watching two guys make out.
come on guys, why is everyone sooooo SEXIST!!!! If it were Angelina and Rosaria having a sex scene there would be no problem, it would attract audiences, so why does a small scene between two guys have to be taken out of a historical movie??!!! Even if it isnt important to the movie, how many sex scenes really are, and especially all the lesbian action I have been seeing popping up in movies lately??? Guys are so dumb!!!
Daniel:
Look, I see where you’re coming from. I really do. However you’re missing my point (or I’m probably just not stating correctly).
When the term “homophobic” was coined, it was originally meant literally. A FEAR of homosexuality. It later evolved into a broader meaning to mean hatred and prejudice. This meaning of hatred and prejudice is still what people think of when they hear “homophobic”.
This is why I believe it to be completely unfair to toss the term around at anyone who doesn’t feel comfortable with the homosexual lifestyle. It’s a dirty trick (I’m not suggesting this is what YOU are saying) to throw terms like that around.
Look, I like hunting (although I don’t get the chance to do it very often). I know there are people who don’t approve of hunting or feel comfortable with the idea of it. If someone feels so strongly against hunting that they refuse to be friends with me or associate with me… well screw them. However, I have friends who would rather me not talk about hunting when they’re with me because they’re uncomfortable with it. They don’t hate me, or dislike me… they’re still my friends and they love me… but they are just uncomfortable with that aspect of my life. That’s ok.
I understand that hunting and homosexuality are totally different issues… but the principal is the same: Just because someone feels uncomfortable with something, DOES NOT mean that they hate or fear or prejudice against that thing.
Everyone should have the freedom to like or dislike, feel comfortable with or uncomfortable with anything they like WITHOUT HAVING TO FEAR BEING LABELED AS PREJUDICED OR HATERS FOR IT. (caps were for emphasis… not yelling).
Yes, there ARE homophobic people out there. Real homophobia should be pointed out as such. But I still say it’s completely unfair to label someone with such a vicious and hateful tag like “homophobic” when all they are saying is that they’re uncomfortable with watching homosexual scenes in a movie. It’s just plain inapplicable.
To FORBID a gay scene from being in a movie‚Ķ that’s homophobic. To just not want to watch it‚Ķ that IS NOT homophobic.
You do raise some good issues, and I wish people would talk more openly about this kind of stuff‚Ķ maybe then there would be more understanding between people. Ok, I’m done ranting now. :)
John Campea,
what bothers me most are people who believe they are not homophobics or racists but would discriminate some one for being gay/lesbian or black/hispanic. I know many “non-homophobic” people who would refuse to be friends with some one if they were gay or lesbians, who think there is some kind of “gay agenda” that will distroy our nation, who would skip a movie if there is a non-ridicule gay character, who believe their moral values are universal. That’s what bothers me most.
Secondly, the movie Alexander, as it’s being sold, is not about gay sex, but about an actual conqueror who was chosen to be portrayed for his being gay. It is clearly a “political” movie in my opinion. So if some one says they won’t go JUST BECAUSE stories with gay characters are not their thing, I will take that answer as political as the movie and as political as the “gay mariage” topic has become lately. Yes, I believe that this time such a justification is homophobic.
Third, what type of porn some one likes defines their sexuality not their phobias. I agree with you in this subject and I don’t agree with your comparison. In America (both USA and Brazil), gays and lesbians suffer prejudice and violence for public displays of affection. In this context, any avoidance of seeing gays and lesbians kissing will look like homophobia, like not having black/hispanic friends will look like racism. What I’m trying to get at is that your comparison is misleading and that the term “homophobic” will be applied more freely than “heterophobic” because we life in a homophobic society.
But I admire your attention to me and your values even though I don’t share them.
PS: If having family members who are gay gives someone knowledge about the subject, tell it to a friend of mine who suicided for being gay back when we were teens. He was gay and very homophobic. I don’t think proximity leads to knowledge, though I believe you are NOT homophobic. I’m just arguing the values of your argumentation.
