Here is the first look at Netflix's Boys In the Band for us to hate

Was it set in 1978?

Here are some vintage ads of men's fashion from 68 to 75 to compare

Ryan Murphy could give a fuck about historical accuracy, you're asking too much of him. His one job is to deliver eye candy.

This is just produced by Murphy, Joe Mantello is directing this.

It looks like Parsons has had some work done on his face -- chin implant? new nose? He definitely looks less geeky.

[quote]Why do the period hair and costumes look so off?

Just to annoy you OP. Every waking moment of Ryan Murphy is dedicated to pissing off Datalounge.

It’s still polishing a turd.

I hope there are some dongs to candy my eyes.

And yes, Parsons looks more debonair and less geeky.

Parsons is a wonderful actor but he always comes off as autistic no matter what role it is. That doesn't negate his ability to act, it just means that every role he plays better have a little bit of autistic in it.

whatever but i'm definitely looking forward to hate-watch it.

[quote]Parsons is a wonderful actor

I thought he was AWFUL in Hollywood. He was like a cartoon villain.

He looks like an untransed trans “woman.”

R8 In the older movie Bomer's character showed ass as well as on stage. That's about it for nudity. Maybe Bomer will do that in this version? Many should love that the entire cast is played by gay men, right?

The original was not a period piece. Time has made it so.

I’ve seen fewer anachronisms on [italic]Happy Days[/italic] reruns.

Hated the 1970 movie. Vomitus stereotypes. This will be worse as at least the former was of it's time. This will be playacting in 70's garb. Ugh.

R1 set in '68. I thought the NY production last year got so-so reviews-lead performances fell short. Saw the film- it's on yt and I thought it was really great, very natural. Plus I think they cast the same as the recent NY production.

Hundreds if not thousands of gay-themed plays are waiting for their first opportunity to be adapted to another medium. Instead, we got yet another rehash of something that already has a perfectly decent movie adaptation already.

Who's playing the dumb jock slut guy?

Jim Parsons reminds me of a more feminine version of Allison Janney (who I love).

Too many sweaters.

[quote] Who's playing the dumb jock slut guy?

You mean Cowboy Tex, the role played by Robert La Tourneaux in the original?

How about filming a fucking NEW gay story. This is ancient garbage that has no relevance today.

R22 Yes, about a trans men party.

I want an all little person cast. With cream pie fights. And comical sound effects for every POW!, ZING!, and KERSPLAT!

Warwicki Davis available?

Then why not just do [italic]The Women[/italic] with an all-drag queen cast? RuPaul can replace Joan Crawford since their shoulders are about the same size.

I love it

It would have to be retitled THE "WOMEN".

It's so sexist. Why can't they call it The Girls in the Band and have it be a twatfest?

Why don't they make it a musical? It already had Band in the title and there would be plenty of torch songs...

Perhaps the rent boy can get a solo.

I look forward to the reboot of Harold's entrance.

OP, it looks off because a lot of it is current clothing with a period feel. The current belief is that too much period detail scares off younger viewers.

R20, sweaters are a plot point.

Does Billy Porter appear?

[quote]The current belief is that too much period detail scares off younger viewers.

Is that why setting [italic]Wonder Woman[/italic] during WWI made it a flop? Oh wait, it didn't!

Does Chaz Bono play a prominent role?

My favorite period film is still CARRIE.

Does Parsons get naked? Ive always thought Sheldon had a nice body.

He's dead to me after [italic]A Kid Like Jake.[/italic].

Rannells hair looks to be the one that is REALLY off time line wise. It looks dumb.

R33 Knitwear, all round then.

How about a movie about a birthday party where all the men like themselves, had minimal difficulty coming out, feel good about being gay and are just there to have safe sex? Oh wait, that's porn.

Sweaters that are PAID for, Michael!

Turning, Michael, turning.

Is the bobbleheaded guy playing Bernard going to be able to play masc like the original actor?

[quote]Why don't they make it a musical? It already had Band in the title and there would be plenty of torch songs...

They could cast it with an all Egyptian and Israeli cast and call it "The Boys in the Band's Visit."

[quote]In the older movie Bomer's character showed ass as well as on stage.

Well some of us at the right angle got to see the full monty when he was in the shower in the bathroom mirror.

Rare a play gets to be a movie with the entire stage cast once, this play has done it twice.

R47 Is this playing in cinemas?

Andrew Rannells is one burrito away from turning into Amy Schumer.

Amy Schumer is one burrito away from turning into two Amy Schumers.

A play that no one could figure out why it was revived being turned into a film project for Netflix that no one needed.

The actors spent most of the time trying to convince people the play was still relevant because they knew damn well that was the big question.

Having Mantello direct this is like putting syrup on shit. Even if you do, that doesn't mean it will taste anything pancakes.

[quote]Hated the 1970 movie. Vomitus stereotypes. This will be worse as at least the former was of it's time. This will be playacting in 70's garb. Ugh.

And this is why younger people will stay away from it unless they want to trash it.

[quote] Maybe Bomer will do that in this version? Many should love that the entire cast is played by gay men, right?

They said the shower scene was still in there, of course.

Him talking about that shower scene in interviews and showing his ass and from some angles his average dick (until he realized how many people were talking about it ...) put butts in the seat and once he did it, he was free to fade into the background.

That man has never failed to do a project where he keeps his ass covered because he knows damn well his looks are 90 percent of his acting and so did the producers of the show who gave him very little to do beyond that.

I saw it in NYC a couple years ago. They better have ditched the Malibu Barbie Dream House Set that had nothing to do with how gay men lived in the late 60s.

I know Boys In the Band is historically important, but as a gay man in his early 40s it just makes me cringe. I can't help looking at it as an embarrassing, dated relic.

Then you should let go of your gay shame.

