Netflix's "The Boys in the Band" Reviews Are Positive ... and Matt Bomer Goes Full Frontal!

Matt Bomer naked?? Finally!

In response to, "Watching Boys on the Band and... a certain something is about to break the internet"

It’s not Bonner’s cock, you Neanderthals! It’s the depth and subtly of his performance. matt can emote from A to B!

And I get an F for those typos. Where the fuck are my glasses.

Screenshots?

Bonner is in it? Bonner Bolton?

OP = worse than Hitler

R5, it comes out on the 30th but Netflix already had a screening for it.

Today the embargo lifted so people were able to talk about it.

Matt Bomer goes full frontal in the shower.

Matt Bomer and Andrew Rannells have a sex scene in a bathhouse standing up but it's very quick.

Andrew Rannells and Tuc Watkins have a nude sex scene at the end.

Various random people in a pool are nude.

Cut or uncut?

Erect or flaccid?

Precum or full on spooge ooze?

Does Tuc show cock?

R7, it might be that OP blocked and then you didn't show up in search.

R10, I feel like the fact that it was mentioned both he and Andrew are naked and since are already a couple IRL you will at least see ass.

I thought the whole point of BitB was that everyone is sexless and miserable?

Watkins and Rannells had a sex scene in something else, right? I've seen the screencaps.

[quote] Watkins and Rannells had a sex scene in something else, right? I've seen the screencaps.

The Showtime series BLACK MONDAY.

How is Bomer's . . .bandwith?

Soomeone who saw the Broadway production said that it was fine, not a big'un.

I wonder what a full frontal brought to Matt Bomer's pay packet?

R15, if it's the same as the play then it's normal. Pretty but normal. Not too big, not too small.

Or as someone else said, "It's nice to see there's something average about him."

I don’t have Netflix so can’t watch this show

You're on the internet, luv.

Why would I want to see this instead of the original version? Just for the nudity and the sex scenes? This is the message I'm getting.

[quote]Just for the nudity and the sex scenes?

Yes!!!

And the Cowboy get an extra line! That must make two in total!

[quote]get ready for him to break the internet

Mmm, no.

Oh, and OP is a pussy.

Well, that's a pleasant surprise. I was positive they'd show his ass like they did in the play and the original film, but full frontal is a nice surprise. Are we sure it's not a prosthetic? Actors love using those these days.

[quote] if it's the same as the play then it's normal.

Well, doubtful that he got a new, bigger one since Broadway.

[quote]Today the embargo lifted so people were able to talk about it.

Oh for fuck’s sake you retarded fangurrl.

“Embargo”.

Christ on a fucking crutch.

Fuck yeah!

I want to see Bomer cock!

[Quote] Christ on a fucking crutch.

You've been to one of Michael's parties, haven't you?

Matt Bomer is so fucking bland that I don't care about seeing his dick. Actually playing with it, maybe. But looking at a photo of it? Fuck no. Absurd.

Tuc is hot. I’d wanna see him naked. Rennells must be some kind of joke foisted on us. He looks like a squirrel storing acorns in his face for winter.

Is that dick faux?

Get back to me when she shows hole on HBO.

It could be a prosthetic. They were all supposed to get fitted for prosthetics on Hollywood. Finn Wittrock used one on Ratched.

Nothing wrong with wearing prosthetic dicks. Actresses wear fake breasts. Anyway, actors aren't sex workers. They shouldn't have to expose their genitals.

I saw it on Broadway and I don't remember Bomer going nude.

R36 Wow. That's quite a damning review

I believe the staging of Bomer's shower scene was altered during the run.

[quote] Tuc is hot.

And he's also fifty-four.

R36, In the early performances and middle ones if you were sitting in the right place you saw it.

There were people in the later ones that said it looked as if he was wearing a cock sock and not moving around as much.

He may have realized people were discussing it when that guy that interviews Broadway actors asked him where the best place to sit to see it was -- since people were talking about it -- he seemed annoyed and from seeing that interview it was strange he even asked him.

R38, Early on he took a shower on stage, then he started splashing himself with water instead of a shower (while in the shower) and by the end he was barely doing that.

I caught the play in the middle shows.

I was in the middle orchestra in early June. I hardly remember a shower. I only recall him in underwear.

[quote]Anyway, actors aren't sex workers. They shouldn't have to expose their genitals.

NOW you tell me.

I hope Matt's dong is mutilated so that I can see the knob.

I kind of wish they'd just filmed the cast doing the play. It seems odd to so specifically follow the trajectory of the original, where the entire stage cast transfers over to a movie version that expands the play.