I am not going to avoid the film just because they have decided to take the scene out. Movies are supposed to be entertaining, the gay part isn’t the only reason someone should want to see the movie. I just think its sad that people still see homosexuality as an issue to the point where a scene in a movie has to get cut. People are so closed minded and it is just pathetic. Alexander will be a great and successful movie and I cant wait to see it!
Just a follow up to Daniels comments:
First of all, people are using the term “homophobic” WAY too liberaly. The term does not… and never has meant to be applied to anyone for whom homosexuality in not a preference for or causes the slightest bit of discomfort. It really bothers me the way some people throw the term around at anyone who seems to disagree with them… even when it doesn’t apply.
Secondly… I’ll avoid seeing a film if it’s just based on the idea of seeing some tits (like The Girl Next Door, or The Real Cancun). Hell, if I wanna see some tits or ass I’ll go get it from the internet. Just seeing movies where that’s the main idea makes me ill. According to some people’s logic… that must make me “hetrophobic”.
I’m going to see Alexander if theres a gay kiss in it or not. It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. If someone says “I won’t see Alexander cause I don’t wanna see no dirty fags”, then yeah, I think there is a problem there and perhaps the term “homophobic” applies… but if someone else just says “you know what, I just don’t want to see it because gay sex stuff just isn’t my thing and I’d RATHER not see it” with no other negative conotation implied, then it’s just that… it’s NOT homophobic.
One can’t just say, “unless you fully embrace my point of view as much as your own, then you are Homophobic”. That’s just absured. Just because a person may watch “porn” but not want to watch “gay porn”, doesn that make them homophobic.
Like I said, the term “homophobic” just gets tossed around as a negative label way too freely.
And for the record, I don’t just have friends… I have FAMILY who are gay. So please don’t say I don’t get it.
Anyway, that’s just my little rant on the topic for the day. Conversation is good. Cheers!
John Campea has said if some one says he or she “won’t watch a movie BECAUSE there is men kissing or having sex”, it does’t mean they are being homophobic. I tell you this: What are the odds of some one telling he or she won’t go to a movie only because a heterosexual couple would kiss and have sex, but they would go if the couple were two guys? Reverse thinking is a wise choice for those who cannot distinguish whether an act is homophobic or not.
You know, Harriet Tubman was a great woman. Too bad they didn’t make a movie about her life–replacing her with a white woman. The accomplishments of a white chick freeing slaves is so much more appealing to me. That would have been good cinema man.
Queers are a minority and robbing them of their accomplishments is cowardly bigotry. It’s rape.
It is not the audiances in New York or LA that would have any problem with that content. It is the sheltered people who do not live in large urban areas that something like that will shock them. Unfortunately, when money is involved they have to make choices based on what the majority of people will accept seeing.
I want to see the story as it was intended by the director, so I’ll wait for the video.
I dont really understand why people should have a problem with it and its sad if they do. But perhaps there will be a Directors cut DVD.
I’m there, u know, thats hot, collin farrel WOOO, the movie is going to be huge no matter what.
Art,
Great news. And now to something completely different. With all of my will, I can’t imagine Farrel in the role of the greatest conqueror ever, with shaved legs, Disney hair and all! Quite a few miles from the typical persian/macadonian male of that time.
mmmmmmmm colin farrel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s amazing that some straight guys won’t go to see a movie like Alexander if it includes some male-male interactions. So the movie might be a brilliant, sweeping epic and yet some won’t go because their tender hearts might succumb to a few minutes of man love – give me a break. That’s homophobia, pure and simple.
You might be interested to know that Warner Bros have just denied wanting to make the cuts. So it looks like the scenes will be there in one form or another.
My last post on this: If 50% of marriages end in divorce, I agree that’s a terrible statistic. However no one trackes the rate at which unmarried couples split up.
Since divorce is an ugly, painful experience best avoided if possible and used as a last resort, while all one has to do is pack bags and leave from an unmarried relationship with no financial or legal consequences, I imagine the breakup numbers there are much higher.
Vic
That is not true.
That is like saying: real winnings = bet on red.
Marriage has worse odds than roulette red.