Not gay shame at all, r54. I'm perfectly well-adjusted. It's just that as a modern person, I find the show cringe-inducing. Believe me a lot of gay men of my generation and younger are just "WTF" about this show.

Why? they are fun, hot men. Do you and your friends get on 24/7?

They're archaic self-loathing miserable sad sacks. There is no joy or fun to them. Of course, that was the times as well. Anyway, the generational reaction to this show varies widely.

Oh cheer up charlie misery guts, they are neat.

It's funny how people who hate Boys in the Band tar all the character with Michael's brush. Michael is the Kenneth Nelson/Jim Parsons character.

*tar all the characters

r59 what does that even mean? It's uncomfortable to watch because they have such internalized hatred and take it out on each other. Of course those were the times, but for gay men who weren't even born until long after and came of age in a much different world it's very sad and depressing.

It means that Michael is the toxic one. The other characters put up with his vitriol, besides Harold. The photographer and the high school teacher have a mild lovers' tiff. Little Nelly Kelly gets into it with the interloper friend of Michael's. But there's little toxicity outside of Michael.

[Quote] for gay men who weren't even born until long after and came of age in a much different world it's very sad and depressing.

Not for me. And I only saw it for the first time about a decade ago. (I'm not of your generation, never mind men who came of age in the 1960s - 1980s).

The original film is excellent. If Murphy wants other gay plays to film, The Inheritance would work brilliantly as a miniseries.

OMG it looks exactly like the first version, the make-up, the costumes and the sets for what I can see!

Good for you r63 but your experience isn't typical.

Not gay shame at all, [R54]. I'm perfectly well-adjusted. It's just that as a modern person, I find the show cringe-inducing. Believe me a lot of gay men of my generation and younger are just "WTF" about this show.

R55 Gay men cringed at this show when it first opened. The show was panned by the politically correct elite even then, but it presented an aspect of gay life that was true then and, in some respects, true now in certain circles.

Nobody's saying it wasn't true. Unfortunately that's what life was like back then. I'm glad I wasn't around for it.

Wait until the kiddos hear Jim Parsons' character refer to the black character as "Nig*er Lips!" repeatedly ... and then continue to be friends with him after.

At least it looks more serious than the play came off with that horrid set.

I am surprised anyone on DL would dislike Boys In the Band.

DL is Boys In the Band.

Thank you, R70! So true.

R70 R71 That is why you both fit in so well.

"r70 71 That is we all fit in so well."

R72*

I'm trying to figure out what kind of stories people want to be told. Do you want all characters to get along all the time? That'd be a little dull, wouldn't it? It's like we want LGBT exposure, but we want to police the kinds of depictions people can see. It's not as if the play advocates for this awful behavior. The lead character is all alone at the end of the show if I remember correctly. He's turned everyone away with his self-loathing, bigotry, and hate. For all we know, he never sees some of these people again.

There are two kinds of stories - the ones that inspire us and teach us to be better people and the ones that show us what happens when someone isn't smart or is too greedy or pathetic or whatever and fails to become a better person because of it. It might not be the most uplifting portrait of what it means to be a gay man, but it's a perfectly valid one for some people. A lot of small town gays probably still feel this way. The church and the shame are still very prevalent in certain parts of the country. Not every gay comes out with a fantastic pride parade and not every gay guy is going to be fought over at the local gay bar. Jealousy and rivalries exist between us. These are real things. To pretend like The Boys in the Band is no longer relevant is ridiculous. As much progress as we continue to make in "normal" society, there will still be self-loathers like the lead in this story.

Isn't the Matt Bomer character still with him? The Parsons characters says something about going to church.

[quote]Hundreds if not thousands of gay-themed plays are waiting for their first opportunity to be adapted to another medium.

I was thinking the same thing.

A couple of winters ago I saw the play Daniel's Husband, and I'd much rather see a film adaptation of that than yet another Boys in the Band.

It will be fun to compare the movie with the play. Same actors and director.

Am I the only person who finds Zachary Quinto irritating?

No, you're not.

I have only seen the movie once and I absolutely hated it. Two hours of unadulterated self-loathing, vituperativeness, and vitriol. Why would I want to spend time with these people?

Michael was the only truly self-loathing one and he tried to drag everyone else down to his level. It was the pills. This is why Harold is a stoner.

Maybe someone should write a new play about a bunch of young gays like R55 or R80 getting together for one of their birthdays or wedding, as it would be today, showing how lacking in self-loathing, vituperativeness and vitriol the new generation is. A bunch of young queens so well-adjusted, free of insecurity and and so full of optimism the world just shines by their mere presence, because today there are no closet cases, no gays who have been kicked out of their parents' homes, no victims of gay violence, no broken hearts. It's all happy, happy, happy and forever proud of myself.

Ryan Murphy already tried to create that with [italic]Glee[/italic], but it made more discerning gay viewers want to flee.

The rent boy is being played by one of the Carver twins, whichever one who is the gay one. The whole cast needed to be gay, how they could legally do that I would like to know. I wonder if when on Broadway the other twin became the understudy, do they come as a package deal in those situations?

[quote]I'm trying to figure out what kind of stories people want to be told. Do you want all characters to get along all the time? That'd be a little dull, wouldn't it? It's like we want LGBT exposure, but we want to police the kinds of depictions people can see.

R74, I see what you're saying but the point many people are trying to make is that this story (besides being dated) has [italic] already[italic] been done before [/italic]multiple times.[/italic]

I wish it were as dated as you claim.

A contemporary version of young gays at a birthday party: everyone staring into their phones.

There are no young homosexuals anymore...they are queer and gender liquids and non-binaries.

r82 I'm in my forties, hardly a young gay. That shows you how ancient Boys In the Band is.

I suppose it has a place in history. Maybe it should stay there.