I never got around to seeing the revival, but I have fond memories of the WPA production with David Drake in - just googled the date and Jesus Christ it was 1996. I'm old. In fairness I was still in college back then. Even back then the reputation was "actually, it's a pretty great play if you look at it in the context of its time" so this revival was hardly the first time the show was seen through fresh eyes, but I'll definitely be curious to see the film.

The shower scene is in 3D and Matt jerks off and comes right at the camera.

Give that man an Emmy!

It's fucking annoying Netflix says "this week" and it's fucking Friday. I still can't fucking watch it yet!

[quote]Jesus Christ it was 1996. I'm old. In fairness I was still in college back then.

Oh go fuck yourself.

[quote]They were all supposed to get fitted for prosthetics on Hollywood.

What for? David Corenswet is the only name actor in that I recall showing his ass, nevermind a frontal?

I'm not nearly as excited about this news as I would have been 14 years and 20 lbs. of muscle ago. Though I am quite interested in seeing the current actors' take on the material.

[quote] I hope Matt's dong is mutilated

It is. He commented as such in an interview unless he was just kidding around. Aspies don't usually kid around though.

Emmys for the entire cast.

Can't wait to see cute Matt's little schmecky!!

Could they have staged this with truly age appropriate (rather than the aged up cast they used), relatively "name" actors?

Aged up!? I'm only 25, you bitch!

I ask because I think there's a dearth of out actors in that age range who have some name value, especially if you take Brits out of the running. If not, Richard Madden would be an obvious Larry. Jonathan Groff, of course, is a Donald. On the younger end of the spectrum, Ben Platt is a Harold while Noah Galvin is a Michael. But the latter two are too young.

That review says fully nude but some would consider a shot of someone's butt fully nude. Doesnt really confirm that he goes full frontal. Maybe I'm wrong and he does.

...........

R55, People on twitter who are film reviewers who got a preview screening a few days ago say he has a full frontal.

The Tom and Lorenzo podcast who already saw it confirms you do see it when he's in the shower. He turns and you catch a glimpse of it.

There's also a lot of dicks in a bathhouse scene and then you run into a Donald sex scene there since Mantello added flashbacks of all the characters.

Although one of the hosts called him out and said Matt Bomer never challenges himself and he relies too much on his looks and that's no different here. It was probably the most negative thing they said other than the flashbacks don't work.

They should remake Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, but with flashbacks. That's what that story is missing.

A Virginia Woolf remake would be fantastic, but only if they show more dicks.

^^ and all male cast.

[quote]A Virginia Woolf remake would be fantastic, but only if they show more dicks.

[quote]and an all male cast.

Yes. It's about time.

Bomer was challenged by playing a heroin addict with mommy issues in AHS Hotel. He simply didn't rise to the challenge.

Virginia Woolf would make no sense with a male cast. George as a disappointing, non-successor to Martha's educator father is central to the story. If they were men, they wouldn't be married, George would not work "for" Martha's father, they would not live on campus, Martha would not have bet on the wrong man etc. It's a heterosexual story, no matter how bitchy the characters may get.

Maybe it could be remade in 50 years with men once the gays have had more of a taste of married life.

Zachary Quinto is too conventionally pretty to be Harold. His bitter lines will have no meaning.

Divine would have been great in Virginia Woolf.

But ZQ always seems like a very bitter person, so perhaps it was personality casting over looks casting.

Why are there two competing threads and which is the official one?

Sit next to the boy you think is the cutest R68.

I think one is a reviews thread and this one is a nudity one?

[quote]I don’t have Netflix so can’t watch this show

It's 2020 and you don't know how to watch this elsewhere on the internet? How fucking old are you?

r65, are you serious? I find him repulsive.

Leonard Frey was not a meeskite.

[quote]Zachary Quinto is too conventionally pretty to be Harold. His bitter lines will have no meaning.

He's actually rather odd-looking. Sometimes he looks downright creepy.

Nelson's hair in the stage production made him look younger. Many of these characters are late 20, early 30s. I think it's a significant change to age them up by 10 years, especially Michael and Peter's relationship.

Stage Michael.

^^Absolutely crazy that that's what early-mid thirties looked like back in those days. Those dudes look like a modern fifty.

Nelson was 38. Luckinbill was actually 4 years younger, at 34. Frederick Combs was 33.

Peter White was but a babe at 31.

I give props to the actors who boldly go full-frontal without a prosthetic and/or a merkin. They have self-confidence which I find exciting, or maybe they're just saying "We all have one." and it shouldn't be a big deal.

