Red, White & Royal Blue: A President's son and British Prince's secret affair

Galitzine relished the challenge of portraying Henry's vulnerabilities and his own struggles in sharing them with Alex. "As men, we find it hard to express ourselves and express our feelings," he says. "But that was a fun thing to explore from an acting perspective. [I was] trying to understand that this person is entirely trapped by his upbringing and his family. And the wedge being placed between his family and the person he loves is a very difficult thing to contend with. That was probably the most challenging, trying to make that authentic and real."

What wasn't hard? Finding chemistry with Perez. "We have the same sense of humor," says Galitzine. "We're both idiots in some way. We speak the same language as people. It was a different chemistry. Finding the levity and the light in each other, finding a sense of play in the scenes. Because you want them to have that banter that back and forth, that zippy dialogue."

Lopez says the actors' easy chemistry and charm are part of why he chose them for the roles. "Nick brings a tremendous amount of vulnerability and dignity to Henry," he says. "Taylor turned himself into a human cannonball in order to bring Alex to life."

But the thing that weighed most on all of them was not royal protocol, chemistry, or even comedic timing. It was honoring McQuiston's novel, which hit the New York Times bestseller list and even earned a release in a special collector's edition last year.

"[The biggest challenge was] quite simply how to delivery Casey's story in a way that honored the novel but that didn't result in a three-hour film," says Lopez. "There are a lot of wonderful scenes and characters in the book that didn't make it into the film because they didn't fit. I don't regret any of those decisions but, as a fan of the book, they weren't easy to make."

The film hits theaters on August 11.

It looks terrible. A gay male romantic comedy made for women.

Fags

MEIN FÜHRER

Which one's the top?

Interview with stars.

Oh Dear!

[quote] Which one's the top?

I’m guessing the President’s son raises his legs and thinks of England.

Looks dumb.

This is a theatrical release? No way. I might watch it if it were free on cable or streaming , but I wouldn't go to a cinema for this.

Yeah....you couldn't PAY me to watch this corn ball Hallmark movie thing...this is imitation of the worst aspect of straight entertainment, and any gay man who watches this loses any right to disdainfully refer to women as "fraus".

I read the book just to see what the fuss was about - thank god for ebook library checkouts.

It's not particularly well-written, but the story is cute enough. Nothing surprising, new, or innovative to the story.

Just a pleasant teen rom-com. The movie looks the same, except for the gay angle.

Cute, but the prince is woefully miscast.

Too twinkish.

Another teaser for the movie.

The two male leads are very handsome.

I'm quite titillated.

The male bodies are very fine, but the acting is horrendous.

Looks dreadfully coy. Rex Reed rated it ⭐⭐/⭐⭐⭐⭐

Terrific movie. Brilliantly done.

British will hate it of course, particularly Stephen Fry's portrayal of the king, which is what makes it so hilarious.

[Quote] Terrific movie. Brilliantly done.

(^.^) Publicist

Not at all.

I thought based on the "cake scene" that it was going to be insipid. It is not insipid. It has a lot to say about democracy and caste. It is not correct I think in its insane objection to outing, which is only a relic of a kind of hysteria which some people find it convenient to stoke. But you will not see a clearer exposition of how ridiculous homophobia is in any context.

aka the usual tropes in tripe R20

It was a smart decision to not release this in theaters

[Quote] Yeah....you couldn't PAY me to watch this corn ball Hallmark movie thing...this is imitation of the worst aspect of straight entertainment, and any gay man who watches this loses any right to disdainfully refer to women as "fraus".

It looks like something that would have starred Hilary Duff and Zac Efron 20 years ago.

R23, I assume Hilary would have played the top?

I'm watching it now; it's getting all serious.

The guys are certainly attractive and hot and it's nice to see guys who look like this act romantic.

All the banter in the beginning tho-- I bantered with a guy like that ALL the time.

Then, one day, it became apparent it wasn't really playful banter. It was abusive. I was yakkin' back with a narcissist. The look on his face when I'd one up him...evil.

So it's hard to watch playful banter. I can't trust it's real.

Also a lot more discussion here.

I enjoyed it more than I expected

The very white Uma Thurman as the mother of this swarthy guy? Not a great casting choice.

I find it odd that this is rated R in the USA but only a 12 in the UK. Does the US version have things we're not seeing or are your ratings guys just prudes?

[quote]The very white Uma Thurman as the mother of this swarthy guy? Not a great casting choice.

Uma is the "Claremont" portion of his last name. His father contributed the "Diaz" portion, hence he came out swarthy.

R29 you are not missing anything. The R rating is unwarranted.

[quote][R29] you are not missing anything. The R rating is unwarranted.

Apparently, once they realized they were getting the R rating, the director went back and added some of the more salty language.

So we cannot have a female POTUS unless she’s a southern hick?

[quote]So we cannot have a female POTUS unless she’s a southern hick?

Given the past few years and the non-stop hammering on "northeast elites" and things like the "liberal elite universities," I'd argue that it's very plausible that it would take a white southern woman to appeal to certain demographics, but also being married to a Mexican immigrant and having a hot swarthy son pulls the liberal votes.

A woman like HRC makes men feel "emasculated" and intimidated. Whereas a smart southern woman stands a better chance of not making their dicks seem small.

‘Red, White & Royal Blue’ Director Matthew López on the Complexities of Helming an Interracial, “Queer Ass” Love Story:

An inane comedy for the crowd that loved Barbie.

[quote] Uma is the "Claremont" portion of his last name. His father contributed the "Diaz" portion, hence he came out swarthy.

You old school marms crack me up, calling him "swarthy."

Rofl.

Why is this fucking country so obsessed with race....there's a blonde and a brunette with some "latino" ancestry mixed in, so it's "INTERRACIAL".....BIG fucking deal....as if in the real world slightly different ethnic origins matter all that much, especially in high classes, but yes lets give it relevancy that it doesn't deserve. How many times are thry going to beat that horse to death? If this was a european film, they sure AF wouldnt be calling it interracial (except for the UK which seems to have stupidly adopted it's race obsession from it's stupid hick cousins)

[quote]Why is this fucking country so obsessed with race....there's a blonde and a brunette with some "latino" ancestry mixed in, so it's "INTERRACIAL".....BIG fucking deal....as if in the real world slightly different ethnic origins matter all that much,

Two points:

First, you are conflating two separate issues. The "swarthy" comment was apropos of how very white and blonde Uma Thurman could be his mother.

As for interracial coupling - I don't know what world you live in, but it's in the higher social classes that it matters the most.

However, NO ONE in this thread is getting bent out of shape over it. It might be easier to read if you remove that chip from your shoulder.

I was actually referring to the headline of Mathew Lopez's interview posted above me, and not to any other post on this thread...and no, the whole BIG RACE issue matters LESS in high society unless one or either family is outwardly racist or conservative, but since I havent watched the film, I will ask those who have watched it, is race an actual factor in their love story?

[quote]is race an actual factor in their love story

No.

It goes nominally to character motivation for Alex to explain why he wants to be in politics, but has nothing to do with their relationship. The Royals don't object because he's part Latino, the object because he's American, and it's a homosexual relationship.

TY R41, I figured as much.

There's a President Lopez in this movie?

I actually enjoyed the movie, as inconsequential as it was, but what I really want to know is what kind of blackmail material Greg Berlanti has on Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid.

Was there full on anal penetrative sex in this movie?

If not, I'm not gonna see it.

R45: Yes, absolutely, there is. It’s explicit in the dialogue when Prince Henry decides it’s time they “make love” by kicking the intimacy level up a notch — i.e. anal. Alex, the U.S. President’s son gets nervous but the Prince tells him he’ll guide them, after all he has attended Brit boy’s schools all his life!

And we soon discover the Prince is the bottom boy — closeup on Alex’s back as Prince Henry’s hand comes into the frame, pulling Alex’s body into him. Closeup on the Prince, who is on his back with his leg up. Though there is no nudity, it’s very clear what’s going on as we watch Henry’s face, the emphasis on their intimacy and wordless communication. The scene is actually hot.

I'm going to watch this tonight. I watched the trailer yesterday and it looks like silly fun and the two leads are very handsome.

[quote] Terrific movie. Brilliantly done.

I'll bet. It sounds like it's at the level of [italic]Citizen Kane.[/italic] or [italic]Grand Illusion.[/italic]

Ellie Bamber plays the Prince's sister......Dick Madden must be proud of his ex girlfriend.

Just watched it. Straight rom coms like Notting Hill & There’s Something About Mary are more inventive and fun. This was bland.

The leads are very appealing. They both can sit in my face. The prince is going to be in a new miniseries with Julianne Moore that looks very promising. Two thumbs up.👍

[quote]The leads are very appealing. They both can sit on my face.

LOVE this comment R51. I changed it to on.

[quote] Was there full on anal penetrative sex in this movie?

Yes, lots.

This is the scene where they spend their first romantic night together in Buckingham Palace.

And this is from their brief tryst in the White House restroom, after a State Dinner.

[quote]Two thumbs up.👍

Pics please.

The whining Notting Hill was neither inventive nor interesting. Hugh Grant was so annoying he never could have managed a store. Something About Mary was interesting, because Matt Dillon is so good as a bitchy queen pretending to be straight. In this movie, Alex's drunk was a little overplayed as you can tell he's never actually been that drunk before (too much midwestern hustle bustle type). But his "I love you" eyes were fantastic and greatly outshone Galitzine. Galitzine looks like he had surgery to plump those lips. Gross.

Is there a butt shaving scene?

I kind of enjoyed The Inheritance, but boy, the writing on this was awful. Cringworthy at times.

I just finished watching this and it was fun! The two leads are very nice to look at, the cast is good and it's quite well made with a great soundtrack. They have obviously spent a bit of cash on it. I really enjoyed it. There's plenty of affection, kissing and sex. It's a little bit like the gay Princess Diaries. It wasn't Citizen Kane R48 but it was pretty good and very watchable. They have left it open for a sequel. I'm fully supportive of any gay films being made. The more the merrier.

Never gonna happen in the real world.

The rom com genre has always been prone to cringe. Many cringey, hetero rom coms are considered classics. Some are downright awful but they get viewership, financial success and have created massive careers. It’s interesting that the first or one of the first mainstream, formulaic, gay, American rom com is being held to such a high standard and people wanting things like depth and grit. I wonder if this is why we don’t see these types of movies being made.