[quote]I am surprised anyone on DL would dislike Boys In the Band. DL is Boys In the Band.

No, it's not. We do not all know each other. None of us are "friends." If there's a fight to be had it's usually about the subject of the thread. If people start making fun of and attacking each other there's no pre-existing relationship prior to it or one that will continue after it.

[quote]A bunch of young queens so well-adjusted, free of insecurity and and so full of optimism the world just shines by their mere presence, because today there are no closet cases, no gays who have been kicked out of their parents' homes, no victims of gay violence, no broken hearts. It's all happy, happy, happy and forever proud of myself.

Oh, look. Hyperbole to prove a "point." Add me to the list of people who keep telling you that we don't know groups of friends like this anymore.

If someone behaved like this around my friends they would stop talking to them. If someone behaved like this around me we'd move on.

But that's the thing: we can live openly much more so than we could have during the period the play depicts. We have other options. We don't have to force ourselves to be around unpleasant people.

Many a thread has been written here about a "friend" who said or did something horrible which instantly results in multiple people telling the OP, "PUNCH AND DELETE!"

The people in the play don't do that. That's what some of us can't relate to. Today we'd call Michael, "toxic."

[quote]I wish it were as dated as you claim.

It is dated. Find new friends.

Anyone that started acting like this in a group would be considered pariah immediately and if they aren't it is an unhealthy group.

If you and your friends still behave like this then that sounds like a you problem and most certainly not one that is universal between all groups.

If the play were updated for today as soon as Michael started taking shots at people, everyone would have walked out and continued the evening without him.

Great, this is just what we needed. A dated portrayal of effeminate gays in the 70s.

It's like Murphy is working extra to send us back 100 years.

R91 These people sound dreary. And judgey.

I would like a movie about "not like other gays."

[quote] Jim Parsons reminds me of a more feminine version of Allison Janney (who I love).

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I don't like Zachary Quinto too..

Murphy missed a trick by not lassoing Colton as Cowboy.

From the photos, Jim Parsons has never looked better. Whatever work he had done was worth it.

P.S.

Your cat is dead.

[quote] I'm trying to figure out what kind of stories people want to be told. Do you want all characters to get along all the time?

We want stories that aren't stereotypes of 50 years ago. We want stories with gay characters where being gay isn't the main subject. I know that for you eldergays, life was miserable and whatnot, but many of us were born in a free world, we have no self hate (even though you accuse us of such when we criticize cringefests like this) and we just want to see normal people leading their lives with whatever conflicts we have.

This show is dated because it's made by eldergays who don't know better. Hopefully a new generation will take over to tell our stories.

Unflawed characters are not believable, interesting, or relatable in any way.

[Quote] Hopefully a new generation will take over to tell our stories.

You're not watching Love, Victor?

Not after Disney took over Fox and decided it was too hot for Disney+, I'm not.

R24, thanks. I needed the laugh.

[Quote] Not after Disney took over Fox and decided it was too hot for Disney+, I'm not.

Would pedantry be one of your conflicts? I'm not sure that's very dramatic.

I did watch it, but it was a story based on a book written by a straight women and a series written by a straight duo and you can tell from space it was watered down to appeal to them, not us.

So I wouldn't consider Love Victor to be a show made by our generation, and by "our" I mean gay people. It was OK, if you're a 12 year old straight girl, clearly the audience of that show.

r106. Jesus, do you even get air on that super high horse you're sitting on?

I thought there are gay men on the writing and producing team for Love, Victor? At least the second season wont be so Disneyfied now that they know itll be on Hulu.

If you don't want an answer you shouldn't ask a question R107. Me thinks you need a mirror to realize who's in a high horse. All I said is that I want a gay show, written by us about us, period. If you dislike that you can ignore me or fuck off too.

You had that with "Looking." You had that with "Queer as Folk."

r109, if you can't take the heat, get out of the steam room, you basic bitch.

Is this High Horse a Trojan?

I’ll stick with the original. This looks dreadful. Lifeless.

]quote]And yes, Parsons looks more debonair and less geeky.

He looks less "elfin".

I don't like the US version of QAF, but I did love Looking R110 and I want more of that. I also loved Years and Years which to me is a good example of a show with a gay lead that isn't about being gay but incorporates that very well.

We need more of that and less of Love Victor and this unnecessary Ryan Murphy remake.

r115, would you also prefer separate water fountains? Would that make you feel more validated and special? Water fountains, JUST FOR YOU! Yay!

I've lost my gay mind.

Firstly, BitB is CRINGE. It's an awful play which found fame through daring to be as awful as it is, but at least about people the audience knew existed, but had never seen in their natural habitat, acting all authentically gay and shit, but that's not the crazy part- When I read that the film was directed by Joe Mantello, my brain read it as "directed by Joe Manganiello", and I was wondering why nobody was bitching about that!

Go get laid and stop obsessing over my comments, basement-dwelling annoying autistic loser.

[quote] Started watching "Schitt's Creek" when quarantine started and just finished.

[quote] Great another camp fest with an effeminate gay character, so innovative and unique.

That's r118 in a nutshell. You know, on his quest for truly great gay entertainment.

Saw it on Broadway and really enjoyed it. The cast has great chemistry.

R115 You hateful sow.

Some things simply should stand alone. The original needed no re-make.

Also, that most of the movie cast died of AIDS should lend authenticity as well as poignancy to that version.

I can't stand gay actors anymore, most of them spread and believe the myth that was because of the trannies we have rights now, Disgusting.

How many of them are being peer pressured into supporting it for their careers' sake, R124?

Oh, that tired myth that the trans are so few and yet so much more powerful than the Jews in Hollywood apparently.

