Boys in the Band : awesome

Do you know what capital letters and proper punctuation are, OP?

Parsons steals the show, but i loves me my matty bomer..

Bomer's ass mighty fine thats for damn sure... and Parsons nips most suckable.

Glad to hear its good. The original was very good so I worried about the remake.

Wish the director had turned it down a bit, they talk fast and speedy, like they do on stage, this is a movie dammit.

NIce tight pants on my boy andrew Rannells...

'uh oh, Yvonne the terrible is back'......fun as the movie from the sixtys...tho that Harold was sooo good, Quinto is great but the one in the movie was fabulash.

For those of you that have seen it how does the screenplay differ from the original off-Broadway play or the original movie?

I have read on several different sites something along the lines of.....

“directed by Joe Mantello, based on the 1968 play of the same name by Mart Crowley, who also wrote the screenplay alongside Ned Martel.”

Was there additional dialogue added?

Something must be different in order for Ned Martel to get a screenplay credit.

I am concerned!

ZQ had the best reviews.

They were all damn good, Was ready for a queen fest, but it was terrific....congrats to the director and entire cast.

Yes i have a crush on Bomer , hey who dont?

This was such a piece of its time. I do wonder how it translates to the era of militant pride, unyielding "diversity", and Grindr.

I'm a bit afraid to watch it.

The play is timeless, hence its longevity. These men show how humanity goes through despair and pain and personal shit that we must alll try to overcome....with help of friends.

I'm in the middle of watching it. I love it. It is timeless.

All the shaming is a bit dated. I am shaming the shamers. It's shame-shame.

Matt so kool, wish his part was bigger. Great movie, highly recommend it....incredible cast. The original movie from the sixtys is a must see too.

Making the Boys: on you tube, bout the making of the movie back in 1970

It's "timeless" now. You bitches were calling it "horribly dated" the other day.

[quote]Matt so kool, wish his part was bigger.

You're telling me.

There's difference of opinion amongst the bitches. Quelle surprise!

Quinto is fab,,,,but honey if uve seen leonard frey play it in the 1970 movie....taint no comparison....frey was hideously delicious.

Indeed, go to youtube and watch mr Frey's entrance to the party as he describes himself....'what i am, michael, is a..' so brilliant.

Speaking of the 70's film, Cliff Gorman slayed ! as the nelly queen. amazing..

Maybe that film on netflix or You Tube, not sure. Raised a ruckus when it came out.

Let me guess: lots of production design.

r20

what I am Michael is a thirty-two year old pockmarked jew fairy . . . .

Tidbit: the patio scene in the 1970 movie was filmed at Tammy Grimes' nyc apt, a friend of the authors.

Who you think fucked who on the set? Matt and Rannells? Tug and Parsons? who had cowboy.....brian hutchinson? who i think is the hottest of the lot (he played the str8 friend..

Talk of doing the play again but theyr insisting it be done with ethnic females ...

... R26 or an all trans cast.

Former Boys in the Band

Nice one ^

trans brown cast....4 sho.

What I am Mich is a 32 year old pockmarked non-binary trans furry whose pronouns are zhe and zher...

Was casting Italians as Jews payback for Ann Romano?

[quote]Was casting Italians as Jews payback for Ann Romano?

No, for Dorothy, Sophia, and Uncle Angelo.

[quote]Tidbit: the patio scene in the 1970 movie was filmed at Tammy Grimes' nyc apt, a friend of the authors.

Who plays Tammy Grimes in this version?

[quote] Was casting Italians as Jews payback for Ann Romano?

[quote] No, for Dorothy, Sophia, and Uncle Angelo.

Hey, how could you forget me?

Did Quinto’s vanity keep him from being really made up to be hideous? In the opening shots he looked like he was going to be, but then it was barely noticeable during the time he was in the apartment. I’m still mulling over his very affected line reading, it’s like he’s in a different play than the rest, and yes I get that he stands apart from them, but his technique should not be that obvious and he’s still part of an ensemble.

Carver looked very appealing with the lightened hair, and I liked that he was much more puppy dogfish than whoreish.

The original intention was to shoot all the apartment scenes in Grimes apartment. But it was so small Friedkin could barely move the camera around. So they shot the terrace scenes there but then shot the interiors on a studio built reproduction of her apartment that had movable walls.

I really enjoyed it and think they all did a great job.

So did Tammy Grimes have the apartment of a gay man, or did the gay man have the apartment of Tammy Grimes?

Who knows, r40?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I wonder if Tammy Grimes will be nominated for an Emmy?

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

Someone in the previous thread said Murphy said he plans to submit this to the Oscars - if he does, would that make it ineligible for Emmys?

Turned it off after an hour. Completely uninteresting. No one stands around so much yakking about how gay they are in just about every word they speak. Hopelessly "of its time"

R45 Yes. It can't be eligible for both the Oscars or Emmys. If it was intended to have a cinema release its the Oscars. If not its the Emmys.

emmy for Bomer dammit !!!!

R48 In something like can he be listed in the guest star category? He’s not lead and there are others who fit more in supporting, but as guest star he might have a chance.

R49 You can't be a guest star in a one-off.

matt bomer is so fucking sexy. that bathhouse scene ...

He is an amazing person, as you can tell in interviews.....the hotness of his bod is the least of his assets....trust.

bomer should have got an emmy nom for doom patrol

robin de jesus will get a nom for sure.

Yea, pity matt not have one of the biggeer parts. be fun to see him as the nelly queen, .... or as harold. so unlike matt but wow fun

They shoulda shot several versions with all of them switching parts....yes matt as harold be wild

Netflix was going to the release they did for "Marriage Story" and "The Irishman" with a small theatrical for Oscar consideration and then stream. Covid killed it.

"Who you think fucked who on the set?"

Well, for sure, we know these two.