Taylor Zakhar Perez has a REALLY nice butt.

Check it out. (Brooklyn hotel room scene)

Wait, are you saying Hunter Biden & Prince Edward are lovers?!?

Barron Trump & Prince Andrew

He does R62. The pants he put on after the naked ass part fit him like a glove too.

I like Perez. He seems like a pleasant guy from the promo stuff he did, as well as the promo stuff he did for The Kissing Booth II, unlike DL Fav Jacob Elordi who comes across as a complete douchenozzle.

The camera loves Taylor Zakhar Perez, but Nick Galitzine has a limp presence that brings to mind Chord Overstreet with a case of consumption.

Prince Philip has a remarkable punchable face. Do people come by that naturally or is it all in the makeup, styling, and acting?

R4 you'll be missed like hemorrhoids

Nice to see Rachel Hilson, after being wasted in a put-upon, pouty role in the TV version of “Love, Victor,” get to show her engaging comic chops.

Also, props to the writers for sneaking in the “I once had to watch Mitch McConnell eat a banana” line.

[quote] Prince Philip has a remarkable punchable face.

That severely receded hairline is awful.

^^^More than Prince Philip's hairline has receded. He's been in the ground for what, two years now?

I believe you're referencing Prince Harry with Nacho as above, no?

Two stars for the film, btw.

R6 they both need a stylist those owfits!

"Queer?" No, thanks.

Just for the record I thought Galitzine was crazy attractive and a better actor than Perez, who kind of hoked it up sometimes. But they are both easy on the eyes, and they made this gay rom-com genuinely romantic.

I enjoyed it. I had read the book a couple of years ago, so knew what to expect. It's a silly, romantic story with hot male leads, and if you don't try to read too much into it, then it's a mindless, fun way to spend a couple of hours.

I could barely get through the trailer.

[Quote] It's a little bit like the gay Princess Diaries.

that's what I feared

Enjoyed it very much.

Mark my words, Nicholas is on his way to becoming a BIG star.

Sone of you are never satisfied - how tiresome and predictable

You sound "queer," r81.

I just finished watching it and thoroughly enjoyed it.

That was fucking awful, the guy playing Alex cannot act at all lol. Zarah was the only good part of the movie. but hey ill always take more gay content.

We will fight for this movie to be removed from Amazon. It's ungodly and in real life we all know God-fearing American Christians would never elect a woman with a homosexual child as a president.

The Mitch McConnell line was fierce!

Stephen Fry should have played The Queen!

For this genre, it was entertaining throughout. We finally get a good gay rom-com and people bitch about it.

Prince Philip is the heir to the throne in the movie, R72. We're not referring to the late Duke of Edinburgh.

[quote]We finally get a good gay rom-com and people bitch about it.

This is Datalounge. There is no higher form of entertainment than bitching.

[quote]We finally get a good gay rom-com and people bitch about it.

Well, to be fair, the competition is Bros and Fire Island, so it's not like the bar is that high.

But, it is a cute movie, and I did enjoy it, much more than either Bros or Fire Island.

The book was ok. The movie is fine, not great unfortunately.

Taylor Zakhar Perez Is so beautiful that it’s almost distracting. It looks like he used mascara. Sadly he’s not a good actor.

Why was Uma in this? She was terrible.

[quote] Sone of you are never satisfied - how tiresome and predictable

Some of you never proofread before you hit "Post" - how tiresome and predictable.

[quote] Prince Philip is the heir to the throne in the movie

CORRECTION/EDIT: Prince Philip is an heir to the throne in the movie (second in line, after his mother, who, in the film, was off in Botswana, saving elephants)

I admit I kind of enjoyed it. It was fun pointing out all the holes in the plot...

R93 a classic example of tiresome

[quote]Prince Philip is the heir to the throne in the movie

Actually, no. He even said "No, I'm the Spare."

[quote]Prince Philip is the heir to the throne in the movie

[quote]Actually, no. He even said "No, I'm the Spare."

No, HENRY stated he was the spare after being found hiding in Alex's room. Henry's older brother, PHILIP, is second in line after their mother, suggesting she had no brothers and only sisters (as they also stated she was the eldest daughter - suggesting more siblings and sisters). The revision to the succession that allowed women would not have applied to her, so she cannot have any brothers.

Uma is in this movie?

The author gave the royal family the Stuart-Hanover house name (assuming George I did so for legitimacy and to show continuity), then explicitly mentioned Queen Victoria, by whose marriage to Albert IRL the house was changed from Hanover to Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. But then, they name the #2 heir Philip, which wasn’t really a British or German name. I like that they tapped into the Fox family of acting royalty for Philip and Henry’s father tho. The delicious Freddie Fox should’ve had a cameo as a slutty cousin.

She is the POTUS R99.

It was a bit silly, but as it was ‘straight to streaming’ I don’t think it has any illusions. I still enjoyed it.

Right you are, r98. I confused the names. Thank you.

- r97

I don't think Taylor is a bad actor. I think he lacks experience and the previous roles he has had have been targeted at high school teenagers. They were bullshit, garbage. Kissing Booth? Really? Terrible stuff, the kind of roles you take to get a paycheck. Nothing very challenging. Nick on the other hand has been given better opportunities and more work experience. Even so, there were moments when Nick's dialogue was very awkward; stilted. And not in a Royal way. I look at someone like Taylor and I wish he did have more product out here because I think he'd do well with better roles. His scenes with Uma were very good. I especially liked the one where he is arguing political strategy with Uma. He was very believable in the romantic scenes too, the "after sex" pillow talk.

Do we get to see them bareback on-screen?

It was an easy waste of a couple hours. I watched Nicholas Galitzine in other stuff recently and think he's handsome.

I was unprepared for Uma Thurman's uttering "Truvada" and "bottoming" in less than 15 seconds. I actually laughed out loud.

Uma’s southern accent was beyond ridiculous!

We didn't see them put a condom on when they fucked so yes R105.

stupid dialog, stupid situations=stupid film. Boring and talky I skipped through it on Prime

At the very beginning, I thought it was cheesy af, but it got better and I really liked it.

Not down for throwing around "queer" this and "queer" that, though. It was the only part of Alex's statement in the WH briefing room that I didn't like.

Believe it or not, per Variety, Galitzine identifies as straight. If true, the film is a testament to his acting skills and how comfortable he is in his own sexuality. I mean, playing a character who gets his ass fucked on screen?

R110, um, hello? Remember me?

[quote] R110, um, hello? Remember me?

[quote] —Jake Gyllenhaal

You don't count, Jake. Because you're gay.

The only acting you did was being a bottom, instead of a top.

Sorry, Jake, that was a long time ago and I didn't like your movie, anyway.

[Quote] Sorry, Jake, that was a long time ago and I didn't like your movie, anyway.

and you liked RWARB???? R110

[quote]and you liked RWARB????

Not r110, but I liked that no one gay died at the end of Red, White, and Blue. I really, really like a happy ending. Sucked that they killed Jack Twist. I hated that.

THat review shows what absolute scum Rex Reed is. A million new voters in Texas would definitely go far to flip the state. It's not like anyone in Texas genuinely likes the crazy embarrassing and obviously hugely corrupt republican cabal that is so relentlessly crazy. But Rex Reed clings to the idea that the world hates the gays because that's the only scenario in which his self-hating shtick merits continued employment.

R114 I thought BB was, would the word be "maudlin"? Well, weepy, anyway. And I hated the accompanying guitar music.

Like R115, I like a gay happy ending.

They're both ugly.

Next.

Poor, jealous R118.

Taylor Perez is NOT ugly!

DREAM COUPLE.

Would you like some watermelon?

R119, they are both tacky, uninteresting pieces of shit feeding into frau fantasies of rich kids sucking dick.

Fuck them, fuck this classist movie, and fuck you for buying into this het breeder female fantasy.

From the Victoria & Albert Museum scene:

Whoa, R122. Up your meds today. This is hardly the film to become enraged about.

R124, do you ever get sick of being a straight woman's sidebar fantasy?

I kinda am.

If you're okay with it, good for you.

[quote] Fuck them, fuck this classist movie...

Sounds like, like Alex in the film, R122 has a working class chip on his shoulder.

It's only a goddamned movie. You know, in the realm of fantasy? That said, I don't mind at all a movie about gay guys who aren't privileged.

[quote] do you ever get sick of being a straight woman's sidebar fantasy?

Personally, I don't think about straight women.

R122 is furious. He sounds grossly obese.

R108 wrong bitch! Go back and watch it. You see one condom wrapper on the bedside table and another on the floor.

Has anyone mentioned that the 2 leads have no chemistry? Something that can ruin a rom com

TWI

[Quote] THat review shows what absolute scum Rex Reed is. A million new voters in Texas would definitely go far to flip the state. It's not like anyone in Texas genuinely likes the crazy embarrassing and obviously hugely corrupt republican cabal that is so relentlessly crazy. But Rex Reed clings to the idea that the world hates the gays because that's the only scenario in which his self-hating shtick merits continued employment.

R130, Billy has a point. I watched it and couldn't put my finger on what bothered me.

I knew it wouldn't be deep...it was the lack of chemistry that bothered me.

No there there.

I thought they had great chemistry together, I suppose that's wholly in the eyes of the perceiver.

The leads don't need chemistry, when they're both hot.

Nick's biggest problem is going to be his last name.

For the life of me, I cannot remember his last name. It's not easy nor is it memorable.

GALITZINE.

I barely know how to pronounce it.

He really should have considered changing his stage name, before taking on this role.

[Quote]The leads don't need chemistry, when they're both hot

Yet they don't give off any heat R134

They're bland, uninteresting and one could care less whether they get together or not and since RWARB is so formulaic we know of course they will.

Yes. Chemistry is required in any love story, no matter how hot the people are. Two hot people “falling in love” needs to feel real and authentic for you to be invested, otherwise it feels cold.

I suspect the "no chemistry" critics are refugees from the latest of the marathon Heartstopper threads.

I agree, R138.

The haters here, clearly have an agenda.

Their hatred of this movie and the actors is completely irrational, and completely disproportionate to the overall impact this movie will have on ... really, anything.

This is just a small budget gay rom-com, and the people hating on it are acting like this is a Nazi propaganda film.