And Wesley Snipes told us to bet on black anyway (Passanger 57)
Real commitment = marriage.
Vic
O I see. I make fun of your wedding vows and I am the bad guy.
You mocked the scandanavian family unit.
I guess it is easy to dish it out.
Somewhere a swedish family is disgusted by your comments. And my svelt finnish lover is none too happy either.
Flemming: I’m not saying they should rewrite history (I hate revisionist history), or even that it shouldn’t be in the movie. If anyone would bother to look at my original comment, I just said that *I* wouldn’t go see it.
Doug: I’m not easy to bruise, I just don’t think personal attacks are necessary. And to answer your question: No.
I won’t ask about your boyfriend because I really don’t care. :-)
Vic
I am sorry vic.
I did not think you were so easy to bruise.
I apologize.
P.S. Is your wife fat yet?
Vic,
No, not arguing either and sorry if any of my statements could be interpreted that way :o)
Like to discuss too, but I’m sure, as for the gun subject that is…we, as a lot before us, won’t be able to get to an agreement…tonight :o) I’ve been raised in a country, where owning or buying guns, is not an option and that’s why we can’t see the reason for having one. Yes defending yourself is a God granted right, but making the guns so easy available to everyone, makes it a weapon intented for crime also.
Back to the original discussion. The gay scene :o) It should be pretty much a fact, that Alexander was bisexual and hence, I can’t understand the fuss, not portraying this in the movie. No one says that a scene should involve full frontal (ok “behindal” then) nudity with all action shown. Indications of his sexuality is enough.
Does anyone remember Laurence Olivier in “Spartacus”, “pursuaying” Tony Curtis for a “male encounter of the 3rd. kind”? Visually there were not any naked male bodies, but everyone knew was was about to happen. Roman history portrayed in a subtle manner. If Stone had an own belief for portraying it otherwise, maybe more “hardcore” like, it should be his choice as the director. People would have the option of go seeing it or not.
I can’t see why Persian history couldn’t be portrayed in the 21st. century as it was. Forgetting or ignoring history, whether it’s holocaust or an emperors sexual preference, is wrong. Many people only receive knowledge these days through cinema or television and who will be the censors of what is ok, to know about what has really happened? Only people seeking knowledge through books has a right or should things be censored out, that people don’t like to hear about? Is homosexuality worse than knowing about the horrors of WW2?
Already people gets rewritten versions of many historic incidents. The german Enigma code machine or Troy for an example. When dealing with fiction, fictionalize as much as you want, but dealing with real historical events, I believe writers, directors and historians have a responsibility portraying events with respect of known data.
Ok now enough. Everyone calm down and play nice or else I’m pulling over. And you DON’T want me to pull over :P
Doug,
Bite me, you perverted prick. “Too stupid to stay single…”, truly, the voice of the ignorant.
Talk about off-topic: Hardcore penetration in Catwoman??
Go back to your sticky-floored porno theater where you can see all the “penetration” you want.
Vic
Why are we talking about viking marriage?
Just because you are too stupid to stay single
doesn’t mean you should take it out on all of
scandanavia. This people beleive in valhallah- I would watch it.
Flemming,
(BTW, I’m not arguing, just discussing)
Yes divorce rates are too high everywhere, unfortunately no one tracks statistics for unmarried couples with children and how often they split up. Without the legal/religious commitment of marriage I’m sure it’s much higher. That is one of the problems with unmarried couples raising kids IMHO.
As far as death rate due to guns, 99.9% of those are with handguns or rifles, not automatic weapons. Desensitization is definitely a factor. 100 years ago probably a higher percentage of homes had guns in them yet there was not a problem with an extraordinary number of deaths by gunshot. Of course back then teens had to mature earlier as they were expected to carry their burden and help support the family instead of sitting around bored, playing video games, hanging out at the mall, and going to see movies with high body counts but no blood to show the actual horror of what it’s like to be shot.
Great discussion. :-)
Best regards,
Vic
Vic,
I regard myself as a christian and I raise my daughter in that belief. I believe in marriage, but I do not believe, that other people who don’t share that belief, makes a lesser job raising their children.