[quote] Who you think fucked who on the set?

Clearly, Rannells and Tuc Watkins, since they’re a couple now.

ide have liked quinto if i hadnt seen the orig movie, leonard frey WAS harold....so mean/fun

quinto paled, alas

Such a great movie, did not want it to end. Entire cast very impressive, Congrats to director, author and producer...

A slice of NYC in the old days, hope many of you got to experience it thru the 80's....after Guliani, well, twas diffrent....

God bless the BOYS IN THE BAND, all of us.

charlie carver i love you ( and ur nipples )))....

'Life is a goddam laugh riot.. you rememer life dont you?'

Cast members will be on Tamron Hall’s show today. I’m in NYC and the show started at 10am on ABC.

Hmm, the bitterness was apparent but I didn’t buy a single one of them as friends. Donald and Michael maybe but that felt pretty flat as well. Emory was the only one I believed.

[Quote] A slice of NYC in the old days, hope many of you got to experience it thru the 80's....after Guliani, well, twas diffrent....

Can't wait. Eye candy too.

OP doesn’t know what BLUE is, R1.

[quote]A slice of NYC in the old days, hope many of you got to experience it thru the 80's.

If those toxic cunts represented the old days, then I'm glad I wasn't around for it.

WE glad you were not there too, twerp.

I'm sure you are, r69. Now go put on your caftan and act like a cunt to everyone.

It's an outdated, embarrassing relic.

I still like the original version more.

I like them both, different, but both have their own slant, terrific actors.

It's great.

.........

You don't need to double-post, r75. We saw it in the other thread.

r76, triple, hon. Now go change your pus filled tampon, dear.

Does Emory make a lasagne in this version?

great clip thx

Thx r75. I loved the original William Friedkin film. Haven't seen this one yet. Nor the play on stage. A good play is entitled to reinterpretation. It must be wrenching on stage.

While not a shot-for-shot copy of Friedkin's film, the 2020 version seems very close to it. Granted, there's only so much you can do with a filmed one-set play, but even the attempts to open it up a bit mimicked the first film (yes, the flashbacks during the Telephone Game were new). The zingers still land, though.

I can't imagine only being "friends" with a group based on our common sexuality....nothing else bonds them ....

Rannells was too chubby for the role

R82 That's what Mart was writing about. Yes friendships can develop from shared sexual identity and experience. It's called the gay community.

But yes that may seem odd to viewers today. A Stonewall pre AIDS setting to a gay marriage generation living the life they fought for. A remake was a good idea. Bravo Ryan!

I wonder if the current pandemic is referenced by viewers of the new film though it was too late for the writing for this production.

They indicate that they've been friends for a long time, referring to Fire Island. You sometimes stay with such friends even if they become jaded and hard to get along with later.

That reminds me I have to call someone, yesterday was his 50th.

I might add especially if you made such friends when you were young. Perhaps especially then since it would have been a formative coming out, coming into 'the life" experience. I'm not quite that generation but close enough to recognize that phenomenon. So, their friendship was very believable to me.

I think it was miscast. Bomer should have played Larry and Rannells should have been Donald. That would have been a closer casting to the original.

So true r85 I recently reconnected with friends from my period of coming out. It was also after the setting of the play. I recognized these characters I went to parties such add this.

It's hard maintaining these connections after these intervening years. The ones we reconnected, we all mutually gave up and it was easy since it was all online.

Moral: let old friendships lie. Move on after a wave and an air kiss.

Rannells wasn't as butch as he should have been in that part.

There should have been more dongfulness this time around.

[quote]That reminds me I have to call someone, yesterday was his 50th.

One point.

R86 If you want to cast close to the original Parsons should have played Harold. The voices are almost identical.

So depressing and unnecessary. Had nightmares after seeing it. We’re all self-hating victims according to this so why remake it? Ick.

[quote]Rannells was too chubby for the role

He's really porked out.

R92 try Ryan's Hollywood. Sunny, gay, sly fantasy but feel good fantasy nonetheless. You'd like that.

Parsons will win an Oscar one day. Mark my words. He is VERY good in this.

I love this fuckiing movie, reminds me of my whore days in the big apple back n the day....hella good times. Anything was possible.

It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but much of the acting felt very "community theatre". If I'd paid Broadway prices for tickets, I would've been disappointed.

Not award worthy. Parsons couldn't properly escalate & sustain the levels of drunkenness & hostility. It was very touch and go. I thought de Jesus & Hutchinson were the best overall.

Quinto's face s harold shoulda been hella more pock marked, as in the original, makes him more macabre, yet hideously beauty

I thought Rannells was fab.....'why am i alwys the goddam villain in this piece'.....love his accent. and fine arse

Saw this production on Broadway, actually like the Netflix version more.

LOved the actor, brian Hutchinson, who played the str8 guy.....not only hot, but he moved me emotionally.....not sure why, but jus did.

He wasn't straight. He was at least bi.

Raise hands all who have replayed and replayed mattys shower scene....

[quote]Parsons couldn't properly escalate & sustain the levels of drunkenness & hostility.

Back in the day, it wasn't uncommon for actors to drink on set to make it easier to play a drunk scene. They wouldn't get drunk themselves, but just have a drink or two to get "in the zone" so to speak. That kind of thing is very frowned upon today.

r103 most people aren't as unhealthily obsessed with this man as you are.

Found a new thriller series on usa network with Bomer called The Sinner....he not nice guy in it... kool show

Holy crap, im on episode 3 and he is dark as fuk, nice to see him in heavy drama like that.