It's so strange when shills come here with an obvious agenda to try to destroy or discredit other people.

R135 In real life, Galatzine (Golitsyn) is from exiled Russian nobility so he might be holding onto that for a reason.

Hon we are many years past it being "brave" to play gay or have a gay sex scene, c'mon r110. You are speaking of Nick like he is Ledger in Brokeback Mountain lol.

Honestly we have circled back around to now straight actors get uncomfortable playing gay because is that robbing a gay actor from the role? Will they be attacked because they are straight.

You can tell that's what Nick felt self-conscious about it, being a straight guy representing this project.

[quote]It was a bit silly, but as it was ‘straight to streaming’ I don’t think it has any illusions. I still enjoyed it.

What a strange notion 'straight to streaming' is given the changes to the industry.

The vast majority of film projects are now done for streaming platforms, including those starring "A-List" movie actors. Theatrical releases are going to go the way of drive-ins within the next 10 years, I'd wager. There will still be big premieres, but there'll be fewer and fewer mulitplexes.

Being releases on a streaming platform doesn't have much to do whether it's going to be good anymore, only whether it'll have a wide enough audience to make it profitable for studios since theaters are going to pay less for movies now that they have in the past. Even now, some of the biggest releases are streaming within a month of release, further lowering the prices that a theater will pay to screen a film.

Now that most studios own or are affiliated with a particular streaming platform, the economics for theatrical releases are worse unless you have a bona fide blockbuster. But rom coms of any kind rarely make more than $200mm and a gay one is even less likely.

See for yourself. Here it is.

Mens Health magazine — not exactly known for embracing the gay men who obviously make up a part of the “men” in “Mens Health” — included an IG post about the movie. One post. One. Sadly and quite predictably, as you can see from the comments to the post, the straight men didn’t take it well. “This is woke.” “Stick to men’s health.” Of course, when they write about hetero relationships these same guys don’t say a peep.

As far as we’ve come, we’ve still got a lot further to go.

Crap. I thought this was a series and was so excited to dive into it then I found out it’s just a movie.

[quote] The leads don't need chemistry, when they're both hot.

Well, one out of two ain't bad.

Jesus. Read the comments at R144's link. Very depressing.

R145 You have a point, it actually felt that it would work really well as a limited run 6 parter than as a 2 hour film. Might have given the writers some time to explore a few themes that were touched on hastily. It seemed sometimes to be quite breathless at the speed it went at, interesting themes brought up and dropped as we marched on to the next scene. Still, I enjoyed it but then I'm a sucker for a heart-warming story and tend to not watch the heart-wrenching ones where you feel like you want to neck an entire packet of Ibuprofen with a Paracetamol dessert when the credits roll up.

R141 I said nothing about "bravery", stupid faggot. I was talking about his acting ability in convincingly playing a gay character in a movie with so much male-male intimacy and his security and comfort level in his own sexuality as a straight guy in doing a scene in which it was clear that he was supposed to being fucked in the ass.

R141 And don't call me, "hon", queen.

supposed to be being fucked in the ass.

This didn’t do a lot more for me than catching a better than average Hallmark move at the holidays. The characters’ identities were about their exceptional privilege, they’d exceptional attractiveness and youth, and then one more quality each - emotional distance for the Brit, emotional hunger for the American.

That’s fine for what it is. But to think this is what is being produced 30 years after Angels in America and Beautiful Thing and 20 years after Trick and Brokeback Mountain? People are giving this some major leniency for being what they wanted as teenagers and so they can “feel seen”.

R152 eh, the movie looks sucky but I think it's a good thing we've gotten to the point where gay centered films don't have to be these long overwrought dramas that end tragically, and can be as dumb and inane as straight rom coms. No one is thinking this will be or should be the pinnacle of gay cinema.

R147 IG is full of trolls and Men's Health has always been, at least until very recently, a straight oriented mag. It's hardly representative of the public in general.

[quote] rich kids sucking dick

Surely you know that rich kids do suck dick in real life.

R144 my favorite comment was the exasperated guy saying he was hoping for a list of ways to prevent prostate cancer and health advice for men age 30/40/50.

[quote][R144] my favorite comment was the exasperated guy saying he was hoping for a list of ways to prevent prostate cancer and health advice for men age 30/40/50.

LOL - that reminds me of a standard DL non sequitur used to mock other people in a thread.

Watching it now. It’s off to a terrible start.

One of the opening lines: “you’ve spent the entire day yukking my yum.” What fucking human being has ever uttered that sentence or any variation on it???

I suddenly realized who Uma reminds me of - She's channeling Julia Sugarbaker.

Her discussion with Alex regarding flipping Texas - especially the part where she says that her constituents "need her to be realistic, so they can be idealistic" sounds exactly like a Julia rant.

It’s just a damn movie! Everybody RELAX.

R160 a rom com at that!

Couldn't get past the first 10 minutes. He gets drunk and acts like an ass.

[quote]It’s just a damn movie! Everybody RELAX.

I'm a bit confused by this. If you think this thread is spinning out of control, head over to the Heartstopper threads.

Folks here are calmly chatting about the movie - no anxiety or stress.

[quote] head over to the Heartstopper threads

Oh, you don't want to do that.

R142 what a stupid argument. Straight to streaming usually means they didn’t think they would do well in theaters. Same as straight to DVD/VHS back in the day.

Streamers release movies they think are good in theaters as well as streaming simultaneously.

"Yucking my yum" also struck me as really bad writing, especially from Lopez, who is capable of so much better (and proves it in some of the rest of the dialogue. ). As for the rest of the movie, I thought it was a satisfying version of the book, which was pleasantly vapid. Most of all, it made me wish that such things were around when I was a teen and looking for some positive reflection of my life in movies and books.

The Minx actor is such a bad actor. Omg

[quote][R142] what a stupid argument. Straight to streaming usually means they didn’t think they would do well in theaters. Same as straight to DVD/VHS back in the day.

Yes, sweetie, we all know what your were trying to imply.

I was merely pointing out that the economics of streaming and the movie industry have moved far past the silly and antiquated notion that "straight to streaming" was somehow a negative commentary. There is an enormous difference in shows and movies made for the various streaming platforms and the old "straight to DVD" releases.

Yawn! Another formulaic gay drama cleaned up for the masses. This one's clever, it markets itself by using the current fascination with the bad royals, wokeness, and up talk.

R168 only they haven’t. You can’t get a Golden Globe, SAG or Oscar nod unless your film was in theaters for at least 30 days. The straight to streaming stuff isn’t eligible. It’s the movies no one had faith in doing well in theaters.

R169 you’re right, there is definitely wokeness being that it’s a movie about a gay couple.

The dark one has beautiful hairy legs. Emily in Paris quality. Hallmarky light fare to enjoy while cooking dinner and paying bills.... if you can unclench.

[quote] Another formulaic gay drama cleaned up for the masses.

Guess what? It wasn't intended to be pornography.

R172 This toothless, bland, silly hetero hand-me-down is more likely to make one grit their teeth. It's for those who always yearned for a Julia Roberts' rom com featuring 2 men.

Taylor Zakhar Perez had to work hard to strut around all masculine. But dear god he is a beauty. If they were not famous, and I saw them walking down a street, Nicholas could walk passed me and I wouldn't even notice him. If I saw Taylor I would stop and stare until someone told me I was acting nuts.

“Famous”

[quote][R168] only they haven’t. You can’t get a Golden Globe, SAG or Oscar nod unless your film was in theaters for at least 30 days. The straight to streaming stuff isn’t eligible.

Meh - the Oscars also have new requirements for Diversity which have nothing to do with the quality of the production. They also increased the number of Best Picture nominees to 10 - don't try to tell me that was some plan to recognize the large number of high quality productions released each year.

The revised theatrical release requirement is purely an economic one - and I've already noted the differences in economics between the streaming platforms and theatrical releases given the studio ownership of both the production and streaming platforms. It's a lot more complicated than whether they have confidence in success because the notion of success is very different now. The tradeoffs are a not more complicated.

I'm not saying all streaming releases are high quality. I am saying that judging quality based solely on streaming vs. theatrical release is an outdated litmus test. Blonde and Three Thousand Years of Longing were both theatrical releases and were awful.

R177 what year do you live in??? The Oscars upping the best picture to 10 started in 2009. You’re 14 years late to still be bringing that up.

Movies released straight to streaming are because they aren’t theatrical worthy. Period. This would have BOMBED in theaters

^^^Okay boomer.

Yes he's charming with unusually shaped, widely set eyes.

[quote] emotional hunger for the American.

But what about his hungry hole?

[quote] IG is full of trolls and Men's Health has always been, at least until very recently, a straight oriented mag. It's hardly representative of the public in general.

That's funny because I've always thought that Men's Health and then men who read it are super gay!

Have you ever read one of their magazines?

Hairless, hard bodied and muscled shirtless men, in seductive and sexy poses, just begging the reader to ogle their chiseled bodies.

It's like one step above a gay rag!

I don't believe for one second that the guys who read Men's Health are straight.

They're all closet cases who "protesteth too much."

[quote] Taylor Zakhar Perez had to work hard to strut around all masculine

I don't know anything about him, but is he gay in real life?

[quote]They also increased the number of Best Picture nominees to 10 - don't try to tell me that was some plan to recognize the large number of high quality productions released each year.

Actually, I think it was -- it was a direct reaction to the uproar caused by "The Dark Knight" being left out of the best picture category, so the next year they upped the number of nominees to 10 as a way of giving more films a shot at the big prize. That's how I remember it anyway.

I assume the dialog was generated by a computer. As phony as a $3 bill

R183 yes. Starting in 2009.

The writers are the same writers who work on Hallmark movies

It's way better than that execrable Bill Eichner movie "Bros" from last year.

[quote]Actually, I think it was -- it was a direct reaction to the uproar caused by "The Dark Knight" being left out of the best picture category, so the next year they upped the number of nominees to 10 as a way of giving more films a shot at the big prize. That's how I remember it anyway.

They upped the nominees to increase audience engagement. When no one, except industry insiders and people who like to pretend to be part of the cognoscenti, care who the winner is, the award loses relevance, thus prestige, not to mention the broadcast loses money hand over fist.