I’d rather have a non married couple taking their parenthood serious, than some beeing married, who doesn’t. Generally speaking, divorces are a global problem in the western world. The sacred wow is so easy to break these days, that I respect parents, who think about it and maybe choose not to get married. But again these people are not generally worse and may be as great role models than a marriaged one.
I’m not saying the Nordic countries should be a goal for socieltal development in the States, as much as yours sure never will be here.
11.000 death each year due to gun violence and the right wing blame video games and not the right to bear Uzi’s and M-16’s? How come Canada got as many guns per citizen as US. but not a deat rate to follow it? Social security as the basic perhabs?
As have the Nordic countries. Free hospital, education, social security when unemployed. Things which in my book, adds up to an all out safer and richer life for all.
For me, the best cure about insecureness, is information, not to ignore the subject or let prejudice flow from a subject beeing taboo.
Flemming,
The Nordic countries are not what I’d like to use as a goal for societal development in the United States. Marriage is on the decline big-time and out of wedlock births are extremely high.
Marriage is no longer considered a necessary (or preferred) requirement for parenthood, and that is not a good thing for children.
Keeds, as far as a great message to send to insecure kids in high school, it makes me ill that the prevalant attitude (at least in California, which I recently left) is: “Hey, are you sure you’re not gay? It’s ok you know, how do you know if you don’t try it?”.
That’s not acceptance of gays, that’s outright promotion of it to impressionable kids who may be confused and/or insecure.
Vic
If movies were only made, when audiences were ready for it’s content, then to hell with movies. The best movies made, somehow moved into “no mans land”. Did something that was never been done before. Whether technical, visual, photograhical or crossing someones boundaries religiously, sexually, comically or politically.
It has never been an issue for Mr. Oliver Stone before to deal with taboos or “stuff” beeing categorised as political incorrect. But with George Bush and his spanish inquisition approach for good ol’ american family values, political correctnes has become “daily order”, in such a way, that former creative artists like Oliver Stone, refrain from aluding bisexuality in a movie, because the audience “aren’t ready”.
I’m glad “my country”, Denmark, is on a roll, making fantastic movies beeing praised world wide, some of them dealing with topics like incest and homosexuality, without turning people watching them into somekind of sexmaniacs. Yes, for some people such movies can be “hard to swallow”, but they make people talk, debate, argue and discuss. And isn’t that what basically drives a democracy, pushes it forward, evolute us?
I never hope that day will come, when content of movies, books, newspaper or TV programs, will be censored according to peoples fear or disguss for reading about or watching it. In my world, that was not was beeing fought for 60 years ago.
I think some of the comments prove that the average Joe is obviously not ready to watch Homosexual sex scenes. I personally think that if it is important to the script then it should be in. I also think the same with Hetrosexual sex scenes. If they are not necessary then they shouldnt be included!! How graphic do people really think this scene would be. A little kiss and a bit of cuddle probably. Jesus christ sport stars do more than that celebrating scores! Madonna and Britney kiss on an MTV stage, and that gets shown all around the world (not that Im complaining!) Wild Things had lesbian sex scenes and that was acceptable (again not complaining!). In the streets of America people can own guns and watch nearly any film at any age (as long as they accompanied by an adult), yet they cant watch two men have a kiss!!!! Im straight, live with my girlfriend, but seeing two men together doesnt disgust me / neither titalate me, but I can except that it happens and is now an integral part of society an therfore surely film should reflect that! Wasnt Six feet under one of the biggest TV dramas in North America?
Good to chop a scene because they might show it in schools? Oh man…that’ll really send a great message to insecure students who are struggling with their sexual identity. If anything, they should keep it IN just for that purpose. Anyway, it’s rated R.
Alexander was bi. I can deal. In the end, his sexuality wasn’t that special. In his day and age, doing guys was no biggie. And it’s not essential to the story. Love *is* important to the story, and he loved men and women passionately.
I’m glad it was removed, even though I understand Stone’s passion towards telling the story. This is a movie that classes in schools might watch in the future. So, its a good thing.