Oh, those darn trans bringing down the whole gay community with their uppity demands and commanding that giant gay eraser in the sky. *shaking fist*

R126, how's the salad at the Mortimer Club?

r127. How should I know? I'm at the Rusty Anchor eating salty peanuts.

Saw it on Broadway. Great big laughs. Had a great time. Audience loved it. Bitch all you want.

[quote]You had that with "Looking."

And you cunts hated nothing as much as you hated "Looking."

I just hope there are a few more laughs in the last act to leaven Michael's psychodrama. The Albee-esque "party game" is the most dated aspect of the play.

Wasn't Tales of the City? It's a myth actually, I mean in the deep sense.

Gurl please. The original BITB was a melodramatic snoozefest with ugly actors. Anything else could only be an upgrade 💯

I think the costumes look off because they have Donald and Larry in late-70s styles while most everyone else is in early 1970s clothing. Fashion changed incredibly quickly during the 1970s, if you didn't live through it you might not realize that it looks off if one person is in a 1971 short-sleeved turtleneck with another in a 1974 pullover and a third man in a 1979 cargo shirt.

[quote]I am surprised anyone on DL would dislike Boys In the Band.

[quote] DL is Boys In the Band.

That's exactly why they don't like it.

It's the 1960s version of "being mean and gay is not a personality." The people who claim that's just how life was back then don't get it; it's how SOME gay lives were back then, not all. But it's also how some gay lives are NOW. Are we going to pretend like there aren't A-gay cliques that behave exactly this way, and gay YouTubers who embrace the awful stereotypes, and a bunch of straights who think that's just how gays are because that's the kind of gay the media likes to show?

I would hope the play would enlighten people, as I think it was intended to do originally, and make it obvious that the toxic behavior is a choice while being gay isn't. I don't know if it will.

I went to an online gay AA meeting last night in the city where I got sober, but where I no longer live. A straight male friend where I now live wanted "to try something different," and he accompanied me. I told him it would be just like any other meeting—21st century gays no longer act like the boys in the band, right?—but no, it could not have been any more queenly as we arrived ten minutes early if the boys at the meeting had gotten up and read from the script.

We *are* the boys in the band.

Did they fawn over your straight friend?

I can't hear 21st century f---- over their gayness.

I don't believe we mentioned his straightness, r137.

"21st century f----", r138?

Look, even to this day some people are bitter and angry (and that includes gays as well) and go through life and rather reject others than be rejected. Only nowadays we see it as a defense mechanism and not a character flaw or character trait (aka being an asshole).

I can't stand Parsons in any part. This was confirmed after I saw "Hollywood" (which I mostly enjoyed). Yes, the character of Michael is neurotic, and toxic...but I'm sure it will be a variation on the same role Parsons plays in anything else he ever does. No thanks.

Parsons played a decent character on Murphy's The Normal Heart.

But then it was so different from Sheldon that everybody couldn't buy him as anything but Sheldon.

Weird that you all hate this movie because the characters are self-loathing. Like it or not, self-loathing gay men who take it out on others exist. Deal with it. I know that in recent years it has become a trend to complain that every gay movie doesn't have "happy gays" in it, but people need to realize that that's life. And even more importantly, that's GAY life. Our lives aren't saccharine bullshit, our lives are hard and our media reflects that. If you want a sappy happy bullshit movie that pretends the lives of gay men are all unicorns and rainbows, go watch Love Simon.

It will be hailed by the straight press. It will get no Emmy noms.

[quote]It will be hailed by the straight press. It will get no Emmy noms.

It's hard to say. He may not have directed it but his name is all over it.

And it's always "Shit on Ryan Murphy's Netflix Projects" time with reviewers.

Although his past few efforts on Netflix have been lackluster so I feel like people have been justified in being critical to tearing him apart. I see no reason why people would stop with this.

"Gay men playing gay characters" might save this project from a critical drubbing.

R146 I don't think they even care about that anymore. I think they've totally abandoned gays and don't care about us anymore.

[Quote] I think they've totally abandoned gays and don't care about us anymore.

If that's true they wouldn't have had Taron E. saying "I thought I might be gay at age 14" when promoting "Rocket Man." They will try an milk this "landmark" cast angle. They have little else to work with - the performances nor the direction received a lot of praise.

The DL is without any further doubt The Boys in the Band.

[quote]"Gay men playing gay characters" might save this project from a critical drubbing.

It didn't help them on Broadway with the critics other than it being a mention occasionally.

And with it being a movie again, it's hardly the first gay film with an all gay cast played by gay actors. (And while Murphy has done a lot for gay people the bastard can't even fully commit to casting gay actors to play gay roles on his own projects.)

IIRC the film was shot over a year ago and it was a poor move not to release this during Pride like they did with Tales of the City. I suspect they want award nominations but it doesn't help it's being dropped so close to Ratched premiering less than 2 weeks before.

What would a DL Boys in the Band be about? What would take the place of the telephone game? There would have to be cats, some political/down low scandals, hole presenting, hollywood homos... what else?

[Quote] It didn't help them on Broadway with the critics other than it being a mention occasionally.

It's not novel to have out Broadway actors. It still is on screen. I don't think the gay cast will save this from any and all criticism, but it may earn it good will from online outlets.

Parsons was the only one who made me cringe a bit in the revival. He didn't completely embarrass himself, but he really can only play Sheldon with that same goofy accent he's incapable of getting rid of. My main issue was why his character has one drink and immediately seems to get wasted in about 3 minutes time. It never builds. Seemed like it was less abrupt in the original movie.

R153 Apart from Robin, most of the actors reviews were harsh to hated them.

Yes, the reviews were not good.

I thought Parsons was effective in "The Normal Heart." The scene with the rolodex has remained in my memory.

[quote] It's like Murphy is working extra to send us back 100 years.

He is. The last thing we need is a rehash of this show from the enabler of [italic]Pose[/italic].