My point was that that the academy has a history of making decisions that have very little to do with quality, such as increasing the number of nominees or the number of days it's required to be in theaters.

Finally, anyone who thinks that this movie was ever under consideration for a theatrical release is high. The streaming platforms operate under different metrics which make movies like this viable as streaming releases. Plenty of excellent streaming only movies have been released that might have once been theatrical releases, but the reality is that theatrical releases only make sense now in very specific situations - and quality of production is not #1 on the list of considerations.

[quote] One of the opening lines: “you’ve spent the entire day yukking my yum.” What fucking human being has ever uttered that sentence or any variation on it???

Ha. Not only have I heard several people say this, but it was part of a subheading on the agenda of a post-Pride production meeting several years ago, as in “Things we did well (don’t yuck my yum).”

I think there is a market for an updated My Beautiful Launderette. Just cram the production team with lots of diversity. Story can be a gay man from a shit hole country who's a refugee in to UK or USA. Maybe a bit of a black comedy with serious themes too.

[quote]I think there is a market for an updated My Beautiful Launderette. Just cram the production team with lots of diversity.

NO.

I'd rather they keep cranking out this frivolouos crap than remake a classic.

What they need to do is fine some talented writers who know how to write a script. One of the saddest commentaries I've ever heard on the state of movies and tv is that what we're seeing IS the best of what is available. Sure, there may be other stuff out there that is better, but if it hasn't captured the attention of the right people, they're simply not available.

The people writing these scripts are the best that they can find - given the current mechanisms for identifying writing talent. The lack of originality and need to remake, usually poorly due to the limited talent of the new writers and directors, is a symptom of a much bigger problem.

We need more gay-themed dramas, like THE WHALE!

[Quote] Nick's biggest problem is going to be his last name.

Actually his biggest problem is going to be this shitty movie.

Pretty sure that Matthew Lopez never wrote a Hallmark movie. His excellent work has been for the theater.

Perez' hairy arms were a highlight for me. His chest, sadly, was not in its natural state of hairiness but was otherwise delightful. Galitzine's upper lip is weird and took me out of it, at times.

^ Said hairy forearms.

[quote]It's way better than that execrable Bill Eichner movie "Bros" from last year.

Bros and Fire Island (which I liked a lot better than Bros) at least movies made for a gay male audience at least.

I enjoyed this movie, but let's not kid ourselves both the movie and book are not really for us, it's about making a universal romcom where the characters happen to be two men.

Yes, R196! His hands are also very sexy.

R197 they’re straight women fantasies. This is what straight women who fantasize about gay men fantasize about. It’s very tumblr

"it's about making a universal romcom where the characters happen to be two men" - quelle horreur!

So we have to hate this for being vanilla and mainstream. And we snark about Bros and Fire Island for being hyper queeny and filled with gay scenester stereotypes.

I don’t know what’s campier, Rachel Maddow’s appearances here or the king turning out to be Stephen Fry.

[quote] Perez' hairy arms were a highlight for me

Imagine these arms wrapped around you tight, while he's banging you from behind!

I thought Stephen Fry was a great addition to this.

Taylor Perez with Anna Wintour.

Jealous, bitches?

I liked Stephen Fry. I thought the movie was adorable and sweet and very wholesome. If they cut about 20 seconds off the sex scene it wouldn’t have been slapped with the R rating.

Couldn’t they afford Steve Kornacki?

ANYONE can afford Steve Kornacki.

WERK it, Tay!

R208 he looks stupid. He also looks good in motion but I don’t think he looks that good in stills.

Amazon Prime Video has it at No. 2 in the U.S. in its "Originals and Exclusives" category.

[quote]taylorzakharperez Thank you for having me

You're so wrong about that, R209.

Taylor has beautiful features for modeling.

The second photo in this series is EVERYTHING.

I don't understand at all why Casey McQuiston made things so confusing by only using names of actual living members of the royal family. In the film, they made Bea the youngest child, but did not clean up the weirdness about the names. Why not just give them traditionally royal names that are not in current use as first names among prominent members of the family, like Richard and Alfred and Mary?

Kind of surprised that a bunch of conservative Karens aren't screeching to high heaven about this. WHET One Million Moms aka one dried up cunt and a fax machine?

Rugby boys!

Nick Galitzine's pits...

R214 it was given an R rating. They aren’t worried about it. It’s not being pushed as kid friendly because of that R rating of 17+

[quote] And we snark about Bros and Fire Island for being hyper queeny and filled with gay scenester stereotypes.

Appropriately so. I've given up watching most of these "queer" American productions. Foreign-made gay films are much are much more satisfying.

Stephen Fry saying "Homosexual" was hilarious.

"I have read your emails. They leave no doubt that your love is genuine, occasionally vulgar, but genuine."

[quote] I don't understand at all why Casey McQuiston made things so confusing by only using names of actual living members of the royal family.

Many of us here at DL know way too much about the members of the real royal family, so have no trouble distinguishing the characters from them.

A British prince wouldn't have such trashy tattoos. At least not yet. Maybe the next generation.

This wasn’t a fucking documentary. Jesus.

The sex scene was hot. Nicholas looked so pretty.

While it's clearly a prosthetic, the imagination runs wild...

No, the streamers actually like to invest in some movie product for their channels.

Yes, some are dumped straight to streaming but this one was clearly intended as a TV piece, thus Berlanti producing. This is too frothy for theaters.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Prince's reference to Alex's penis size. From Variety:

[quote]Getting to know one another after one early tryst, Henry and Alex discuss their unwieldy full names. “I thought Alexander Gabriel Claremont-Diaz was a mouthful,” says the first son, to which Welsh prince Henry Fox-Mountchristen-Windsor suggestively replies, “He is.”

[quote] Uma’s southern accent was beyond ridiculous!

Most actresses do awful Southern or Texan accents. They should have done some changes to the POTUS mom from the book. They should have dropped the Texas politician thing and made her be from California or Arizona.

The book was a good beach read. The movie is dreadful.

[quote]Most actresses do awful Southern or Texan accents. They should have done some changes to the POTUS mom from the book. They should have dropped the Texas politician thing and made her be from California or Arizona.

While it plays fast and loose with most real world facts, this is actually probably the one real world element that makes sense. Texas has 40 electoral college votes. California has 54, but is reliably blue. Florida has 30 and is, well, Florida. NY has 28 and is reliably blue. Ohio is in the rust belt and only has 17. Pennsylvania has 19, so too few.

What little sense the story makes requires it to be Texas.

If Texas is sending a Democrat to the White House, the electoral map is weighing heavily in the party’s favor.

It's been a few years since I've read the book. I might be wrong, but wasn't Richards the governor of Missouri in the book?

Alex sure is purdier than Mrs. Simpson.

My favorite new movie of 2023. I cried several times. Almost like I was watching it on an airplane. I cry for all well done but very treacly rom coms that I watch on airplanes. Go ahead, mock me.

My romantic life - such that it is - has always played out like a rom-com. Alas, still waiting for my happy ending.

OK. This is an Uma question. I think something is wrong with her. I think she is not in good health. I'm thinking Parkinson's.

No one's life is a romcom r234, not even the most content of couples. When we blur the line of thinking that is how life should play out for us, you are setting yourself up for some disappointment with the real world.

When I say my life’s played out like a rom-com, R236, I mean that I’m not interested unless there are some real obstacles in the way. I’ve been blessed with many gifts that are appealing to so many gay men & it’s, personally, a real turnoff when someone is immediately ‘head over heels’ with me. I’ve heard “I can’t believe I’m with you” enough that I want to be the one being the pursuer.

R237 R234 Oh, brother.

She could have easily dispensed with the accent. Lots of Texans don't have the drawl. Look at Beto.

R238, when it comes to romance, I’m like Tina Turner. I never, ever do nothin’ nice & easy.

You thinkUma was bad with the accent, you haven't seen Charlie WIlson's War starring Julia Roberts as a wealthy Texan.OMG.

Her husband and son didn’t have a drawl. They were from Austin, not Archer City.

Uma is a one of the weak links in this.

^ As is the notion that a presidential election could turn on the outcome in Texas.

R237, if it makes you feel any better, you sound like a neurotic scumbag with whom I’d never want to associate. If nothing else, old age will destroy your hotness, and the men will stop flocking to you. If you’re rich, and that’s why you’re pursued, take comfort in the fact that it's not about you but the money — you don't matter.

Implausibility is not deal breaker.

I wonder if Princess Lee Radziwill inspired this story.

R245, not much into leaping to judgments are you?

I took it that Uma was a native Texan who was born and raised in a different part of TX and moved to the city.

Who would a male contemporary of JFK, Jr., have been who we could imagine him coupling up with ala the characters in this movie?

[quote] Who would a male contemporary of JFK, Jr., have been who we could imagine him coupling up with ala the characters in this movie?

Young Prince Edward!

They're both around the same age, four years age difference.

It's funny because JFK Jr has the same "swarthy" looks as Taylor and Prince Edward has the same delicate features as Nicholas.

[quote] I’ve been blessed with many gifts that are appealing to so many gay men & it’s, personally, a real turnoff when someone is immediately ‘head over heels’ with me.

Sure, Jan.

Taylor Perez would be perfect to play JFK Jr.

The movie was not dreadful. The US is not a right-wing country in the movie, which bothers shame addicts like Rex Reed and some of the idiots on this board, but Texas will flip to blue and very soon.

I like how there wasn't some big dramatic coming out scene in the movie. Yeah Alex came out to his mom but it felt more like he was worried about her being upset about the fact that it was Prince Henry than because it was a guy.

Taylor's eyes, his eyelashes, his thick hair, so, so black, is just too much muchness.

I agree with the sentiment expressed upthread that Alex generally looks much better in moving pictures than he does in still photos.

[quote] OK. This is an Uma question. I think something is wrong with her. I think she is not in good health. I'm thinking Parkinson's.

Well, it's possible that Uma is falling victim to the "John Travolta leading lady curse" like we did.

I actually not sure that Uma Thurman is a very good actress R259.

Nick's been acting for a long time. He has some good stuff. Not necessarily to my taste but he has done a good job in some interesting little films. Taylor has very little product and it's not anything to brag about. I think it shows the real contrast between the Brits and American values. In the UK and in our independent films you get quality depth, intelligence, and in the American stuff it's garbage, fluff and formulaic commercial shit.