R106 It’s an interesting show in an anthology series where a large percentage of the cast changes each season with a few hold over characters. It very much like a Ryan Murphy Production where it starts out strong with a story idea and characters then in episode 4 or 5 it loses its way and goes off the rails. Don’t forget to mention that the amazing Chris Messina is in it as well, a man who can give him a run for his money in the looks department, though he’s very down played here. There is a thread here about it, IF you can find it.

nice ass shot of matt in episode six, 13 minutes in....he strips for a photographer....very mooody show, i like it. he should try his hand as a mean nasty killer more.....nice foil for his sweet looks.

congrats matt on boys in band. your career is in blooom !!!

bomer has 3 adopted sons? whts the story on that, bet theyr georgous , from whomever....imagine havin matt for daddi, he said one is a teen...

how he stay so young, pretty bein a parent to 3 boys, sooo much work omg.

Emory's outfit was purely 1977. I hope the people involved with costume design for this are totally ignored during award season. They did a terrible job.

Googled his kids, all so cute, what a lucky man he and his successful hubby are...the perfect life... happy for em. his hubby so handsome....can they adopt me ????

The lasagna scene alone Quinto deservers a nomination.

Something about Qunto makes me think he has bodies buried in his backyard.

if u see the orig movie, quinto is weak... parsons could played a mean bitch harold..

[Quote] if u see the orig movie, quinto is weak...

Can't compare him with the original but he's still very good in playing a nicer version if that's possible.

[quote]So depressing and unnecessary. Had nightmares after seeing it.

MARY!

'what ya gonna do ...blow me?'

'whats wrong? ur wife got lockjaw'.... cliff gorman dilivered dishy lines as emory the BEST in the orig film MUST SEE

Was lasagne seen as exotic back then? I assume Cowboy not knowing what it was was meant to be an illustration of his lack of worldliness - but really, was lasagne that uncommon?

R108, I know he is a midget, but Chris Messina is ultra-dreamy

Bomer is outstanding in the sinner, shoulda got that emmy nom

r103

me too ignore the sad troll

It was good, but everything seemed to be the same as the 1970 film, right down to literally every word. Name some things that were different - words, scenes, etc.

There's not really much they could change. I think I'd have preferred a pro-shoot of the theatrical production, but that might just be because I'm missing theatre. Watching it with an audience reaction would make it much different to the original film.

R123

flashbacks. emory apologizing to bernard

I’m realizing these characters would be my husband’s age.

No interested in slop.

[quote]No interested in slop.

Maybe you would have liked it if English were your first language.

Poo poo 💩

It was cute, I enjoyed watching it.

Quinto is getting a lot of raves in reviews and he was fine, but I think more than half the cast tops him (no pun intended).

[quote]Was lasagne seen as exotic back then? I assume Cowboy not knowing what it was was meant to be an illustration of his lack of worldliness - but really, was lasagne that uncommon?

Yes, r119. Today the play can only be truly read/understood as a period piece and there are many small details like this that will go over the heads of younger people.

And it's spelled lasagna.

[quote]Was lasagne seen as exotic back then?

Many people in the 1970s were racist against Italians, so they thought lasagna was exotic back then.

[Quote] Was lasagna seen as exotic back then?

In 1968 the year the film takes place not many white boys like Tex who arrive to the big city from small town nowhere knew about different types of food. I'm surprised he knew what spaghetti was.

[quote]Many people in the 1970s were racist against Italians

I think the 70s were a bit late for that.

[quote] Many people in the 1970s were racist against Italians

[quote] >> I think the 70s were a bit late for that.

That's true, r134, the actual racism was recently gone. But because of it, Italian cuisine beyond spaghetti and meatballs was a fairly exotic thing outside of big east coast cities like New York until the 70s. —

Watched it today and while I enjoyed it, the original 1970 version is superior. Probably not surprisingly, the original film feel more authentic but at the time it was a contemporary piece. The actors performances in that film were more anchored because it was a reflection of what was actually happening at that time. With the exception of Laurence Luckinbill (Hank) and Cliff Gorman (Emery) ... and possibly Reuben Greene who basically disappeared after the film came out ... the cast was made up of closeted gay actors (all of whom died during the AIDS crisis) and the anger they express in the film is far more "real."

I agree that 2020 seems miscast. Jim Parsons has some good moments, but I actually think he would have been better as Harold and Quinto would have been better as Michael. Also I found Andrew Rannells and Tuc Watkins to be underwhelming. The actors who played Bernard and Emory were actually the best in the film I think,

Did you get "left the cake out in the rain" wink in it?

This was 1968.

I also found quinto weak, yes he and parsons should switched roles. i still think bomer woould have been a big welcome surprise as harold or even michael.

[quote]And it's spelled lasagna.

In America, which I am not.

Then why are you commenting on a show about American gays 50 ago when you obviously don't know that culture?

R141 Really? That's your argument? So only gay men who were around in the late 60s are allowed to watch/talk about The Boys in the Band? What a stupid fucking comment.

Enh...not really my thing. I would leap out of the nearest window if I was stuck in a room with that group of...DLers.

Other than the flashbacks, which I thought were a nice addition, nothing in the remake was an improvement over the original film. Also disappointing was that Bomer didn’t show his cock during the shower scene. When I saw the play on Broadway I was sitting in the mezzanine on the right side, and I got a clear view of Bomer’s cock when he stepped into the shower.

Shakespeare has period elements but we don't call his works period pieces because they deal with timeless themes. Same here, bitches.

god dam ide have given my teeth to have seen it in person and breathed the same air as Bomer....

[quote][R141] Really? That's your argument? So only gay men who were around in the late 60s are allowed to watch/talk about The Boys in the Band? What a stupid fucking comment.

That's not what I said. Since you can't understand what I wrote or what's in the play I suggest you quit while you're behind.

R147 It's hard to believe that you're this pissy just because your attempt at correcting my spelling failed.

Grammarians can burn in piss hell.

ive watched it 3 times.....i love the whole aroma/energy of it.