I liked Robin De Jesus. First saw him in that wonderful film, Camp. In the mid-2000s, he was our waiter at a restaurant. I told him I enjoyed him in Camp. He smiled and thanked me, and didn't seem embarrassed or upset he was recognized. Glad to see him back in front of a camera.

I'm suprised they didn't remake it with a trans FTM cast.

All of Murphy’s Netflix projects have been disasters and have flopped. All that wasted money.

R160 Ratched might be good.

Am I the only one tired of Jim Parsons?

Yes, r162! People LONG to see him in his most famous role again!!

De Jesus stole the entire show and was easily the audience favorite the night I saw it, but Rannells and Quinto got quite a few guffaws if I recall correctly. Washington had the most movie moment when he calls the guy he knew as a kid. Carver even got a few decent laughs as the cowboy. Pretty much everyone else was fine and inoffensive. Bomer just had to stand there and look pretty for most the show.

The show still worked for me. I took a friend who'd never even heard of it before and it worked for him as well.

Same experience for me R164.

The audience loved De Jesus and my observations were the same as yours.

De Jesus had so much energy it genuinely made me care about the character, he truly embodied him and Washington's "phone call" was poignant. Seems like Robin and Michael Washington were panned the least by critics and it was deserved.

I was pleasantly surprised by Carver. He got the biggest laugh my night on his line before his exit when in response to Harold asking, "Are you good in bed?" He says, "Well ... I try to show a little affection -- It keeps me from feeling like such a whore."

Everyone else seemed miscast.

Did latinx men go to cotillions in the 50s?

[quote] I'm suprised they didn't remake it with a trans FTM cast.

The fact that they did not is this debacle’s only redeeming factor. That and not putting Danny Pintauro in it. Two things that would make anything automatically unwatchable.

When has anyone put Danny Pintauro in anything?

[quote] Are you writing from 1990?

That would still be sooner than a huge contingent of DL who thinks it’s still 1974.

The revival was far from a misfire but De Jesus and Washington really were the highlights. I'm hoping this movie gets them a lot more exposure. They're very talented. Parsons was easily the weakest which is a shame since he's essentially the lead.

Is Washington Denzel's son?

I've seen De Jesus and Washington in other things and I agree they're very good.

I think Quinto and Rannells have already peaked, such as it were. It doesn't seem like their careers are going to get any bigger.

^ No, the actor in Tenet is.

[quote] Is Washington Denzel's son?

There are lots of Black families named Washington because a certain dead president who appears on our money owned a lot of their ancestors.

[quote]I'm surprised they didn't remake it with a trans FTM cast.

with a BLACK trans FTM cast!!!!!

I still want "The Women" remade with a black femme male cast.

[quote]I still want "The Women" remade with a black femme male cast.

R176 Billy Porter as Norma Shearer!

There has to be a part for Chadwick.

What's next, a remake of [italic]The Killing of Sister George[/italic]. Boy, I hope whoever owns the rights to that gets a restraining order against Ryan Murphy.

Imelda will probably play George.

Imelda always pinged to me.

Who would replace the actress Coral Browne? Harriet Walter?

[quote] Who would replace the actress Coral Browne?

Probably somebody Black.

Lisa Hartman Black in place of the actress Coral Browne!? Over my deady body!

*dead

[quote] Lisa Hartman Black in place of the actress Coral Browne!? Over my deady body!

She already replaced me as Neely O'Hara long before I was dead. That wasn't what killed me.

What your career amount to killed ya, Patty.

[quote]Aunt Eller in the regions!?

We wanted Shirley Jones but we made do with what we could get. We still got an Oscar winner.

They couldn't guarantee me dick! No dick, no performance!

When does it premiere? I want to watch this trainwreck.

Is the lovely Corenswet in it?

Corenswet would have made more sense than Carver as Cowboy but is Corenswet out?

I’ll watch Matt Bomer in anything.

[quote]I want to watch this trainwreck.

Shh! You'll give Murphy the idea to reboot [italic]Supertrain[/italic].

I doubt it will be a trainwreck. A bore, more likely.

No one had a body like Matt Bomer's in the late 60s. Not even the guy who played Cowboy.

What decade is this from? I don't think it's recent...

Smalltime Brit actors John Hamill in the 1960s...

A better body than Bomer's, I'd say.

Third (and last) shot.

R194 A SUPERTRAIN reference. Only on DL.

The trailer is out.

Okay, just watched the trailer.

Jim Parsons is Sheldon trying to be Kevin Spacey.

Emory is a poor man's John Leguizamo in "To Wong Foo,...." Oh, Mary, don't ask.

ZQ is great as Leonard Frey.

IOW, what exactly is the raison d'etre of this movie?

It looks better than I thought it would. I'll defeinty check it out. Matt Bomer looks hot.

I thought that they were filming in LA, but this looks like NYC.

I don't think it was a wise choice to lead with that Jim Parsons' monologue. The "why?" moment and Matt Bomer's double take - I know it's meant to be amusing but it wasn't.

[Quote] what exactly is the raison d'etre of this movie?

Name actors who are gay PLAY gay in an all-gay cast.

I watched the original film a few weeks ago. I looked forward to the Murphy’s take, but the trailer looks positively dreadful. It is such a let down.

I like the original BinB movie, watch that and Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf in the same evening and you have yourself a couple of hours of riveting entertainment, exhaustion and depression.

Looks like they're opening up the play a lot. Way more than the original film. This could be good or bad. I liked the revival, so I'm optimistic about it. I think some performances that didn't land as well in the theater might land better with the benefit of close ups and editing.

R209, that double bill sounds like the perfect preamble to suicide.

[quote]I thought that they were filming in LA, but this looks like NYC.