Nicholas Galitzine is solid in this but I didn't care for making him blond and he is miscast, physically. But he did a good job giving them what they wanted for the character. The actor is "darker" in looks and vibe than the blue blooded milquetoast Prince Henry.

Taylor Zakhar Perez is also solid and has a lot more to do since the character is so expressive. He flubs it here and there but overall I enjoyed my time with the character. Taylor is way too old to play a college boy coming to terms with his "bisexuality" but he did the best he could.

How is this movie doing for streaming? I think it should be a hit.

The comments from Men's Health are depressing:

"Again with thst s--t...and then they wonder people like Trump have people's backing."

I love the contrast of their legs

I will say it was funny how Prince Henry had more gay sex experience. Pays to go to an all boys boarding school.

I think Henry should have fucked the American.

Matt Damon should have been cast in this because he's a FAG

R268 Comedy Gold. Will you be here all night?

[quote]Alas, still waiting for my happy ending.

Just jerk it for fuck's sake.

Nicholas is handsome in Purple Hearts. One of the most popular Netflix movies ever, and it's worse than Red White Blue in my opinion. The camera loves his face that's for sure.

R262 what??? Nicholas isn’t miscast at all lmao. Wtf.

And I’m sorry but Taylor is better in motion. I don’t think he looks very photogenic in stills whereas I feel Nicholas is photogenic in stills but just ok in motion.

R271 source to back up your claim that Purple Hearts is one of Netflix’s biggest movies ever?

I'll bet good money that there will be a sequel.

Yes, Taylor was almost too old to play this, but at least he was in law school. I never read the book, so for me his age didn't get in the way. I thought he could pass for 25-26. But the age factor worked against him in other young adult crap he was involved with. I checked out those Kissing Booth movies and they were cringe worthy. Real teenager garbage. And his age was glaringly obvious. He was supposed to be in fucking high school, and to make matters even worse, he was supposed to be in love with Joey King. It was bad. But it did demonstrate that he could dance.

For me the worst casting in the entire movie is Clifton Collins as his father. I love Collins, and he's a brilliant character actor. But he was glaringly miscast.

I love that in the hammock scene, the Brit is reading the Booker Prize winner GIRL WOMAN OTHER while the Yank is reading another novel by Casey McQuiston, the hack who wrote RWRB.

When the Mexican slid his hot piece of Hispanic man meat into the pale, tender hole of the Prince, I couldn't help but wonder...did he douche first?

Casey McQuiston made coin on this book. Bestseller and sold the movie rights to Amazon. They are laughing all the way to the bank!

R277, I know you're jesting but the Prince (the bottom) initiated sex and thus was ready to go. For a moment, I thought the woman who wrote the book might slip up and make Alex the bottom.

I never watched those kissing booth movies but the idea Taylor would play a high schooler is hilarious.

He is too old here, they even aged up the character for him. Alex was a university student but the movie changed him to a law student.

But even though he isn't a great dramatic actor, he has a nice charisma on camera and is hot to look at. That's sometimes all you need.

Aside from the hot sex scene, the standout for me was Uma Therman as Kira Sedgwick. Very well done.

Why is Uma talking like she just had a stroke? Wtf kind of accent is that?

Taylor's eyelashes were very distracting.

[quote]For me the worst casting in the entire movie is Clifton Collins as his father. I love Collins, and he's a brilliant character actor. But he was glaringly miscast.

They should have cast Ivan Hernandez. Swirling Uma and him would believably create Perez.

Did anyone pick Uma Thurman in the celebrity death thread?

Maybe Hunter Biden can start plowing Prince Harry!

So much bullshit here. Where to start:

[quote]Well, to be fair, the competition is Bros and Fire Island, so it's not like the bar is that high.

Not quite. "Bros" and "Fire Island" had casts that are entirely openly queer, as are the screenwriters/directors. This one has a queer writer/director, but the cast is either straight or entirely closeted. It's more like a mashup of "Love, Simon" with "Bros": a conventional romcom with entirely predictable beats, but with some surprisingly well-done actual *fucking*! (Since I'm a perv, I would've liked way more nudity, but OTOH I'm not complaining.)

[quote]Chemistry is required in any love story, no matter how hot the people are. Two hot people “falling in love” needs to feel real and authentic for you to be invested, otherwise it feels cold.

As several people have correctly noted, "chemistry" is subjective. Some of you think the characters in this one have none; I thought they had even more than actual *queer* actors in "Heartstopper" or "Bros" (or "Fire Island," for that matter). Also, I can't find the article, but the main sex scene is in there because it's also in the book, and the director not only insisted on including it, but also tried to make it as "hot" as reasonably possible without showing actual penetration or cocksucking. (As one example: Alex & Henry actually kiss open-mouthed, whereas "Heartstopper" has closed-mouth kisses as unrealistic as their characters never cussing or even getting to second base!)

[quote]Mens Health magazine — not exactly known for embracing the gay men who obviously make up a part of the “men” in “Mens Health” — included an IG post about the movie. One post. One.

R144, I don't know what's up with those comments, but the actual *magazine* has several very pro-gay articles about the movie, including the one at the link below.

[quote]Straight to streaming usually means they didn’t think they would do well in theaters.

What, seriously? I'd suggest paying closer attention: both Netflix & Amazon in particular have spent *massive* amounts of money on films intended primarily or solely for their own platforms. This is one of their *less* elaborate productions: Netflix coughed up $150 million for "Red Notice" with The Rock, Gal Gadot and Ryan Reynolds, and another $120M or so for Gadot's new "Heart of Stone" movie. Amazon seems to be aiming for a Guinness record for the biggest series budgets ever: the combined 12 episodes of "The Rings of Power" and "Citadel" cost over $1 BILLION TOTAL.

Moreover, Netflix's even airing films that would *definitely* do well in theaters: they acquired the rights for "Knives Out" sequels for $300 million, and "The Glass Onion" is its most successful movie to date. (Btw it's also, by far, the most successful streamer released cinematically: it was only out for a week or around Thanksgiving, but still made something like $30 million.) Regardless, the streaming vs. not argument is stupid. Even most straight romcoms go straight to streaming nowadays, with zero intention of being shown in theaters (now relegated almost wholly to action movies, ones based on existing IP like "Barbie," and Oscar bait).

Chemistry isn’t subjective.

[quote]What they need to do is fine some talented writers who know how to write a script.

Agreed, but I'm guessing you've never seen "The Inheritance" (admittedly a play, not a movie). It's been lauded as the 21st-century successor to "Angels in America," and swept the critics awards on both Broadway and the West End: 11 Tony nominations (and four wins) along with eight Olivier nominations (and four wins). Its writer, Matthew Lopez, co-wrote "Red White & Royal Blue" and obviously directed it. (Before that he was a staff writer on "The Newsroom," an Aaron Sorkin series for HBO.)

Not that good writers or directors can't end up producing total shit, but I think it's safe to say this *is* a talented writer who knows how to write a script. In this specific case, however, he had to stick close to the original source material, lest the book's massive TikTok fan base totally lose their shit.

[quote]I enjoyed this movie, but let's not kid ourselves both the movie and book are not really for us, it's about making a universal romcom where the characters happen to be two men.

Agreed, and the bizarre part is DLers actually taking *offense* to the idea! (Meanwhile, if every gay romcom was cast solely with gay actors, you cunts would be bitching about us being "erased" for straight audiences.)

[quote]Most actresses do awful Southern or Texan accents. They should have done some changes to the POTUS mom from the book. They should have dropped the Texas politician thing and made her be from California or Arizona.

Speaking as a native Texan nearly always ashamed by my home state's actions, you'll hear ZERO complaints from me about having a female Texan Democratic president with a Latino hubby! You're correct that few actors can master either a Texas twang or Southern drawl (though they're not the same), and the same is true of Uma, but still: it's UMA! (And a Black female British PM to boot!)

[quote]While it plays fast and loose with most real world facts, this is actually probably the one real world element that makes sense. Texas has 40 electoral college votes. California has 54, but is reliably blue. Florida has 30 and is, well, Florida. NY has 28 and is reliably blue. Ohio is in the rust belt and only has 17. Pennsylvania has 19, so too few. What little sense the story makes requires it to be Texas.

True, but it was admittedly unrealistic that Georgia, Arizona & Pennsylvania went red (as shown on one of the MSNBC or CNN maps near the end) while Texas was left to save the day. OTOH one of its biggest problems in terms of elections is successfully reaching Hispanic voters: they didn't go for Beto O'Rourke, despite him growing up in El Paso & speaking fluent Spanish, but an *actual* Latino – or even the spouse of one – would be a whole other ballgame. (Also, I know this isn't reported in the news, but Texas women are NOT happy about its asshole Republicans being so extremist on abortion in particular.)

[quote]Her husband and son didn’t have a drawl. They were from Austin, not Archer City.

Most urban Texans under the age of 60 don't have a drawl. I'm guessing Uma's character was loosely based on Wendy Davis, the state senator who made national headlines a decade or so ago filibustering against Texas's first absurd anti-abortion bill. She ran for governor against Greg Abbott after that, but unfortunately Texas still had too many asshole Republicans at the time to vote for a woman. (Wendy has a nearly unnoticeable drawl, and ones as exaggerated as Uma's are the kind of thing you only see in small rural towns among older voters – definitely *not* in Austin.)

[quote]I like how there wasn't some big dramatic coming out scene in the movie. Yeah Alex came out to his mom but it felt more like he was worried about her being upset about the fact that it was Prince Henry than because it was a guy.

I liked it, too, and they apparently changed it a bit from the book. POTUS was still supportive, but was apparently acting like she'd just finished PFLAG 101 and came prepared with pamphlets & whatnot. (They changed it to the brief, but hilarious, mentions of Truvada and bottoming. I haven't done a spit take in a while, but that did the trick!)

[quote]Nicholas Galitzine is solid in this but I didn't care for making him blond and he is miscast, physically.

Strong disagree, if only because he reminded me quite a bit of Prince William in his early 20s, back when he still had hair & was still hotter than Harry!

[quote]The comments from Men's Health are depressing

Unless you're a masochist of some sort, I have no idea why you subject yourself to comments from anonymous assholes on the internet. (DataLounge OBVIOUSLY excluded. Everyone here's an asshole AND a cunt!)