Girls, Girls we're not writing dissertations here!

R150 Your Nextflix’s gives off the smell of lasagna? Smell you!

My keyboard smells like Bomer's anus.

I cant believe one man gets to sleep with matt ev nite and sniff that divine hole often as he wants.....DUCK SOUP

So many of the posts on this thread feel like they were written by the same person! The language, the grammar! How in the world could that be?

Shitty that coming out fuks up an actors career.....seems to be the same old story.

R132: that is a racist statement in and of itself.

Each time i view it, i find new things, marvelous movie.

It isn't as good as the original, IMO. But, I think you accept that fact going in. Overall, I thought it was good. Other worldly, no. But solid.

Cowboy cracked me up with his dead pan earnestness and dense stupidity. Yet he was sweet and maybe the one that accepted himself the most.

Did anyone watch the companion thing that Netflix offered - "Boys In the Band, It's Personal" or something?

Then why do it again if there’s nothing you can add to it?

I loved this, and I adored all the clothes. So fabulous

The sets amazed me, fun to scrutinize it all on subsequent viewings.

"Then why do it again if there’s nothing you can add to it? "

"Nothing you can add to it" is subjective. Why does it matter, you can always choose to not watch it if you think it's not worthwhile.

About the mini documentary: seeing Mart have a swan song and recognition at the end of his life, literally, makes me glad that the play and this movie were done. It’s as if this is what he was waiting for before moving on and it looks like he was in good health and obviously good spirits- especially putting the moves on that cute guy that was Andrews street pickup. “By the way it was just my birthday!” I also like that Charlie got a nice sequence of conversation with Mart and a chance to come off as a smart, sensitive young person.

Yea, the exchnge tween mart and charlie, the past and the present, was wonderful.....u could tell they liked each as friends, and respected the other. charlies is an amazing guy....

I thought this would be a musical about boys in a band.

bomer is 42?! he looks younger than cavill

I really wanted to like this film, but I couldn't get into it. I have seen the original a couple of times and always like it. I just felt like the 2020 version had all the joy ripped out of it.

R141 doesn't know how to debate. He goes from zero to hissy and nonsesical.

Why are you watching this if you are from a place that spells 'lasagna' differently?

That's what you've got?

I hated the original, but genuinely enjoyed this one. The cast is amazing. They bring a new energy to the writing.

I don’t understand the praise that Quinto received in a review I read. I thought Quinto was very one-note. I know the character is stoned but the performance shouldn’t be equal to that. I remember watching the original film version on TV and understand it’s thought that the playwright captured authentic gay lives. Seeing the movie as a young man fascinated and saddened me because I was sorry for the trouble gay men had in those days but intrigued. Even then those characters were on their way out.

Meh. Boys in the Bland. Should have been more cutting and vicious as the evening drew on...

The last vestiges of the Boys In the Band era can be found on DL.

R170 Quinto has received extreme reviews, as has Parsons, surprisingly/

Gotta say I've been going to Broadway for a loooong time and the "Heatwave" scene was pure joy on stage and the audience thought so too.

The Netflix version is light years better than the movie version.

That said, it’s not a good play. People don’t really talk like that and plots don’t twist like that—more melodrama than drama.

It’s trying to be the gay Virginia Woolf—people get drunk and all the ugliness comes out. But in this case you don’t believe a second of it.

As has been said, who would stay for the phone game? They all would've been out of there.

Completely agree that it is the all-gay version of Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe but not nearly as good/well written. That noted, Zachary Quinto is fantastic. The show just limps along until the minute he walks in the door. From that point forward, he and Jim Parsons are on fire.

I'm not seeing the Quinto fire. He's good, but nearly everyone else in the room is better.

R178

Agreed

the critics who said quinto was artificial were right

A sequel was mentiond soomewhere. is this true? any knowledge??? I also would have enjoyed Bomer as harold, so against type it would have delivered the goods i feel.

am i alone? im very drawn sexually to brian hutchinson the 'str8' guy...

R181 It would be interesting to wait like 20 years and then do a sequel based on who’s still alive and acting. Kind of like that long term Sondheim movie project. It could be set in 1988 and show the impact of liberation and AIDS.

Depressing to watch.

I never thought I would like this type of film as catty fem queens are a bunch of people I despise and steer clear in real life. However I like this movie and even watched the original. Both films are ok but I didn't see an ounce of nuance or humanity in anyone as people are saying, they were just rude and nasty, though I understand the context of their behavior.

I didn't think it was terrible, but it was certainly watered down. It was as if the read all of the online comments by Millennials complaining about the accurate portrayal of the two older Gay men in Vicious (Basically Donald and Michael in their old age) and decided to tone down the reality for Millennials.

One thing I miss from the original was the speaking patterns - Donald, Michael, Hank and Alan had that "What's My Line" very clipped mid-Atlantic way of speaking. It helped put across the brilliant but very stagy dialogue.

'what do u recommend for a catatonic fit in a parking garage?'......fave line, from m bomer in beginning.

The sequel was terrible. But I noticed the new film made some different choices. For instance they left out the part about Donald and Michael being "just friends, lovers no more", and they added scenes explicitly showing Michael lusting after donald. I think they were trying to set up that romance, or at least the promise of it. Parsons and Bomer have some genuine warm chemistry.

I found Tuc hot. Hotter than Larry.

oh, and they also cut out donald saying "as did I" after Larry said he enjoyed his tryst with Donald

I’m not sure what the point of Quinto’s character. He’s just so dismal—who would want to hang around with him?

Where are the twinks? Won't someone think of the twinks!

I wanna hang with Harold, i love witty sassy sarcastic bitches.

I know a Jewish queen just like Harold and its 2020!

[quote]I know a Jewish queen just like Harold and its 2020!

Yes, we all know YourMillennialFriend.