They filmed everything but exteriors in LA then zipped through the exteriors in a few days in NYC since there's not many.

The opening part with them walking around outside was shot in those days for instance.

R212 Thanks

Glad they emphasize the party game in the trailer -- that's the part that's a slog in the movie, so at least people won't be surprised by that element; the trailer portrays it as a major part of the movie. So, what I can say at this moment is, decent trailer. People who watch will be prepared for the actual movie.

The trailer.

The story itself is not good, so a remake is not going to make it any better.

R216 You mean the star caliber of gay actors won’t be able to hide the major flaws of the movie, from a man whose productions fall apart at the third or fourth episode for lack of a coherent storyline and script? Who knew?

It's a pre existing piece. Murphy's shortcomings as an executive producer can't be applied to the writing.

Matt Bomer has crazy eyes.

R218 I am merely pointing out that like seeks like.

Boys in the Band may not be to everyone's taste - the "not those kind of" gays tend to hate the telephone game - but it has a solid narrative, which isn't characteristic of Murphy's messy oeuvre.

So Mart Crowley died in March . . .

Jim Parsons’ Rolodex moment (which was really an affecting moment, agreed) is actually not in the original play of “The Normal Heart.” I played that character on stage in a college production and “Tommy Boatwright” really is the most likable character in the play.

I’m friends with Michael Washington and I got to go backstage when I saw “The Boys in the Band” a couple of summers ago. He is a lovely person and really did a great job in the Bernard role. De Jesus is the only one who received a Tony nomination.

Matt Bomer touched my shoulder and sort of squeezed it that night! It was thrilling. Then we saw him and ZQ (and ZQ’s side-piece) at a matinee of “Three Tall Women” the next day. Bomer was checking my buddy out (who is very good-looking himself).

Will Ryan Murphy cast DL fave Connor Jessup in a project one of these days? He's openly gay and would be a breath of fresh air.

R222 Wonderful that Crowley's great writing is still recognized; it has stood the test of time. Well done Mart! RIP

I hope Jessup never has to lower himself to a Murphy production.

[quote] The story itself is not good, so a remake is not going to make it any better.

Not good is a bit harsh, but it's definitely of its time.

A time that has passed, alas.

What is so of its time? There aren't trust fund babies who only know how to spend money and destroy themselves and others? There aren't formerly married (to women) men who struggle in the gay dating scene, especially around non-monogamy? There aren't sharp tongued potheads with looks that put them outside the gay mainstream? There aren't black gays who amount to the token in majority white gay spaces? There aren't hookers?

I have to deal with enough nasty cunts as it is. Why would I want to subject myself to this?

r228 all of those people existed back then, too.

"I have to deal with enough nasty cunts as it is. Why would I want to subject myself to this?"

And they say gay life is not like that anymore.

Today's gay: "I have to deal with enough nasty cunts as it is. Why would I want to subject myself to this?"

Also today's gay: Soaks up every Housewives of and every reality show where pieces of shit act like pieces of shit to each other.

Those Housewives queens are a niche of gay men. I personally don't know anyone who watches those shows or any other reality garbage.

[Quote] Also today's gay: Soaks up every Housewives of and every reality show where pieces of shit act like pieces of shit to each other.

But the cast members are women, which puts them at enough of a distance from the gay male audience.

The gay men who are into the Housewives shit and Andy Cohen in general tend to be a lower-class subset.

I sometimes wonder what people watch who say they don't want to watch stories like this because they remind them too much of real people. Do you just watch The Sound of Music on a loop, but turn it off before the Nazi stuff really takes off?

R236 I'm sure lots of people want pure escapism when they watch tv shows or movies. That's why a lot of dumb "fluff" crap does well with the general public.

I used to love action adventure movies and some martial arts movies as a kid. I hate violence as an adult. I avoid anything that lowkey glorifies violence. That doesn't mean I run out of the room if something like that crosses my screen. But the straight male "comic book/video game" aesthetic doesn't interest me as an adult, nor does the vigilante genre.

R70 Was it the vagina-loathing threads that clued you in?

Don't know why they thought it would be a good idea to resurrect this ancient old relic. It's a gay minstrel show.

You're a gay minstrel show.

It is out of its time.

It isn't really that relevant.

And using an anon gossip board as an example of how gays treat each other in person doesn't hold much water in the real world.

Today it's much more likely that all of these people attending this party would have been kind to each other [italic] to their faces [/italic] and texted [bold]copious amounts of shit talk[/bold] to their actual friends from the group as soon as they were apart.

In 2020 you can't invite a gay to an event without being asked, "Well, who is going to be there?" first anyway.

If you really think the gay black guy in a group would allow another character to call him "Ni**er lips!" repeatedly to his face and take it, you'd be wrong. Either he would have fought him, some other random people at the party would have jumped in to defend him or ... more likely it wouldn't have happened while he was standing there.

Are my friends bitchy? Some of them? Yes. Not all. Do they say mean things to each other? No. Because my generation was raised to be charming and not sincere.

Also YES a lot of gay men watch that Real Housewives shit -- but they don't watch it because it is their lives they watch it because it [bold]isn't[/bold] their lives. It's not different than housewives watching soap operas only the productions are much cheaper.

Only basic gays watch those Housewives shows and the other reality shit. It's very common and low-rent.

R207, Excuse me?

Leonard Frey.

Kenneth Nelson.

Frederick Combs.

Keith Prentice.

Robert La Tourneau.

Original cast members. ALL DIED OF AIDS. Respect!