[quote]For a moment, I thought the woman who wrote the book might slip up and make Alex the bottom.

The fuck?? What, only "homos" bottom while "masc bi dudes" never take it up the ass? Cunt, please. The movie had three sex scenes: Henry blows Alex, Alex blows Henry, and then Alex fucks Henry. Care to guess what's logically next? Henry fucks Alex. (You clearly missed one of the main *points* of the movie, which is that heteronormative bullshit – INCLUDING the frigid British family – are antiquated, and today's youth are far more enlightened. This *definitely* includes no strict adherence to hetero-based gay relationships like top/husband and "bottom"/"wife." And yes, it's actually realistic for Henry to be the one bottoming, since Alex had never done it with a guy before. Baby steps, cupcake. Baby steps.)

[quote]Chemistry isn’t subjective.

You must be new to DL, dear. Please visit any given thread about "Heartstopper" to see the nearly endless arguments about which actors (and the characters they play) do & don't have chemistry.

R290 I’ll pass on the heart stopper threads. I’m 37 years old. That show is made for 12 year olds. The idea men in their 30s-60s are watching that and actually arguing about it is disturbing. I know 20somethings who make fun of it.

Agree that the Heartstopper comparisons are silly, that show is clearly aimed at teens

[quote]Not that good writers or directors can't end up producing total shit, but I think it's safe to say this *is* a talented writer who knows how to write a script. In this specific case, however, he had to stick close to the original source material, lest the book's massive TikTok fan base totally lose their shit.

Being a good playwright doesn't mean you can write a good movie script - they are actually very different. As a practical matter, many of the flaws in the movie make a lot more sense in the context of it being written and directed by someone with more experience with plays and stage than movies.

I loved The Inheritance, but the Lopex work for Some Like It Hot was dismal.

[quote]many of the flaws in the movie make a lot more sense in the context of it being written and directed by someone with more experience with plays and stage than movies.

Please provide three examples that prove this premise. Thanks, sweetie.

So that's why Taylor was at Some Like It Hot backstage taking pictures with the cast, etc. and he brought his parents with him.

For both RW&RB and Hotstopper, I'm appalled by the requirement in these romcoms for the 'top' in the relationship, when questioned by anyone about his sexual orientation, to loudly proclaim, "Well, I'm BI, actually!" It's as if to make these shows palatable to a larger audience, they must tone down the gayness. It's ok for the bottom to be gay - he's the girl. But the top has to have some semblance of masculinity and straightness. I call BS.

I can't wait for the gay romcom where the top is asked, "Are you BI?" and responds with a loud "Hell NO! I'm a cock-sukin' ass-lickin' homo. I'm as queer as three dollar bill!"

Well it might take the POTUS son a couple weeks or months to realize he's a MO and wants his hole owned and blown out. Most of the bisexual me I have know LOVE to get FUCKED and are greedy pigs about it. Especially if they are or have been married to women.

Makes sense to me. If you want a new sensation, you want a cock up your ass, something a woman can't supply without artificial help.

I decided to watch Purple Heart on Netflix starring Nicholas Galitzine and he emotes incredibly well. I think he'd have chemistry with a post. He has a great face for emotional roles.

R300 Just don't watch that Amazon Cinderella movie.

R300 agreed I watched Purple Hearts yesterday after Red White & Royal Blue. The wife character was written too dramatically but I enjoyed watching them fall in love. I was genuinely touched each time she cracked and let him in a bit. The first time literally by giving him sex. It didn't seem like a period movie to me though and it's supposed to be the Iraq war, right? They didn't make much effort on that.

R301, LOL! I agree I have no intention of watching Cinderella. I had trauma from watching Kissing Booth 2 where Taylor had to fall in love with Joey King. Ugh. Terrible movie. And I felt bad that he needed the work and was forced to appear in such garbage.

R292 I like that shows like Heartstopper are being made and getting massive viewership but yes, it’s a show meant for teens and even tweens.

Every year I find one or two teen series to watch and I am 60. Why can't I watch and enjoy something made for teens?

[Quote]Agree that the Heartstopper comparisons are silly, that show is clearly aimed at teens

and RWARB isn't?

This movie is not aimed at teens. Dafuq?

[Quote] Kind of surprised that a bunch of conservative Karens aren't screeching to high heaven about this. WHET One Million Moms aka one dried up cunt and a fax machine?

Surprised or disappointed R214

[quote]she cracked and let him in a bit

Pics please.

At R279, I wrote, "For a moment, I thought the woman who wrote the book might slip up and make Alex the bottom." The logorrheic loon at R290 (responsible for all those dull point-by-point posts) responded with

[quote]The fuck?? What, only "homos" bottom while "masc bi dudes" never take it up the ass? Cunt, please. The movie had three sex scenes: Henry blows Alex, Alex blows Henry, and then Alex fucks Henry. Care to guess what's logically next? Henry fucks Alex. (You clearly missed one of the main *points* of the movie, which is that heteronormative bullshit – INCLUDING the frigid British family – are antiquated, and today's youth are far more enlightened. This *definitely* includes no strict adherence to hetero-based gay relationships like top/husband and "bottom"/"wife." And yes, it's actually realistic for Henry to be the one bottoming, since Alex had never done it with a guy before. Baby steps, cupcake. Baby steps.)

Actually, cupcake, my point was that it [italic]would have been [/italic] a slip-up for the woman who wrote the book (if this scene is in the book) to show Henry initiating sex if Alex was going to be the bottom. It's supposed to be Alex's first time and you don't just spring bottoming on someone like that. This is something that a [bold]woman[/bold] (such as the author) may or may not know. In any case, she didn't write it that way which is either happy accident or the result of research on her part. And, as for you, cupcake, someone told you that the world needs to hear your every unoriginal, inconsequential opinion on everything, and that is not the case.

Thanks r310! You have succeeded in making this thread almost a tedious as the Heartstopper ones.

^ My pleasure, cunt.

R312 =

^ And this uplifting exchange is what we would have missed if DL had folded.

Same r291.

I could will watch a lot of stuff to support gay stories, but I was not willing to do Heartstoppers. I watched the trailer and it was clear to me the target demographic was 13 years.

Same here R305. I dutifully watched season 1 of Heartstoppers, but I couldn't go beyond it. I did enjoy Season 1 of Young Royals. Tried to watch Season two but only got thru one episode. Now I did watch Love Victor, and I have to say, it's still my favorite. I just liked the entire cast. I thought it was well done. Certainly not perfect, but well done.

And yes R310, in Love, Victor, in Season 2 they had an episode called The Sex Cabin, which was kind of fun and sweet where the gang goes to this plush lake house overnight, and it's going to be the first time for Victor and he is a nervous wreck all day. His more experienced boyfriend is patient and loving and in the end it's Victor who tops him.

Something about Taylor's looks seems like too much for me. He has beautiful eyes, but his eyelashes = too much. He has gorgeous hair, but it is styled wrong and again the color? = too much. The truth is he is half step away from being not very good looking. His nose and his teeth are on the border of being =too much.

To be fair, I'm not in love with Nicholas' nose. His nostrils flare. + too much. His lips are very red = too much. his eyes always look like he is crying, they're red rimmed and beady + too much. And he has one expression and it is same and pouty, and after watching him in Handsome Devil and Purple Heart, he acts the same way in all his movies. =too much.

[quote] I can't wait for the gay romcom where the top is asked, "Are you BI?" and responds with a loud "Hell NO! I'm a cock-sukin' ass-lickin' homo. I'm as queer as three dollar bill!"

Have I got a gay romcom for YOU!

So, OK. it's New Years Eve. Henry goes outside in the dark to be sad. I'm not clear. Is he crushing on Alex or just sad and lonely. I know later he tells Alex that he found him attractive the first time they met at some conference. But was he mooning over Alex on NYE? And how did he know if his kiss would be well received? He gives Alex this spontaneous, devouring kiss and has no idea if he'd get a black eye for his ef fort? Alex is stunned. Clearly, it's not Gaydar, because next time they meet, Henry is all apologetic until Alex says, " stop talking."

Yes Henry knew he was head over heels into Alex and was desperate to kiss him at midnight at the the NYE party, why he needs to leave r320.

And yeah, Alex might have punched him or freaked out when he did kiss him outside. It was just a spontaneous act where he feels like he has to kiss Alex or he is going to explode. It's only romantic because this is a romcom and it all works out, in the real world don't recommended just kissing people lol.

I have to say that I prefer Galitzine with lighter hair styled as he is in this movie vs. what appears to be his naturally darker hair or buzz cut he has in other movies.

[quote]So, OK. it's New Years Eve. Henry goes outside in the dark to be sad. I'm not clear. Is he crushing on Alex or just sad and lonely.

I think both. He flew all the way to the US to see Alex, apparently without realizing that Alex's NYE party would be huge and he'd be occupied entertaining his guests most of the time. He understandably didn't fit in with Alex's American party-happy crowd – which tracks for many Brits in general, but *definitely* for any actual *royal* – and felt left, so he left. (Alex finds him, of course, but the movie isn't really clear about whether Alex realized Henry fancied him before their kiss, especially since he'd had so little experience with boys or men.)

[quote]I can't wait for the gay romcom where the top is asked, "Are you BI?" and responds with a loud "Hell NO! I'm a cock-sukin' ass-lickin' homo. I'm as queer as three dollar bill!"

"Red White & Royal Blue" didn't quite have that, but when Alex asked Henry about it, he said something like, "I'm as gay as a maypole, dear." (Also sounded like he's a gold-star gay.)

[quote]And yeah, Alex might have punched him or freaked out when he did kiss him outside.

Oh, *please*. It's 2023. Real-life straight dudes, at least among Gen Zers, no longer take severe umbrage at being hit on by another guy, even if they're not gay or bi in the slightest. (As it so happens, I was once surprise-kissed by a drunken female college friend on NYE – I wasn't yet out, and she had no idea I only like guys – but the thought of punching her would be just as ridiculous.) Also, try thinking logically: regardless of gender or sexual orientation, would you seriously reject a kiss from Prince William or Prince Harry in their early 20s prime??

[quote]So, OK. it's New Years Eve. Henry goes outside in the dark to be sad. I'm not clear. Is he crushing on Alex or just sad and lonely.

