The Big Gay Musical (I KNOW I'm Offended!)- Page 3

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 4:15pm

You are SO right.

Could they make ONE gay film without hairless gym-bots in shots and angel wings. One where they don't lisp and wear eyeliner.

Gosh, how hard could it be to show us as NORMAL people?

I guess it's just easier to perpetuate stereotypes than actually make a human film.

Updated On: 5/20/09 at 04:15 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 4:17pm

Who lisps?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 4:23pm

Not me.

It's just that EVERY gay film I see, someone has to be lisping.

It's insulting.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 4:26pm

Despite committing the sin of costuming hairless gymbots in angel wings, maybe this one will eschew lisping.

Ya never know.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 4:39pm

Here's an entire t-shirt company dealing in gay sterotypes. Go get em, girls!
Swish Embassy, the very NAME!!!

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 4:40pm

Yes, I know that company and have some of their shirts.

Those are funny and don't need any explaining.

Updated On: 5/20/09 at 04:40 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 4:52pm

I don't even mind stereotypes so much as long as there is some strength and honesty in the character and in the dialogue. But with a title like "BIG GAY _______" and producing a load of tired stereotypes, it pretty much endorses them, branding the images as defining what is "gay" even further. I've never attended anything that displayed a hairless gymbot with wings, though they seem to have been popular for at least a decade if I am to assume from the gay independent films and websites. I'm all for flaming queens when they are there to represent a character, not specifically, the gay character. I had a similar issue with the musical of The Producers, not with Roger and Carmen, but with the parade of chorus boys, all representing each stereotype and fetish of the gay community (even going so far as with the Village People because they are the sole ambassadors for anything and everything gay). Gee, thanks Mel.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 5:10pm

I'm not even going to mention 'Another Gay Movie' and it's sequel...

Updated On: 5/20/09 at 05:10 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 5:18pm

I no longer wish to see anything but married white middle class men with wedding rings on their left fingers representing the gay community. I want representation of the HRC ideal.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 5:34pm

Maybe, if they showed that type of character, it would help even the others out.

Updated On: 5/20/09 at 05:34 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 5:54pm

Would it would be less offensive if, instead of making movies about hairless gymbots with angel wings, they made movies about hairy fat guys wearing devil's costumes?

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 5:58pm

We can see that at the bars on Halloween!

Updated On: 5/20/09 at 05:58 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 6:01pm

You have gone too far. You have have a plastic pitchfork, horns made in China, an untucked t-shirt with iron-on letters. All that I could forgive. But Satan ... faded workout pants with flames on them?

[nealb1]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 6:18pm

Interesting what we all find offensive. To me, the Q word....queen...is just such a vile word.

Of course there are people who thrive on being referred to as a Q. And, if they weren't called a Q, life couldn't go on. Go figure?
Updated On: 5/20/09 at 06:18 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 6:30pm

The Q word doesn't bother me. The F word does as well as F*g Hag and Beard. They annoy me.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 6:34pm

I think swishing is WAY worse than lisping.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 6:49pm

Then stop doing it.

[otis33]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 11:26pm

As a gay, independent filmmaker who has made 2 gay themed feature films, I can tell you why most American gay indies are about 'hairless gym-bots in shorts and angel wings'. There is NO money to be made telling stories about normal gay folk! - save for a few exceptions. I wish more filmmakers would stray from the stereotypes - my production company is certainly trying. I'm very grateful that both my films have sold and can be found on tv & DVD. But, as clean and honest as they both are, they were considered 'risky' by the distributors because there was no sex, no twinks or hot shirtless muscle boys. Yes, admittedly, there are glimpses of stereotypes in my movies - but at the heart, they are very slice of lifey. Other gay movies, with sub-par writing & acting, have sold for more & had more 'success' because they've fit in better to what the industry thinks of as gay cinema.

I agree that, often times, foreign gay films are much more successful in terms of story-telling. But, if you look at the credits, you'll notice that they've also been supported by their governments and national arts foundations. American gay films are usually truly independent and paid for out of the filmmakers pocket. (Often times the reason for lower production values - filmmaking ain't cheap!) Sex sells. You gotta make your money back. I'm not saying it's right. In fact, you'd think I would have learned my lesson - but our newest film in development, again, is a gay themed human experience story about real guys with, at the moment (and probably not even eventually), no sex or gym-bots in angel wings. We've toyed with making a shirtless boy movie, but those aren't the stories we want to tell. (don't get me wrong - I'm not knocking cute shirtless boys!)

I know the filmmakers of A BIG, GAY MUSICAL. I know their intention in making the movie was not to offend, but to entertain and make some money. I do feel that we need to learn to laugh at ourselves (gay or not), but I agree that it'd be nice to see the tide start to turn. I don't think giving up on gay indies is the way to go. Does it mean sitting through some really bad low budget films - probably. But there are also a lot of gems in there about real people and the human experience. If we don't support those, they'll stop getting made.

That's all.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 11:33pm

You've got my vote, otis!

[otis33]

Posted: 5/20/09 at 11:39pm

Thanks Namo. And for my next trick...

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/21/09 at 2:33am

Can you pull a beautifully designed t-shirt out of your a.....


The ONLY reason I went to the web site in the first place was to buy a t-shirt. I love wearing t-shirts from other shows and thought, "How funny would a BIG, GAY MUSICAL t-shirt be?".

So, if they wanted to make money, they just lost mine.

[nealb1]

Posted: 5/21/09 at 11:09am

And, I'm sure that they will loose a lot of sleep knowing that, Byron.

[MusicalComedyMan]

Posted: 5/21/09 at 12:14pm

I don't care about their tshirt... but i actually like their logo for the movie and the cast are all broadway actors... I wouldn't say they are lisping stereotypes.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/21/09 at 12:30pm

"I know their intention in making the movie was not to offend, but to entertain and make some money."


That's why I said what I said Neal.

What crawled up your backside?


MCM,
It looks like a fun cast, and the actual logo IS fun. Why isn't THAT on a t-shirt?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/21/09 at 12:48pm

WILL YOU JUST SHUT UP ABOUT THE T-SHIRT!

JUST SHUT UP ABOUT THE T-SHIRT!

JUST SHUT UP ABOUT THE GODDAMN FRIGGIN' T-SHIRT ALREADY!