I would just like to see a free land where
more manlove is on the big screen.
Then those of us that want to see it have an option. Tom Sellek…HELLO!!
We are all so conservative still, like we dont even see hardcore penetration in movies.
This is the year 2004 and catwoman had no penetration scenes…..and I think we can all agree that it would of been a better film if it did.
Don’t hate, appreciate.
Well said Miles… as always in your own unique way :)
i don’t undrstand why they should be ready for it…i mean, if someone does not want to see something, why should they? why should someone shange their attitude to coincide with yours? because your “right”?
If this is somehting people feel so strongly about, i don’t see why they should do anything other then what their morals tell them to.
not to say anyone should commit any hate crimes or anything, i actually support gay marriage and that jazz…but it is something along the lines of why i dislike the gay pride parade, i don’t march in a straight pride parade, going, “look at me!” why get bogged down in all this politically correct garbage?
they cut the scene because the average person does not want to see guys getting it on, it would affect their bottom line, and movies are a business, and in a busines the only thing that matters is the bottom line. i don’t get what is wrong with that. and since they are the ones footing the bill they should do whatever the hell they want, if they thought a movie filled with guys kissing would make money, they would make one. but they don’t. so they didn’t. and i am on board with that, and i should not be ready for anything other then what i feel like being ready for. and i don’t think i will ever be “ready” to watch men fiddle with each other, and there is nothign wrong with that. there is somehting wrong labeling me for not being on board with your views, if i don’t like something, i don’t like it dammit, and that’s the way it is. and everyone who disagrees can go to hell, becasue that is what freedom is all about. people who are wrong going to hell :-)…and you are all wrong…except for anyone who agrees with me, your pretty not to bad.
man, oh man, i hate being politically correct, what a load of trash.
Hey ModFab:
I’m ALWAYS dead-on! (LOL)
Ok, seriously, I stand by what I said. You’re making an argument that audiences SHOULD be ready for this stuff. I’m saying they’re not ready. I’m not entering into the debate about weather or not we SHOULD be ready for it. All I said was that right now the general movie going audience doesn’t want to see it. I think you’d agree with that.
The issue about weather we should be ready for it is a good discussion to have, but it falls outside of what I said. Discussion is good. Cheers.
So one is immature if they don’t want to see homosexuality on the big screen?
How about the fact that most men find it repulsive on a primal level? I suppose you think that means they’re not “enlightened”.
Vic
I usually think Movie Blog is dead-on, but where they hell did you put your balls, man? Are you telling me that heterosexuality is so fragile that it can’t stand *the truth* about historical figures? What makes you so afraid of gayness?
It’s high time we all got over ourselves and realize that movies are best when they reflect honesty and real life. Alexander was bisexual, probably gay by today’s standards. Either handle that, or don’t…but don’t think that the problem is anbody’s but your own.
And as for the “Hollywood bigwigs”…they *knew* Stone was going to do this, and they approved it. To now blame moviegoers as “not being ready” only reinforces the stereotype that heterosexuals can’t handle maturity. I’m pretty certain that if our culture can make it through bull$#@! like Jackass: The Movie, we can deal with Alexander presented truthfully.
there’s such a double standard between guys and girls. you throw around the word ‘homoerotic,’ yet you only mean guys. if it were two girls getting it on, you would probably be going nuts (excuse the pun)
plus if you think of big movies, how graphic are the straight sex scenes? they usually aren’t very graphic at all, so to jump to the conclusion that a gay sex scene would be as graphic as porn proves just how homophobic you really are
Mr Eel,
As someone else pointed out, it simply turns my stomach to see it.
I also cannot stand to watch any sort of surgery on TV and have trouble looking at gruesome photos of real-life gore. What’s that an indication of? :-)
I am quite secure in my sexuality, thanks very much.
Vic
it is not so much as i am alarmed or shocked, it is kind of like this:
i don’t like how fish tastes, so i don’t eat it.
now, someone else may enjoy fish, and they can have all the fish they want.
i don’t like watching men kiss, touch, or insert penises into each other, so i don’t eatch it.
now, who ever enjoys it can watch it, or have all the man love they want or whatever.