Have seen the original movie as well as this Broadway production. The problem I have with BitB is the same one I have with and Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf, most T. Williams & A. Miller -- in short post war drama, especially of the message variety. It is not that the characters remind me too much of real people, but actually not enough -- things always veer off into "what the fuck land" and the characters say and do thing that in any real life situation would have you in your hat and out the door in a hot minute. The psycho-drama just gets laid on waaaaay to thick and pulls me out of it. I understand it's a style of the era, and I'm not a youngster, I was a kid when the first movie came out. I just find later, more realistic dramas much more emotionally engaging and devastating as an audience member; and they can deal with very heavy subject matter -- Night, Mother and The Great Santini are two now rater dated dramas, that I think are much more effective,

Is this cast 100% gay?

R246 Yes, are they all Gold Star, with maybe a Platinum one or two thrown in for good measure, and well documented as such that we can confirm?

[quote]characters say and do thing [sic] that in any real life [sic] situation would have you in your hat and out the door in a hot minute.

Does any gay still wear a hat?

say what?

It's funny how no one ever gives examples of how ALL the characters in Boys in the Band are awful people. It's almost like gay men are hypersensitive and prone to tarring other gay people (including fictional characters) with the same brush.

Do most things fly over your head? Or just this point about the abundance of cunty, hateful behavior BiB that most most people squirm if not flee?

makes*

[quote]the abundance of cunty, hateful behavior BiB that (makes) most people squirm

It's called drama, queen!

Already posted, but the Netfllix Trailer for BITB looks terrific. Can't wait until September 30th!

R254, so you posted the same thing as R202 again?

Did you think we'd like it better 52 posts later, Ryan?

R254 why do they all speak with the same gayvoice?

I don’t think Emory should have been butched up with facial hair.

Is this a “TV movie” that could be up for Emmys or a Netflix studio release that could be up for Oscars?

[Quote] why do they all speak with the same gayvoice?

Women sync menstruation cycles, gay men sync...

[quote]Is this a “TV movie” that could be up for Emmys or a Netflix studio release that could be up for Oscars?

Likely a TV Movie for the Emmys or Golden Globes.

I believe for it to be eligible for the Oscars it would have to of been released in theaters for a limited time period.

Netflix’s does own the old Paris Theater in NYC near the Plaza just to be able to do these types of showing, but in the current climate who knows if they would show it to an audience before it’s online.

The cast of cis (mostly) white men is problematic. Don't expect any nominations!

[quote]I believe for it to be eligible for the Oscars it would have to of been released in theaters for a limited time period.

Normally, a film must have a theatrical release in L.A. for at least 7 days. For this year, however, the Academy has revised its eligibility rules.

"The unprecedented coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic mandated the closure of all Los Angeles County movie theaters as of Monday, March 16, 2020. Current Academy Awards rules stipulate that a film be shown in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County for a theatrical qualifying run of at least seven consecutive days, during which period screenings must occur at least three times daily. Until further notice and for the 93rd Awards year only, films that had a previously planned theatrical release but are initially made available through commercial streaming, VOD service or other broadcast may qualify for awards consideration in Best Picture and general entry categories."

Whether BitB will qualify for the Oscars will be up to the Academy to decide.

[quote]Normally, a film must have a theatrical release in L.A. for at least 7 days. For this year, however, the Academy has revised its eligibility rules.

Thank you R262.

There's also this part of the announcements:

1. The film had to of already been planned to be released in theaters prior to COVID.

[quote] Details regarding the planned theatrical release are required for submission. In certain cases, proof demonstrating intent for a theatrical release, such as a theater letter/contract or an executed deal with a theatrical distributor, will be requested. Films that are unable to provide this documentation may appeal to the Awards Rules Committee for consideration.

Sadly none of the actors had a clear date on when it would be airing on Netflix until 2 - 3 weeks ago whereas most of Netflix's schedule is set months in advance, especially for Murphy's projects. Most lists by reporters don't even have it on there for the end of this month only because they kinda' cut it close there announcing the date it would be up there. It seems like they kinda threw it up there last minute.

2. They have 60 days to screen it for members on their Academy award website/app etc. I'm sure someone will report it if they do see it there as a contender.

[quote]Additionally films whose initial commercial release is nontheatrical must be made available on the secure Academy Screening Room member site within 60 days of the film’s streaming/VOD release or broadcast.

R259 & R263, "of" does not substitute for "have" in a sentence. It just sounds like the same word when people talk fast.

R264, What happened in your life that you think anyone gives an actual fuck?

Well, it's obvious what never happened in your life.

I give a fuck.

If you read the original character descriptions, Donald is supposed to be boy-next door good-looking, while Larry is (direct quote) "extremely handsome". The actors in the old film live up to this desc. But in the revival they have Bomer playing Donald, and Andrew Rannells playing Larry. Why?

I’ll be surprised if this has any serious commercial success. The story is so of-its-time, I don’t think many audiences will understand or sympathize or empathize. This is about a niche demographic (gay men) in a very specific time and place (USA, post WWII and Mattachine Society, pre-AIDS). Unless they spin it as a modern day tranny allegory, I don’t think anybody will feel moved by the story at all. The characters are all wretched and pathetic. You’d have to have lived through that time/place or really befriended some eldergays who lived through that time in order to muster any sense of fellow feeling.

As a modern gay man who didn't live through this time period, I find all the characters to be horrifying.

[quote]As a modern gay man who didn't live through this time period, I find all the characters to be horrifying.

You must have been watching a different play.

[Quote] The characters are all wretched and pathetic

Wrong.

[quote]You must have been watching a different play.

Nope. They're awful. I would've hated to live in a time when this kind of behavior was the norm. A poster upthread said if a character like Harold had shown up at a party in 2020, he would be asked to leave and that's so right. Nobody would have time for such a nasty miserable person.

[quote]Wrong.

SAD!

Then tell us how each character is awful. Give us a line of dialogue, an action - each character does. I bet you can't/won't. Only Michael is awful.

They're all horrid. Again, I'm glad I wasn't around in this era.