This NPR discussion on the play/movie between a bunch of gays is worth checking out.

i disagree with glenn's review

I find gay male critics who go one about how Bomer is too beautiful to be believable as a person extremely annoying.

They obviously havent seen him in the gut wrenching Normal Heart

I thought he was rather bland and one-dimensional in the The Normal Heart. Mark Ruffalo was the best thing in that. And, amazingly, Julia Roberts. I was never a huge fan of hers but she was wonderful.

I have a problem with Miss OP. There was nothing "so damn fun" about this at all. If I hadnt heard that this was a comedy, I would never have thought it was one. Turned it off at the begining of the lame phone game. Dreary, dull and dated.

R200 - it was never a comedy - who told you THAT?

Melt downs is funz

Leonard Frey was such a wonderful actor. If you have Hulu check I’m out in the Ted Baxter’s Famous Broadcasters School episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show. He’s hilarious.

Not having Harold’s face be pockmarked was as ludicrous as Sam Gold’s production of Glass Menagerie where he cast an actress who couldn’t walk as Laura. The scripts for both shows are very specific about the characters’ physical traits.

[quote]And it's spelled lasagna.

Not if it's any good.

[quote]The original intention was to shoot all the apartment scenes in Grimes apartment. But it was so small Friedkin could barely move the camera around. So they shot the terrace scenes there but then shot the interiors on a studio built reproduction of her apartment that had movable walls.

I believe the only scenes actually shot at Grimes' apartment are the one or two scenes between Michael and Donald on the terrace before anyone else arrives for the party, while it's still daylight outside. Larry Luckinbill has said he did all of his filming on a studio set, and he's in the scenes that take place on the terrace after nightfall.

[quote]Jim Parsons has some good moments, but I actually think he would have been better as Harold and Quinto would have been better as Michael. Also I found Andrew Rannells and Tuc Watkins to be underwhelming. The actors who played Bernard and Emory were actually the best in the film I think,

I really don't think Parsons would have been remotely believable as a New York Jew. I do agree that Rannells and Bohmer might have switched roles. That would have been more on-the-nose casting in that I think the Rannells character is supposed to be believable as a gay man who can pass for straight.

Rannells? Pass for straight? MY SIDES!!!!

[quote]I thought he was rather bland and one-dimensional in the The Normal Heart.

Not everyone agrees.

Rannells couldn't pass for straight for Helen Keller.

[quote]Rannells? Pass for straight? MY SIDES!!!!

Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I'm saying in, the role that Rannells wound up playing in THE BOYS IN THE BAND is supposed to be a "masculine" gay who is able to pass for straight, which is why it would have been more on-the-nose casting if he had switched roles with Bohmer -- because I think it's fine for Bohmer's character, Donald, to be more obviously gay. I hope that clarifies what I meant.

I don’t get the gays that say: Everyone of this characters are just like my friends!

Seriously??

I've never had friends like these. The thought makes me shudder.

R212 you are the friend

Nope, r213. I'm a pretty happy and jovial person. I would kill myself if I were a catty queen stereotype like those bitches.

It really is a generational thing. Modern gays just shudder at Boys In the Band.

R214

what's wrong with donald? in fact who is mean and catty outside of michael and harold?

There are more than a few modern gays like BITB gays. Of course, there are many who aren't like that either. Fun fact: even gays back then weren't all like that.

Did anyone get the cake out in the rain reference?

[quote]A sequel was mentiond soomewhere. is this true? any knowledge???

The sequel is called The Men from the Boys. As mentioned above, it's not very good. It had a handful of school/local productions after it was written but they were all so badly received it never moved on to a professional production.

There was an online reading earlier this year. I don't have time to look for a link but it's probably not hard to find as it was posted in either the current or last Theater Gossip thread.

No one wants to see a sequel

The big dramatic moment when he collapses on the floor and cries: Why are gays so mean to ourselves!! (or something like that) was pathetic. He’s the only one so mean to himself.

Is it like when Daisy collapses and cries on Gatsby's bedroom floor because she has never seen such beautiful shirts before? I have certainly collapsed and cried over beautiful shirts.

"the one on the floor is vicuna"

i do love donald

[quote]in fact who is mean and catty outside of michael and harold?

They all join in the mocking of Cowboy

bomer's sincere and awesome acceptance speech brought a tear to my eye. imagine losing 40 lbs for a role....damn.

Great

Love to have seen Bomer smoking and dissin away in Rannell's part....sexy butt!

I like all the actors and they did great but I couldn’t get into the original and this seems like a verbatim remake.

It was like Parsons was channeling Cesar Romero's Joker in that telephone scene.

"OH! A HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Fran! I knew it wath you, you thilly gooth! HAHAHAHAHA"

[quote] They all join in the mocking of Cowboy

Bernard and Hank don’t

HOPE bomer has big part in the sequel.....

he doesn't. that sequel is trash.

but Bomer will be totally nude for the play's entirety.

he and Rannells get it on all nite loong

parsons blows the str8 guy

tuc takes emorys cock anally....

rannells is dead in the sequel

[quote]The big dramatic moment when he collapses on the floor and cries: Why are gays so mean to ourselves!! (or something like that) was pathetic. He’s the only one so mean to himself.

The line is more like, "If only we could learn to not hate ourselves so much." Several of the characters in the play, Michael included, do exhibit self-loathing -- but, as has been pointed out, it's with good reason, considering the time period/society they're living in and its attitude toward homosexuality.

And several of the characters are mean/bitchy to each other, as when Emory calls Bernard "the African Queen" and a "pickaniny."

[quote] It really is a generational thing. Modern gays just shudder at Boys In the Band.

Cheers to that. It really is.

yeah modern gays are so nice that's why DL is the kindest place on the internet

I'm sure an even bigger number of closet cases back in the 60s had self loathing but didn't resort to be mean and catty to others. This type of mentality is just an excuse for horrible people to justify horrible behavior.