It is just a matter of taste….and i don’t partiuclarily like homosexuality’s flavour.
Hit the nail on head there Mr. eel.
Hetero and lesbian sex wouldn’t cause a commotion, but the indication of gay sex between two men and people are alarmed and getting sick instantly.
And btw. I’m married, have a child and gay sex doesn’t arouse me at all.
“2) I believe it’s obvious they are at least going to alude to the fact that he had homosexual relationships. And so they should.”
That’s the point I wanted to make. If that’s how they choose to frame it, that’s cool. I do however think its important to keep in mind that we wouldn’t be having this discussion if it were just heterosexual sex.
“3) Personally, if actually SHOWING a brief homosexual sex scene is somehow important to telling the story, then fine… show it. Same with Hetrosexual sex scenes. But this is RARELY the case… and if you are so desperate to see a sex scene, go rent a porn for heaven’s sake.”
I’m probably not going to bother to see the film anyhow (if its anything like Troy, eek), so my interest in the depiction of sex in the film has nothing to do with me wanting to be titillated.
I just find the issue irksome. I reckon it’s a fair bet those people who would avoid the film if it did include those scenes, wouldn’t give a shit about a few lesbians in there.
Anyhow as I said, it doesn’t mean you have to WANT to see homosexual relations in the film, but boycotting it for that reason alone is a bit weak.
“6) Just because someone doens’t want to see a gay sex scene DOES NOT mean they’re insecure about their own sexuality. What a lame argument. That’s like saying if you don’t like guns you must secretly have desires to go on a shooting spree”
Why are so many people concerned about the depiction of homosexual sex then? I accept your argument that it doesn’t mean EVERYBODY carries insecurities, but I’m absolutely sure its true for some people.
What are the other reasons then?
Well…political correctness is the mark of Hollywood and goes hand in hand with the pursuiance for money over matter. It’s also why movies like this will be family blockbusters for a short while and then forgotten next year.
Maybe a scene like this is not needed to tell the story of Alexander and that’s why Stone decides to cut it. I hope so.
Wouldn’t want to believe that prejudism over peoples sexual preference, is still causing more stir in a western civilization than the right to bear arms.
hurray!
i want to see this movie so bad, but I really hate seeing guys getting their groove on with each other, not to say it is wrong or anything, it just makes me sick to my stomach to see.
and it makes sense that they would not want to put something like that in an epic blockbuster, I mean, what average epic blockbuster goer wants to see wild anal man sex? not this one!
When this sort of manfactured, PR-boosting “controversy” comes up, I am always reminded of this quote from Zippy the Pinhead:
“GENDER CONFUSION BOOSTS SALES”.
But seriously: who cares if they cut that scene? Wait for the DVD release, and choose which version you want to see. (As for me… no thanks.)
-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com
John Here again.
Let me ring in on a couple of the comments that have been posted.
1) I have a feeling that if Oliver Stone isn’t getting too upset about the scene being removed then it must not be all that important to the over-all story.
2) I believe it’s obvious they are at least going to alude to the fact that he had homosexual relationships. And so they should.
3) Personally, if actually SHOWING a brief homosexual sex scene is somehow important to telling the story, then fine… show it. Same with Hetrosexual sex scenes. But this is RARELY the case… and if you are so desperate to see a sex scene, go rent a porn for heaven’s sake.
4) Hollywood is not interested in making an educational film. They are making entertainment. They don’t care if they are faithfully depictig Alexander or not. They never have with ANY historical film. If you want a faithful documentary on Alexander go rent it from A&E or PBS… you won’t find it in Hollywood.
5) Personally, I won’t avoid a film JUST because a gay scene is in it. I may not enjoy it, but that’s just my personal preference.
6) Just because someone doens’t want to see a gay sex scene DOES NOT mean they’re insecure about their own sexuality. What a lame argument. That’s like saying if you don’t like guns you must secretly have desires to go on a shooting spree.