I love Ryan. I will watch this! Currently watching the entire Nip/Tuck series. LOVE.

Of course, you just repeat the same sweeping generalisation.

Sorry r278 they're all wonderful, well-adjusted men who are a JOY to watch.

And you continue to ignore the request to give examples, as you can't. You were triggered by this movie to the point that you can't even make a case for your emotional response that you pass off as an opinion.

I'm not going to footnote the script for you r280. My reaction, as a modern gay man, was that the characters were horrible people and I'm glad I wasn't around back then.

I know eldergays romanticize this time period and get all pissy when younger guys say they don't care for it, but for us it looks awful. Men of my generation don't see it as any kind of golden age.

[quote]As a modern gay man who didn't live through this time period, I find all the characters to be horrifying.

MARY!

MARY! yourself. Boys In the Band made me cringe. What a bunch of outdated stereotypes, it's like watching a gay minstrel show. I have no idea why this ancient old relic was revived when there are a million other gay stories that could've been told.

I’m cheating on my partner! I’m cheating on my wife! I’m also probably cheating on my wife but I won’t say so because my colleagues think I’m straight! I continuously belittle my best black friend by calling him every racial slur I can think of! I’m so upset about turning a year older that I’m going to ruin the evening for all my friends!

The Aristocrats!

[quote]Men of my generation don't see it as any kind of golden age.

You're an idiot. Neither the contents of the play, nor the reactions to it, positive and negative, have anything to do with its time period being seen as a "golden age." Any gay men who lived through the era knew it was anything but.

Your impression doesn't equate to facts, Sheena Easton.

And what are the facts?

[quote]You're an idiot. Neither the contents of the play, nor the reactions to it, positive and negative, have anything to do with its time period being seen as a "golden age." Any gay men who lived through the era knew it was anything but.

This period is constantly romanticized, JFC just look at DL and who the DLEG's all rhapsodize over the Seventies. Those of us who are younger don't really see it the same way.

Ryan Murphy’s coming in hot on this thread tonight

Maybe it really is Ryan! Sorry we're shitting all over your movie, dude. But you really should've left this dinosaur alone.

donald is sweet

I saw the daunting original film at a repertory theater in 1977 when I was 13. Fortunately the other movie on the double bill was Something for Everyone. Murder, intrigue, and pansexual fortune hunting in Bavaria seemed like a brighter prospective future.

To me, bringing Boys In the Band back is almost on par with bringing The Jazz Singer back. It's just a big "Why?"

R270, of course, is no picnic either, believe you me.

If only abortion had been legal when I was pregnant.

[quote] OP, it looks off because a lot of it is current clothing with a period feel. The current belief is that too much period detail scares off younger viewers.

Is this true? Younger viewers are PATHETIC. This is part of the reason they seem so ignorant and useless on the average.

[Quote] The current belief is that too much period detail scares off younger viewers.

That's not a current belief. Look at a 1960s movie set in the past, e.g. "Far From the Madding Crowd."

Yes, period films from the past really were never 100% accurate. Historical films made in the 60s, for example, always looked like the 60s with the women's hairstyles and makeup. Modern films are much better at historical accuracy, but not always.

I didnt take the original BItB film literally. I doubt too many people in '67 would have set up the cruel game Michael did not to mention brutally mock black people. My elder relatives wouldn't have thought things like that were acceptable or funny. I took it as art being an exaggerated reality.

I think it was a good way to describe a pain-riddled control freak even outside the realm of gay life. Would most people architect a game like that? No. But I can even think of managers I've worked with that are manipulative and cruel to staff. Probably insecurity manifested in cruelty. In that sense its fairly universal.

Maybe the party game segment worked better on stage, like with Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, where both party games -- Hump the Host and Pretend Child -- come off better on the stage than they do in the movie version.

*Hostess

^^^ yes, you're right.

I love Ryan. Very talented. I don't get the (fake) rage.

The velvet rage?

Detractors, learn something.

WTF did they do to Matt Bomer's hair? (This cast is too old for the screen.)

R300, That's interesting. Stephen Sondheim used to play a similar game of "truth and dare" with Anthony Perkins at his dinner parties which often turned cruel and vicious towards his guest.

They are too old for the screen, they're all (or mostly all) in their forties and the characters are supposed to be early 30s.

Tuc Watkins is fine as that character could easily be in his 40s. I guess Tuc is early 50s, though?

Wasn't early 30s back then basically what early/mid 40s are now?

That is correct. They need to look like they have lived a little.

Hollywood Reporter liked it.

Most of the reviews have been positive, acknowledging that the play is a period piece but saying that Mantello and the cast make it work.

When does it come out?

If it takes me a little while to pull myself together, and if I smoke a little grass before I get up the nerve to show my face to the world, it's nobody's god-damned business but my own. And how are you this evening?

Mantello is one of the finest directors and actors alive. It’s difficult to think of a theatrical production that has not been elevated by his detailed, emotionally nuanced, organic approach. Hollywood was unremittingly terrible, but his performance captured the reality of being gay in a repressive time.

Jody Mantello was one of the most talented stagers ever. She also had a lot of pain and struggle throughout her life. Despite that, she had a good heart, which is hard to encounter in Hollywood. At a time when gay people were oppressed beyond belief, they identified with her struggles and she theirs.

[quote]When does it come out?

It "drops" Sept. 30.

[quote]What your career amount to killed ya, Patty.

[quote]—Aunt Eller in the regions!?

Patty also played Aunt Eller on Broadway, which is in the Theater District region on Manhattan!

The broadway production had much more of a broad sit-com tone to it than the original movie; there was a palpable arms-length distance to the characters and period, while the comic material was played less archly. I wonder if that tone will be carry over into this film version as well.

Patty? Patty who? Duke, Peppermint, or LaBelle?

Or Patty Andrews?