So you think DL is filled with "modern gays", R236?

R238 you seem lovely

I've been thinking about this film since I watched it a couple of days ago, it's clear to me now how the masculine gays aren't catty or mean to each other. It seems to be a trade of the effeminates who most likely couldn't hide their condition and were treated like shit. To this day, more often than not, fems turn into catty mean girls growing up, the main reason I steer clear from them.

Who else would love to pass r240 through the fagometer just to see how "masculine" a gay he actually is? I'm guessing not very.

Bitchy muscle queens have always been around and in fact I think they are at an all time high, just look at the isnathoes.

Bomer married Alan and they adopted 3 kids......live in the Hamptons and have marvy cocktail partys with the housewifes that live there.

Why are you so mad masculine gays exists? Is that because you were teased in middle school? You could've grown up and turned your trauma into something cool, but I bet you act just like the people in this film, being a bully to the ones already as weak as you are, because anyone else with any strength would just punch you in the face like the closet case did in this film to the annoying queen.

[quote]yeah modern gays are so nice that's why DL is the kindest place on the internet

Do you know how fucking old a lot of DL posters are? They can actually remember the time period this play took place in.

I think irony is lost on many here.

Yeah, r244. I'm the bully.

He does seem oddly endorsing of face punching, for someone claiming the victim

"To this day, more often than not, fems turn into catty mean girls growing up, the main reason I steer clear from them."

No, the real reason catty mean girls (and everybody else) steers clear of you is your advanced degree in assholery.

Catty femme queens are exhausting. Many of them also resent masculine gays with a passion. I don't have much to do with them.

Emory marrys Alan and they ride off into the sunset to reside in vintage splendor in palm springs with alan's aunt....

R250 deserves such a big fucking "Mary!!!" I find it really difficult to believe she's as "masculine" as she pretends to be.

The biggest flamers are always the ones in deepest denial.

[quote]I'm sure an even bigger number of closet cases back in the 60s had self loathing but didn't resort to be mean and catty to others.

You're aware, are you not, that these are characters in a play? And that plays require conflict? And that it's a work of fiction?

[quote]It really is a generational thing. Modern gays just shudder at Boys In the Band.

If that's true, it's because they have no knowledge of gay history or historical context.

Awww, c'mon, r254. Everyone knows life on earth began in 1982.

[quote]If that's true, it's because they have no knowledge of gay history or historical context.

It's because the promotion of the project centered around the idea that it's still "relevant" to modern gays with the twist that, "if you disagree then YOU ARE THE PROBLEM."

Hell, you even see that here no matter how many times younger gays keep saying, "I would never hang out with these people" there's also a person countering with, "You are those people!"

If they had of presented it as a historical piece while promoting it then that would be different.

r252 I guess I hit a little too close to home with you.

[quote]If that's true, it's because they have no knowledge of gay history or historical context.

Oh, we certainly do. We just find this piece dated and the characters hideous. I know eldergays are enthralled with all things 1970s, but those of us who are younger don't hold that time period in very high esteem and prefer the modern era.

One question that many of us had - "why the hell would anyone hang out with these miserable assholes?" - has actually been answered here. Back then things were so closeted and of course there was no internet so if you were a gay man you really had to put up with the other gay men who happened to be in your orbit because your options were so limited. And of course, gay men back then couldn't really have a big circle of straight friends like we do now. That makes a lot of sense.

I'm in my forties and slogged through it, as did my friends who are my age. We were all kind of repulsed by it, but we watched it.

Interestingly, my twenties/early thirties gay friends and acquaintances told me they turned it off, they were totally horrified by it.

Gen Xers think BOYTB is a relic and it makes us uncomfortable to see such stereotypes, but Millennials can't even stomach it at all.

R259

I am a millennial and I got through it ok

[quote]If they had of presented it as a historical piece while promoting it then that would be different.

Oh, dear....

And as for you, R258: Excuse me, but when you write, "I know eldergays are enthralled with all things 1970s, but those of us who are younger don't hold that time period in very high esteem and prefer the modern era" -- what the hell are you talking about? First of all, sweetheart, the time period of THE BOYS IN THE BAND is supposed to be the late '60s, JUST BEFORE STONEWALL, an event that made a huge difference in gay people's lives. Your comment that "those of us who are younger don't hold that time period in very high esteem" indicates you've somehow got it in your tiny brain that TBITB is saying it was a just great to be a gay man back then, when everyone had to be closeted, there were still lots of laws against homosexuality, gay marriage was barely thought of as a realistic concept let alone permitted, etc. Sorry, but I fear you are an idiot.

As I said, you and your ilk have NO knowledge of history or historical context.

r261 is why none of us have much to do with our elders. JFC.

And yes, we're all aware of what happened and what gays back then went through. But so many of you from back then are so nasty and bitter and so sad and out of touch with modern times that we avoid you like the plague.

Crazy how middle-class people could afford to live in Manhattan with no roommates back then. Today, these characters would all be living in Queens with two roommates.

Hell, even RENT is dated in that respect now.

The tagline of the original...The Boys In The Band... is not a musical. Well why not? C'mon Harvey and Marc Shaiman get to it!

[quote] I know eldergays are enthralled with all things 1970s, but those of us who are younger don't hold that time period in very high esteem and prefer the modern era.

Really? REALLY?!!! Then please explain why every young person that I know is enthralled with that period. Well, actually the real period of BITB late 1960s-1970s, not the brown, burnt orange, avocado green, gold late 1970s. Fashions (Biba,etc.), dolls (Blythe, Little Kiddles, etc.), interior design (OP Art wallpaper, bright colors, bean bag chairs, Gemma Taccogna Mexican papier mache etc.)