7) Please folks… it IS possible to discuss these kinds of things without degrading to insulting people or people groups. If you don’t want to see a gay scene, just say “Personally I would avoid the film is that stuff was in it” or something like that. And if someone does say that, don’t just shoot of your mouth and accuse them of being Homophobic.
8) Discussion is good, it’s what makes doing this site fun for me… so keep talking… just keep being intelligent about it. A topic like this could get really out of hand really fast. Thanks! And Cheers!
Man, what a bunch of sooks.
If homoeroticism freaks you out you must be insecure about your own sexuality.
I’m not saying that you should WANT to see something like that, but the fact that you would avoid a film because of it is telling.
As for the removal of the scene being the right choice… weeeeeell. Look, the film is about a bisexual general. Is that an important facet of his life? THAT is what should shape their choices regarding its inclusion.
That’s too bad–I’ve been a fan of Alexander the Great since highschool and I was looking forward to a glamourous, yet faithful, movie adaption of his life. I’m pretty sure most of the female audiences would be interested in the homoerotic scene; conversely, the males would be grossed out. BTW, I’m a girl….
Anyway, keep up the great reporting!
I actually think this is a moral issue, but not from the point of view that you have thought during writing John.
It’s a Director moral issue, in that they are presenting a piece of work in which they believe, and a scene does not end up so far down the line in a movie by accident, it was wanted and required.
What I am surprised by is that if the scene has come this far and it is the execs that are pushing for it to be removed, why isn’t Stone standing up for it to stay in? He’s been so vocal before regarding scenes that have been, or are threatened to be, cut.
Perhaps he too has decided that it is down to hard cash and that he must wait for the Directors Cut DVD. Mind you, considering the subject matter and the example responses you’ve received as comments, I wonder if it ever will.
Bearing that in mind, forgetting the content of the scene and thinking purely from the pure film fan point of view for a moment. If it is integral to the story and the entire film making team put the scene in, shouldn’t we have the opportunity to see the film in its entirety? Then, if there is a need for individual censorship of something, you can skip the movie or just the scene itself.
However, it is the subject matter that is provoking the response. Would such comments be returning about an execution scene, or a violent attack? Also, let’s face it, your comments are right about the money. It’s a big investment, it’s a big movie, it’s all about the dollar return.
I don’t see what’s wrong with a little hot manloving. Not that many people would be disturbed if we were talking about a historial female bisexual, anyway. And, these sort of decisions- “the public isn’t ready for it”- don’t usually make for the best cinema.
Hopefully it’ll end up on the DVD. I know I’d be interested in seeing how Oliver Stone, of all people, would represent a male homosexual relationship.
Hey, if that’s what he was, feel free to allude to it, I just don’t need to bloody see it.
“Warm up the public to this sort of thing”?? No thanks. I’ll never adjust to watching two guys swap spit.
As for Alberta, I guess they won’t have to worry about runaway population growth in the coming years.
Vic
Scene I, Act III: (Enter Alexander) “Hark, my fair, chubby eunuch! Get on thine hands and knees! Trumpet as if thou were a blissful hog whilst I lance thy meaty buttocks!”
Yeah, I guess I could pass on that.
If they don’t want to show what the guy really was then they should make fiction. I am not gay but if I am watching a movie about someone who is gay or bisexual then that should be part of the movie( or implied in some way).
I dunno.
I think many people who hate manlove may choose to skip, like the above poster. However many may go because of the controversy. Will it cause the film to lose money…I don’t know if we can tell unless it happens.
Regardless, manlove will be increasing in both frequency and length on the silver screen.
The true story of a man lover may be the best way to warm up the public to this type of romance. Plus ….the guy has no balls, Persian eunuchs are hotter than most chicks in welland
I don’t see what the fuss is about.
I hope they do a movie about the manloving spartan warriors. Oil baths and vicious warfare.
That would be saucy.
By the end of next year, half of Alberta will be gay. Everyone needs to see heroes on the silver screen, even Albertans. Lets not be so selfish.
Weeeeeellll. Put that in a movie and I know *I* won’t be going.
Regardless of whether “the public” is ready for it or not, I’ll never be.
Ick.
Vic