[quote]^^Absolutely crazy that that's what early-mid thirties looked like back in those days. Those dudes look like a modern fifty.

Serious question, why did people in their mid-30s back then look older than they do now? I've seen a few people say this.

[quote] Serious question, why did people in their mid-30s back then look older than they do now?

Because they wanted to look respectable and conservative just like mom and dad. Which gave birth to the Hippie movement where young people refused to look like their parents and follow in their footsteps.

"fully nude" does not mean full frontal.

Work with what you got.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

Dear god Rannells is nude in this? Isn't his porn enough? And I really wanted to see it. A chipmunk on stilts.

Andrew Rannells has porn? Where?

He had nudes. He was pretty quick about having them removed from LPSG.

Ugh. Everyone's a whore.

r47 1996 was a fucking LONG time ago. I was also in college and I'm now technically old enough to be a grandfather.

Time moves on....

No r81 it was more than the way they dressed and groomed. Facially, they looked older.

People are fatter now, in general.

I remember watching a video of Rannell and his then partner having a three way with a third guy.

I think it was a fappening situation.

It was posted here.

Aside from plastic surgery and better "filter technology" a lot of why people looked older then was because of the prevalence of smoking. And people are fatter now. Up to a certain age the fat tends to spread out the wrinkles.

You're thinking of Jay Armstrong Johnson.

Even fit people look younger.

There are tons of interviews and discussions of the various versions of BITB on YouTube. I streamed a bunch of them late one night. It was interesting to hear different interpretations. Now I’m interested to see how this one varies from the rest. The fact that Mart Crowley was involved in all of the productions is a plus.

If they wanted to do a true a 30something millennial remake of this, Ronan Farrow would have been cast as Michael.

With Jon Lovett as Harold?

"The only thing worse than a Mia Farrow impression..."

r80, the closet was stressful, it would age anyone.

It was everybody who looked older, not just gay men. Look at any high school yearbook from that time period, the kids look 30.

Was Grayson Hall in the closet? Or was it just the cigs?

[quote]Ugh. Everyone's a whore.

Andrew had a couple of pictures that leaked on LPSG. They were clearly older photos since the photo quality didn't look anything like it would now.

Quinto's nudes also leaked.

That's pretty much it from that cast.

[quote]What for? David Corenswet is the only name actor in that I recall showing his ass, nevermind a frontal?

R48, they were originally supposed to go "nude" on the show but Ryan Murphy decided to cut out all of their nudity between their first script and the shooting one.

I think the only reason we're getting more nudity in this project is because this is Joe's project mostly. He has been the one doing interviews. Murphy has been pretty removed other than tweeting about it.

I doubt Mantello was pushing for nudity.

Nobody worked out those days. If nothing else, just wearing workout clothing a lot of the time leads to a more youthful appearance.

R65 - I saw the broadway production, I liked Quinto very much in Glass Menagerie a few years back and the whole tIme I was watching BITB I was wishing ZQ was playing Michael - and that Parsons wasn’t in it at all. Bomer and Cowboy were boring. Robin de Jesús and Bernard Michael Benjamin Washington were excellent.

Quinto's dick isn't too bad.

[quote]Nobody worked out those days. If nothing else, just wearing workout clothing a lot of the time leads to a more youthful appearance.

People looked older facially. It had nothing to do with what they wore.

Nobody was shaving their crotch in 1969, so I expect full bush.

Looking forward watching it.

R103 - Mantello said the shower scene was to establish Donald as an object of desire or something flowery like that.

And it worked since apparently almost every night, after being nude on stage, and getting dressed when he asks Michael "Am I stunning?" People in the audience always (uncharacteristic of Broadway audiences) screamed back "YES!"

Besides it was in the movie. The frontal wasn't. The flashbacks in the movie are also his idea. I wouldn't be surprised if Bomer suggested it since he has no purpose other than to be a sex object in this and listen to Michael. This was probably his way of not getting lost in a cast that can all act better than he can in a film (since this is a weird year) that could even end up being nominated for an Oscar.

Ryan Murphy did a lot of nudity in AHS : Hotel and has slowly been reducing it since then. I always wondered if #MeToo was to blame.

[quote]Looking forward watching it.

Shhhh, this is Datalounge, don't admit it out loud.

There is probably not full frontal but full back as on stage, well except for us who had the right angle to verify indeed he's a boy.

Normally flashbacks grate but in this context I look forward to them. Its clever to give more life to a small screen production.

There's nothing clever about it.

There is a porn video of Rannells and another guy in business suits. I've come across it and if it's not Rannells it's his doppelganger. I wouldn't have any idea how to find it again.