R 265 it’s Harvest Gold bitch, get it right!

i pity the fools that did not experience the sixtys and seventys.....hella fun if u were swingin on the right balls......nyc was a gas .

[quote]As I said, you and your ilk have NO knowledge of history or historical context.

"You and your ilk?" What the fuck year do you think this is? You are the audience for this movie which is exactly why it's not doing well at all. Not even your generation wants to revisit this.

If they wanted this movie to do better on that platform they should have promoted it differently. Presenting it in a historical context, in this case, means admitting that it's not relevant but people should still take a look at it.

Of course, they could have also not cast a bunch of 40 year old gay men when not even the people here are fixated on anyone over the age of 30.

I demand a Netflix Ryan Murphy instahoe version of Boys in the Band now! And with more tasteful nudity!

emily in paris and the outpost in top ten???? bullshit.....its fake

No shit, Yogi Bear is # ten???

Why is everyone discussing BITB as if it is the latest Melissa McCarthy film? It has always been am "art film", not a popular film. It isn't Ivo Van Hove, but it will never be in the top ten of popular films.

yea, its a niche film, and an awesome one at that.....kudos to the entire cast and crew...

Its not gonna have the audience of a usual broad based netflix bullshit movie for the masses, its for the VIPs....

"The VIPs" LOL!

R262, you who live such a nasty, bitter life in your glass house should be the last one to throw stones at the nastiness of "eldergays." I'm not surprised you reacted with such anger to my calling you out for your ridiculous, ignorant statement: "I know eldergays are enthralled with all things 1970s, but those of us who are younger don't hold that time period in very high esteem and prefer the modern era." As if THE BOYS IN THE BAND is about "preferring" the pre-Stonewall era and holding it in "high esteem." Sheer insanity.

[quote]"You and your ilk?" What the fuck year do you think this is? You are the audience for this movie which is exactly why it's not doing well at all. Not even your generation wants to revisit this.

Sorry if my use of "ilk" upset you because it's too big a word for you to understand.

Get back to us when u turn 70 and have some sense.

r275 is why we hate his generation. A bunch of bitter, nasty pills.

I would say "right back at you," R277, except I have the intelligence and maturity not to condemn an entire generation based on the stupidity and nastiness of a few like yourself. I'm sure that, unlike yourself, there are many young people who can understand and appreciate THE BOYS IN THE BAND for what it is. And you DON'T speak for them, sweetheart.

Again, r278 is a bitter nasty pill who fucking knows everything. God, it's just a shitty play about shitty people.

I think the elders getting in a tizzy about younger people not liking the Boys In the Band is because it reminds them of how old they are and how distant that era is now. And nobody who wasn't alive at the time really thinks it's all that.

[quote] I'm sure that, unlike yourself, there are many young people who can understand and appreciate THE BOYS IN THE BAND for what it is.

An ancient, embarrassing time capsule that should've been left buried.

Thought it was overly long and I hated Jim Parsons, he was the same character in Hollywood.

I find the generational comments interesting. As I posted either here or on the other thread, I saw a production that was set in the present. The apartment appeared period, but was actually mid-century modern contemporary. The telephone game was done on cell phones. The production was developed by young people (all in their 20s and 30s) because they felt the play was still relevant. It spoke to them. If the play does not speak to you, just remember that you cannot assume that you speak for an entire generation.

[quote]I hated Jim Parsons, he was the same character in Hollywood.

Jim Parsons may always seem like he's playing the same character to the extent that his vocal inflections and his accent are always the same, but really, his character in HOLLYWOOD was VERY different from his character in THE BOYS IN THE BAND in many ways.

R283, I can't see how the updating would work without MAJOR rewriting, but whatever. Thanks for slapping down some of these nasty young things in this thread with your comment that "if the play does not speak to you, just remember that you cannot assume that you speak for an entire generation." They probably don't even realize what colossal nerve it takes to make pronouncements for an entire generation.

[quote] Then why do it again if there’s nothing you can add to it?

Because everybody else is.

R284, there were no major rewrites. I honestly do not remember any glaring anachronisms, but I do remember it being addressed during a talk-back. The company's approach was to respect the script. Hank still called an answering service, he just did it on a cell phone.

It doesn't work as a modern play. The damn thing was nearly dated when it came out 50 years ago.

I realize many of you don't know any gay men under fiftysomething, but bitchy queens like this aren't tolerated anymore.

[quote]I realize many of you don't know any gay men under fiftysomething, but bitchy queens like this aren't tolerated anymore.

Sweeping generalizations are so insightful.

r288 on DL that's not a sweeping generalization.

Tizzy!

[quote]Hank still called an answering service, he just did it on a cell phone.

Thanks, but that makes less than zero sense.

[quote]I realize many of you don't know any gay men under fiftysomething, but bitchy queens like this aren't tolerated anymore.

Then please explain the popularity of Roy Haylock aka Bianca Del Rio.

[quote]I realize many of you don't know any gay men under fiftysomething, but bitchy queens like this aren't tolerated anymore.

So...you have special reeducation centers to which you send them? In Poland, maybe?

Is Rannells part Asian?

If it wasn’t for those “bitchy queens,“ there would still be sodomy laws in all 50 states.

Heterosexuals are the ones who actually deserve that kind of abuse because they’re the ones who did it to us. I would love to see a play where heterosexuals are on the receiving end of that kind of vitriol from a gay man and what they did to deserve it.

[quote]If it wasn’t for those “bitchy queens,“ there would still be sodomy laws in all 50 states.

Yes and no. It's not that simple.

Bitchy, nasty queens are exhausting to be around. Most people don't want drama.

Heterosexuals start war after war after war, but it’s gay men who are the problem somehow?

The making-of doc is good and worth watching. The actors are bright and articulate. Mart is wonderful. RIP.