[quote]I think both. He flew all the way to the US to see Alex, apparently without realizing that Alex's NYE party would be huge and he'd be occupied entertaining his guests most of the time.

Also, if you read the books, it's clear that there is some significant flirting going on between them by the time their first kiss occurs. Alex has actually been crushing on Henry for years - he used to sneak into his older sister's room (she was merged with the Nora character in the film) and look a one of those teen gossip magazines that was filled with pix of Henry.

The Americans at that party knew who Prince Henry was and would have been all over him, not left him alone to sulk.

Here's an entertaining bit of trivia regarding Galitzine's upcoming role with DL fav Julianne Moore in George and Mary:

[quote]...the romance between the two (James I and George Villiers) is referenced in Casey McQuiston's Red, White, & Royal Blue novel, wherein the fictional Prince Henry writes, "I feel that James I, who fell madly in love with a very fit and exceptionally dim knight at a tilting match and immediately made him a gentleman of the bedchamber (a real title), would take mercy upon my particular plight." In a fun turn of events, actor Nicholas Galitzine is set to star as both Henry in Red, White, and Royal Blue and as the "very fit knight," a.k.a. George, Duke of Buckingham.

While a young actor is probably grateful to be working, I wonder whether he views it as typecasting and regrets going down this path given the majority of big roles he's gotten have all been gay.

Another gay character?

Yes with Handsome Devil being his first breakout role, and then this project and that project both being gay roles Nicholas Galitzine has had a hella gay career for a straight actor. This is a Darren Criss career.

He was also in The Craft: Legacy playing a gay role and some would argue that his prince in the Camila Cabello Cinderella wasn't exactly straight.

[quote]Yes with Handsome Devil being his first breakout role, and then this project and that project both being gay roles Nicholas Galitzine has had a hella gay career for a straight actor.

Has he ever *stated* his orientation one way or the other? Times have changed since "Glee." If a young actor plays a gay character once, that's NBD. Twice is at least a little suspect. Thrice or more most likely means the actor is gay, not being typecast. Example: DL fave Connor Jessup played at least FOUR queer characters before coming out in 2019. He wrote/starred in two shorts ("Fragments" and "Crazyhouse") as a gay teen; "Closet Monster" as, yes, a closeted teen; and a season of "American Crime" playing the son of USC Fraudulent Admissions Queen Felicity Huffman, who accuses his (male) basketball teammate of sexually assaulting him.

Or how about fellow Brit Rupert Everett? I know many think he's been cancelled – for good reason, to be clear – but he played at *least* a half-dozen queer characters (or queer-coded ones, e.g. "The Comfort of Strangers") before coming out publicly.

I'm pretty sure Taylor's straight, but I'd be amazed if Nicholas is as well.

[quote]Also, if you read the books, it's clear that there is some significant flirting going on between them by the time their first kiss occurs.

Right, but the movie isn't the same as the books. Alex had a full-on romantic involvement with a character who's not even *in* the movie, and in the book he's the one who outed him on Reddit. His parents are also divorced in it. Henry's sister played a far larger role, and the British monarch in the book was female as well. The flirting-via-text early in the movie would at least be unusual between any two straight guys, but not unheard of, and for whatever reason they made Alex's orientation more ambiguous in the movie, at least at the beginning.

Hmmm. Taylor's either a REALLY confident – and potentially douchey – straight guy overly impressed with his own physique, or he could very well be trying to tell us ... something with these outfits. Considering he wasn't yet known for much other than a couple of cheesy Netflix movies, showing up to the most recent Prada runway show in Milan *shirtless* is an awfully ballsy move.

Thoughts, bitches?

R323, a teenage boy gaybashed a guy for "vogueing" so I don't see why you seem to believe young straight guys would welcome being kissed by a man. Wishful thinking.

Nicholas Galitzine has called himself straight in interviews r329

R331, are you seriously judging tens of millions of young Americans based on the actions of a single low-rent homophobic asshole, someone who'll likely spend the rest of his life in prison? I also made a point of noting that this was a kiss from a literal British prince, so a random encounter with a queer young man vogueing is a definite false equivalency.

R330 if you check out Taylor's instagram he has done a lot of modeling and I would not be surprised if he has a stylist or is under contract to wear certain outfits or promote certain looks. And yeah, he probably is a little bit douchey about his looks. He definitely knows he is hot and he gets stared at a lot.Personally he pings very loudly to me. I believe he is Gay. I don't believe Nicholas Galitzine is Gay. He is British and I think he comes from the perspective of the story and the character not the sexual orientation. However, I do think he needs to branch out. He was really very good as a marine in Purple Heart.

Taylor & Tom Ford. Hmmm...

R333, while younger people are less homophobic than older ones, it's wishful thinking to believe that straight guys welcome passionate kisses from other men (even famous ones)

[quote]Nicholas Galitzine has called himself straight in interviews [R329]

Unlike so many others gays that DL has called in the past before they "officially" came out, Galitzine doesn't come across as gay to me. Connor Jessup, Colton, Lee Pace, et al. being gay weren't a big surprise. Colton Underwood was on a straight dating show, but was as gay as a tree full of parrots, or in honor of RWARB - as gay as a maypole.

Galitzine being gay would surprise me just a bit although, unlike the cockgobbler Aarcon Schock, he'd be welcome on our team.

R336, there's a difference between "welcoming" an unsolicited kiss – regardless of anyone's gender or orientation – and having such an extreme degree of toxic masculinity that you LITERALLY MURDER (or even beat up) the person who kissed you. It's even more unlikely if the person who kissed you happens to be an internationally known celebrity. THAT was my point.

You sad, pathetic queens. Nick is ALL MAN, and I'm the dame that proved it! (I'd ask if you bitches are jealous, but we all know the answer.)

The movie with AnnE sounds interesting - a MILF banging a popular boyband member. He can actually sing well for an actor who isn't a singer by training.

Just two masc dudes shootin' the shit. Nothing to see here, homos! (Nicholas does a fantastic American accent and impression of Taylor, however.)

Do straight guys have such a large complicated nighttime skincare routine?

TZP's sexuality has been discussed for the last couple of years on DL. Why is there so much debate in this thread about whether he's straight or not?

He's glass closeted, btw, if that wasn't clear. His longtime boyfriend is Garrett Gerson. But if R342 wants to keep posting random stuff from his social media to fill out the thread, go ahead, hun. He's certainly gorgeous to look at.

[quote] You sad, pathetic queens. Nick is ALL MAN, and I'm the dame that proved it! (I'd ask if you bitches are jealous, but we all know the answer.)

He looks gay in EVERY SINGLE PHOTO in that series at R339.

Especially the second one.

[quote]Do straight guys have such a large complicated nighttime skincare routine?

Straight guys who make a living on their looks probably do.

Now, whether there are a lot of straight guys who make a living on their looks is a whole separate matter.

Nicholas' next project, "Bottoms" is about to come out.

Interview

Bottoms trailer

I much prefer him with the hair colour in the video at R348.

[quote]Though there is no nudity, it’s very clear what’s going on as we watch Henry’s face, the emphasis on their intimacy and wordless communication.

There's quite a bit of nudity, though no full-frontal.

And in this particular scene, where the two main characters "make love", you can clearly see Prince Henry holding his legs up to his chest while he breathes deeply and Alex penetrates him...

Prince Henry is breathing as if he is in a Lamaze class, so I'm guessing Alex had a big dick

One thing that struck me whenever they made out - across all the scenes - is that neither one ever grabbed the other's ass.

When you see how the scene is staged, there are obvious moments when one of them should be sliding his hand down the other's back and grabbing or at least cupping the other one's ass. The most notable scene is when Henry comes up to Alex's room after the prime minister dinner. Alex is lying on his back on the sofa and he keeps his hands on Henry's back rather than it sliding down to Henry's ass.

R349 that trailer is exhausting to me and I like teen movies.

R352, I agree. The other thing is that, when making out in that scene why didn't Alex lift up Henry's shirt to feel bare skin.The guy was still wearing his suitcoat.

For those of you who want to read the bonus chapter they published in a new edition of the book:

[quote] And in this particular scene, where the two main characters "make love", you can clearly see Prince Henry holding his legs up to his chest while he breathes deeply and Alex penetrates him...

[quote] Prince Henry is breathing as if he is in a Lamaze class, so I'm guessing Alex had a big dick

Oooooh, this got me all hot and bothered.

Link, please!

[quote]Oooooh, this got me all hot and bothered.

It's less porn-y and more artsy in the movie.

As for a link - go to youtube and do a search. There are dozens.

Miguel Lopez will definitely get the backing for his sequel. Will be interesting to see a story when they came basically make it up without following the book.

[Quote]Has now become the No. 1 movie globally on Prime Video in its premiere weekend. It is also now among Prime Video’s top three most-watched romantic comedies of all time, according to Amazon

Top three rom coms of all time? That is nuts.

If they follow the normal path for streaming platforms, they'll greenlight a two more sequels and film them back to back, but stagger the releases.

I posted on Monday this movie will be a big hit.

Best shoulder to hip ratio of any romcom

TZP sort of looks like Paul W. Downs. Downs pings my gaydar and I think he's in a beard marriage with Lucia Aniello.

Red, White and PU!

^ I represent that remark!

Not very good.

tl:dr...

Well, DL'ers last weekend as we sped towards Palm Springs, this podcast managed to summon a unanimous "that's rather unfortunate" from my fabulously discerning companions. So, let's be thrifty, wait for that free streaming option to strut its stuff, and in the meantime, perhaps divert that curiosity towards relishing the original literary masterpiece. Picture it: you, a dry martini, and the words that spark the imagination. Our cultivated sensibilities certainly deserve nothing but the best. Here's to impeccable taste and indulging in literary delights.

Ah, what could have been.

I listened to the NPR Podcast mentioned above. VOCAL FRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And terribly middle-brow whining. ITS NOT QUEER ENOUGH! NOT EVERYONE IS REPRESENTED!!!!!!!!! ITS SO 9TH GRADE!!!!!!!!!!

[quote] ITS NOT QUEER ENOUGH! NOT EVERYONE IS REPRESENTED!!!!!!!!! ITS SO 9TH GRADE!!!!!!!!!!