R115, was Andrew the top or the bottom?

[Quote] I wouldn't have any idea how to find it again.

Con. Venient.

Hey maybe it's not him. The guy just looks exactly like him. It's one of those videos you come across surfing porn. I forget if he was top or bottom. Maybe top? didn't watch too much of it as I find him completely repulsive. Or whoever it was who looked like him.

And obviously I would have far preferred it to have been Mike Doyle. Or somebody who looked like him. But no such luck.

I was about to ask if his partner in it was Mike Doyle, in which case my new hobby would become scouring the internet for it harder than the NSA looks for terrorists.

R120, there is a video of Mike Doyle and another guy spit roasting a third guy. Neither of them are Andrew. One is some Broadway actor that has a bunch of videos floating around that keep getting pulled since he watches LPSG. No, you can't see Mike Doyle's face. It's all based on what little you saw of "Mike Doyle" and the word of the person posting the videos who claimed one of them sent him trying to entice him into a hookup.

Bomer dressed for Kelly and Ryan

No one is going to make a big deal about seeing Matt Bomer's butt, we have all seen it before r112, that wouldn't "break the internet". Clearly its frontal nudity.

Enjoyed the movie, but it would be hard to say Bomer was full frontal. More like partial frontal.

Watched it on Netflix today. The characters seemed more sympathetic in this version.

yes r124 there's a separate thread about OP's lies

Robin de Jesús, Jim Parsons and Zachary Quinto are stand outs. Emmy worthy.

As they were in the show.

I'd say in any other year they wouldn't have much of a chance but I strongly feel that Robin and Jim are going to get nominations and they if Robin does and they campaign correctly they could win. I also hope Michael B Washington gets recognized as well.

Robin hasn't a hope in hell.

What is in is giving people of color acknowledgement: gay and Puerto Rican. That could help him at least get nominated. It's not like 1001 things came out this year.

[quote]Netflix's "The Boys in the Band" Reviews Are Positive

So was most of the original cast.

It was blah. The performances were generally good but nobody really stood out amongst them. I still much prefer the original version.

Michael doesn’t need to be good looking, but he does need to be both charismatic and slightly malevolent. Parsons is a big failure not because of his puss, but because he’s mostly a one note whiny pussy. Either Quinto or Rannells would have been better in as Michael and done sometime different yet interesting. Quinto is really too good looking to be believable as Harold - a guy who is genuinely ugly and bitter about it, not just unusual looking yet still rather handsome. And Bomer is waaaay to pretty for his role, plus he can’t act his way out of a paper bag.

I thought Michael's breakdown scene was a lot stronger in the original 1970 movie. I felt it was Parsons' weakest moment.

Inside the NYC Apartment of The Boys in the Band:

That article refers to the film as an "LGBTQ drama." No, it's just a gay drama.

Why can't anybody just use the word "gay" anymore?

Any writer or publication that uses ‘LGBTQ’ when they should be using ‘gay’ needs to HEAR ABOUT IT. Write to them. Leave a comment. There is no excuse for this.

As much as dislike Boys In the Band, I guess it's nice that it *is* a story that's exclusively about gay men. So there's that.

"Any writer or publication that uses ‘LGBTQ’ when they should be using ‘gay’ needs to HEAR ABOUT IT. Write to them. Leave a comment. There is no excuse for this."

I don't take orders from right wing trolls.

I'm sure you're used to people rejecting you though, so, "god bless."

Right wing troll? What the fuck are you talking about? Because I don’t go along with the alphabet soup, trans-centering bullshit, that makes me right wing? Eat shit, weirdo.

Oh stop it! All you cunts are just being cunts. It's GREAT! Parsons is fantastic.

I'd rather fuck Leonard Frey than Quinto.

Some fresh WWs, please, Muriel.

A younger actor should have played Cowboy, perhaps Conner Jessup.

I've seen screenshots of Bomer's nude scene. He looks like a cut (abs) 40 year old who dyes his hair.

R145 Jessup would've been perfect. He's 26, handsome and openly gay.

R145, I loved the reviewer that said that the Cowboy should have been more attractive than everyone else at the party since part of the point of him was that he was younger and hot but instead they hired mediocre attractive Charlie Carver who clearly isn't the hottest one at the party.

I don't think Robert La Tourneaux was the hottest at the previous party. Keith Prentice would have got my vote.

I mean... is Alam Wernick ever the most attractive at a party?

Matt is serving mutton dressed as lamb here. His body fat is too low.

Great production just the way it is. Every night I thank the Baby Jeebus for Ryan Murphy.

...........