What did gay men do to deserve this kind of abuse? Nothing. What have heterosexuals done to deserve it? Plenty.

R283, was that production the one done in a Chelsea penthouse about 12 to 15 years ago?

R301, no. It was not done in NYC.

Was that David Drake/David Greenspan version?

No, the David Drake production was the 25th anniversary production at the Theatre de Lys on Christopher street in the early 1990s. I saw that and it was such slog to sit through. The big cuts made for the Friedkin film version were actually an improvement.

I know the theater is now called the Lucille Lortel but I met her several times and she was a bitch and a big cunt to my partner who designed several off broadway productions she ended up having an interest in and she treated him dreadfully.

Cunt, cunt, cunt. Hated her.

I saw that immersive production in a luxury apartment in 2010, and it didn’t really work for me. The audience members were huddled in groups around the actors who were going through their scripted histrionics. And it felt very odd to watch them over-emote while the rest of us just sat there. It works in the theater but not in a real setting.

Just to clarify, the 1996 production of THE BOYS IN THE BAND with David Drake, David Greenspan, et al. first opened at the WPA Theater and then transferred to the Lucille Lortel. At some point, at least some of the cast members from that production, plus I think some new people, did a reading of the sequel, THE MEN FROM THE BOYS. (Of course, not all of the characters in both plays are the same, aside from the fact that the ones that carry over are 20 years older.) For some reason, it's very difficult to find any information on that reading through Google, but I KNOW it happened, because I saw it.

i saw many fine plays at the L Lortell....leslie gore sat behind me once with her lez friend.....cute lil theatre, near where fine hores hung out....convenient.

Love theatres that size, ur so close to the actors and in a drama , u feel so close to the emotion.

just watched it last night. All the performances were great, but Tuc Watkins really stood out for me.

Matt Bomer was excellent, and it really made me wonder if being gay has hurt his career.

R308 it most certainly has. Look at Henry Cavill.

He wasn't a huge deal before he came out.

R310 if he had played superman he could have been. he had the looks and the talent and the popularity. more than cavill at that point.

FFS Bomer auditioned for a Superman movie in the early 2000s and he wasn't cast. He was still closeted at the time. His career was not going to get any bigger if he'd stayed in the closet. He's pretty, but he has NO sexual heat. And that's what makes a person a star.

R312 He was Rattner's choice. Shut up.

R312

Disagree. He carried White Collar on charisma alone.

White Collar was a basic cable show that only you and five other people watched. Jesus Christ you act like it was a huge hit like Walking Dead or Mad Men.

white collar was biggest hit on tht channel for 3 yrs...

And it never got any press and hardly anyone watched it. A big hit on the USA network isn't much.

I know you're obsessed with Bomer (who you will never know, let alone fuck) but he's only a major talent and a big star in your mind. He's C-List everywhere else.

I will never understand why people get so obsessed with certain celebrities they will never have anything to do with IRL, instead of living their own lives.

[quote]I will never understand why people get so obsessed with certain celebrities they will never have anything to do with IRL, instead of living their own lives.

MARY!

I thought it was so boring and i sincerely wanted to like it. Maybe I was just tired when I was watching it. I love the cast and concept.

sOME ARE HIP AND ARE BOMER FANS

SOME AINT.

[quote]I will never understand why people get so obsessed with certain celebrities they will never have anything to do with IRL, instead of living their own liveSeriously,

I think you're psychotic in your idea that if someone is drawn to a certain celebrity, that means that person thinks they will someday have a personal relationship with said celebrity. You should seek help for this psychosis. Really.

Matt Bomer did not have much of a part. For a central character he seemed to be always skulking about in the corner.

r321 you're clearly obsessed. It's not healthy.

R315 umm, I never said it was a big hit, just that his character coasted on charisma and he played him well. And at least it had a lot of buzz around Bomer's performance in season 1, I remember, with Gold Derby talking about Emmy chances for him (not me, so you can sit down). And I am not the person you have been talking to. Clearly, more than one person disagrees with you?

And I looked it up and the pilot got over 5 million live viewers which is crazy high for a cable show. And wasn't Bomer People mag's "sexiest rising star" in that year? I remember twitter and ontd were crazy about him. There was that petition to have him play Christian Grey that got like 90,000 signatures (acc to google). So he def made an impression on people that watched him.

Some people might be too crazy about Bomer but you are equally obsessed with putting him down to the point that it's ridic. You would have more credibility if you didn't try so hard.

Love Jim Parsons throughout the movie slowly transform from a wonderful host and thoughtful friend to "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" batshit crazy level drunk.

There's such a thing as understatement. I think Bomer played the part well. It calls for understatement, the character is a wallflower and slightly depressed.

r324 you're obsessed.

Girls, girls! You're both obsessed!

the obsessed matt troll is annoying

bomer was very charismatic on white collar. he seemed to be all over ontd then. the buzz seemed to die out after he came out.

[quote]Some people might be too crazy about Bomer but you are equally obsessed with putting him down to the point that it's ridic. You would have more credibility if you didn't try so hard.

Jesus Christ he's not your close personal friend. You sound like you should be on an FBI watch list.

R331 projection projection projection

give it a rest.

r332 you give Matt Bomer more attention than Hollywood does.

R333, you are ruining this thread. PLEASE stop with your goddamned childish bullshit.

r334 stop with your endless stanning.

R335, that was only my second response to your idiocy. There are more people who (deservedly) hate you in this thread than you realize. Please GO AWAY.

I think conversation about Boys In the Band is done. Now it's just stanning for the bland Bomer.

R337 dude you have a fucking meltdown every time anyone says anything remotely positive about Bomer. You are giving him more attention than any of his fans. Stop. It's embarrassing.

and I am not R336 etc.

It's the stans who are out of control.