While I agree that it’s kind of a silly complaint, they do cut out a lot of LGBT characters from the book. Nora is bisexual, and I think they acknowledge that in passing, but not more than that. There are two Secret Service agents that we see a lot, a trans woman (I didn’t realize the actress was trans) and a pansexual man. Alex also has a mentor who’s an openly-gay Senator from Colorado who appears to betray the family at one point.

Whenever you adapt a book into a movie, stuff has to be cut. You can't fit a whole novel into a movie. Fans of the book will always be upset about the cuts. It's a tale as old as time.

What R370 said. And those podcasters, college graduates, should know it.

I saw a fucking article this morning on how RWRB could have been better, and they pointed out that Alex is an only child in the movie but not in the book, but his behavior in the movie was more like a younger sibling than an only child and they considered it a flaw. They were also disappointed that Alex didn't come from a broken home because if he had then he and Henry could have bonded over than. What bullshit! Now honestly, I find this kind of nitpicking such absolute bullshit. The movie is a hit! I never even heard of the fucking book and I will never read it. I enjoyed the movie for what it was.

I read the book a few years ago, and I didn't miss a single detail that was left out. Matthew Lopez, you did an excellent job. Would that you could have included dong, but one step at a time.

[quote]Top three rom coms of all time? That is nuts.

How so? Netflix mainly does action flicks and teen-oriented YA stuff, not romcoms.

[quote]While I agree that it’s kind of a silly complaint, they do cut out a lot of LGBT characters from the book.

True, but both film & TV writers almost *always* cut characters – queer & otherwise – from screen depictions if only due to a lack of space & the need for a script to be more closely focused than any given novel. Even *without* any changes that added much length to the movie, it was nearly a full two hours: unless you're Christopher Nolan or helming a tentpole series (anything from Fast & Furious to Mission: Impossible), that's generally the maximum limit, and especially if it's not Oscar bait or something.

I suppose Amazon could've turned it into a limited series instead, but somehow I suspect it'd eventually end up like "Heartstopper": far too much focus on non-primary characters, solely to meet a perceived – and yet not accurate – perspective that the *entire* queer spectrum needs to be addressed. A traditional romcom – and this is obviously one of them – keeps its primary focus on one or both of the lead love interests, and IIRC the director even noticed that literally every single scene except one has either Alex or Henry in it at least in part.

[quote]I saw a fucking article this morning on how RWRB could have been better, and they pointed out that Alex is an only child in the movie but not in the book, but his behavior in the movie was more like a younger sibling than an only child and they considered it a flaw.

Again, this is a subplot that wasn't at all needed for the movie. (And while I know the movie itself is based on a completely cliche "Cinderella" scenario, it didn't also need the "younger sibling" stereotype.) Yes, books need more subplots given that they have literal hundreds of pages to fill, but scripts need to have a stronger focus.

For God's sake, it's a fucking Hallmark movie with some sex, with Hallmark-level acting (or worse, in the case of

...or worse in the case of Sarah Shahi.

Matthew Lopez is a hack. The Inheritance has to be one of the most overrated plays of the last decade, a poor man's Angels In America.

R373 he did give us a great shot of Taylor's perfect ass. But honestly, I could have used more skin from both of them. I love treasure trails. I love hip bones, and having those two standing there just before they hop in bed in Paris to "make love." with their pants on touching a shoulder, an arm, and that all too brief shot of Alex putting his hand inside Henry's shirt to feel skin and we did se his navel and a bit of fuzz, I just needed more. I felt that Matthew Lopez got suddenly timid, and he needn't have. I wanted to have them expressing urgency in a very deliberate way and the scene could have been grittier.

[quote]The Inheritance has to be one of the most overrated plays of the last decade, a poor man's Angels In America.

We beg to differ.

R375 It was a perfect "streaming" example - the mid-2020s. Yes, a facile, Hallmark-like, rom-com movie.... with an anal sex scene where the "bottom prince" slowly adjusted to taking the big Mexican-American cock inside. Sweet fucking. And the President of the US lectures her son on the best ways to experience anal sex.

The sex was curious - was it real to life? First contact the prince blows the American; fade to black, the American is zipping up, a satisfied look on his face, the prince, apparently, didn't undress or get to cum. A non-recip blow job - gay prince servicing "bi" American?

Didn't expect it to be Ibsen (or Kubrick, or even Nora Ephron). Sweet and simple and superficial. My main discomfort was that Perez was about 10 years too old.... Law student? Ok. But he was way too old to still be living at the White House.

The Inheritance wasn't the poor man's anything. Why compare them? Because they're both about gay men by gay writers? Because AIDS figures prominently in both? Because they're both in two parts?

R379, *my* main discomfort was that the original sex scenes were written by not only a woman, but a gay woman. I have zero expertise in pussy, and I'd also expect a gay woman to have similarly little with cocks. While the director was thankfully a gay man, the main sex scene still excluded some of the ACTUAL pre-fucking stuff that usually goes on – in particular douching & lubing. I also didn't like the one cliche that is still a mainstay in straight AND gay sex scenes on film: the shot of the lovers' hands grasping each other as a "nonverbal signal" of an orgasm / ejaculation.

Also, they showed two condom wrappers, and obviously I get emphasizing safer sex, but Alex was a gay virgin (at least in the movie) and had no recent history with women (meaning he'd notice if he had an STI aside from HIV), and Henry had a few hookups 5-10 years earlier at boarding school, with boys who were almost certainly virgins. Not as low-risk as fucking on PrEP, I know, but still.

It's a romantic comedy, would anyone really expect references to douching and lubing?

IT'S A LITERAL GENOCIDE OF THE FINE HISTORY OF QUEER DOUCHING!!!!!!!!!!

Ha, I give up. Yeah, a "real" movie would have shown douching and lubing, otherwise it's "gay erasure"!!!

Mention the douching and you're associated "queers" with shit.

Leave out the douching and you're erasing "queer" realness.

[quote]Ha, I give up. Yeah, a "real" movie would have shown douching and lubing, otherwise it's "gay erasure"!!!

You folks never fail to deliver on hilarity.

[quote]Top three rom coms of all time? That is nuts.

[quote]How so? Netflix mainly does action flicks and teen-oriented YA stuff, not romcoms.

Well, first it's on Amazon Prime which is filled to the brim with rom coms. And second, RWRB is a teen-oriented YA novel and would easily be grouped with The Kissing Booth and To All the Boys which are both YA rom coms from Netflix.

So, performing well enough to hit top three of all time is a pretty big deal.

[quote]It's a romantic comedy, would anyone really expect references to douching and lubing?

The LITERAL next scene had Uma referencing bottoming, lubing *and* Truvada after Alex tells her he hooked up with Henry, so yes. (It also garnered a surprise R rating in the US, most likely for these reasons.)

Banned in Algeria!

[quote]Well, first it's on Amazon Prime which is filled to the brim with rom coms. And second, RWRB is a teen-oriented YA novel and would easily be grouped with The Kissing Booth and To All the Boys which are both YA rom coms from Netflix.

My bad – I just read an article about the two stars that mentioned both are "Netflix summer boys," so I forgot when I posted that this specific movie's on Amazon. (And btw a "summer boy" is any of the guys who've starred in the summertime movies and limited series that have become its mainstay, including Taylor Zakhar Perez and one of the few people on Earth hotter than him: Jacob Elordi.)

OTOH Amazon's clearly trying to compete against Netflix with this kind of programming, so I'd still argue that YA-specific romcoms (gay or straight or other) are more unusual on it versus the competition.

[quote]For God's sake, it's a fucking Hallmark movie with some sex

The sex really is crucial to this movie. It wouldn't work if it kept the characters neutered and skirted away from them being horny guys who are fucking. Would be way too hallmark.

[quote]Whenever you adapt a book into a movie, stuff has to be cut. You can't fit a whole novel into a movie. Fans of the book will always be upset about the cuts. It's a tale as old as time.

I'm totally fine with them having to streamline things. I think collapsing Nora and the sister into a single character made a ton of sense. I don't understand why they decided to keep Alex's parents married and cut the stepfather, except that I guess there wasn't another way to keep the actual father in the story when they needed to have the false crisis happen at his house in Texas. The book also has a Queen Regnant, not a King, although I assume they changed that given QEII's death. I also wish they hadn't cut Henry's mother, who doesn't appear much--the backstory is that she was so devastated over the death of Henry's father, an actor who had played James Bond at some point in between Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton, she'd withdrawn from the Firm. After Henry gets outed, she has a kickass scene where she tells the Queen that if the Royal Family doesn't let Henry be himself, she'll go to Parliament and tell them that the Queen is getting senile.

But a lot of the gay content was cut. Not only did they lose the mentor, but Alex also has a high school friend that he used to mess around with.

That said, I was perfectly content with the movie we got. It came together a lot better than I expected.

[quote]And second, RWRB is a teen-oriented YA novel

It's not YA. Henry and Alex are adults. It's a separate category called New Adult, where the characters are over 18 but under 30, which lets them, among other things, have sex.

[quote]It's not YA. Henry and Alex are adults. It's a separate category called New Adult, where the characters are over 18 but under 30, which lets them, among other things, have sex.

There are many books that were published under the YA banner since the boom in that category that would be reclassified as New Adult if published today. While you could argue that YA became established in the 1960-70s with stuff from authors like Judy Blume, the explosion occurred post-Potter and includes stuff like Hunger Games, all the John Green books (one of the early "Death-lit" authors), and The Perks of Being a Wallflower - all which I'd argue would be called New Adult today because of the sex, violence, and "adult" themes with younger protagonists.

The reality is that one of the biggest consumers of YA books has always been people through their mid- to late 30s. I'd argue that they created a new category so that older people wouldn't feel bad about buying and reading YA novels.

It's not just the age of the protagonists that defines YA, but also the complexity of the prose, the themes, the balance of "show" vs. "tell" in the view points. YA novels tend to shy away from grey morality and have fairly black and white right and wrong, good and bad, and heroes and villains.

[quote] the main sex scene still excluded some of the ACTUAL pre-fucking stuff that usually goes on – in particular douching & lubing.

Maybe Henry planned in advance and was already prepared.

[quote]the main sex scene still excluded some of the ACTUAL pre-fucking stuff that usually goes on – in particular douching & lubing.

What romance movie has ever shown someone prepping?

The only one I can ever recall was that bad gay movie - Another Gay Movie - and the douching was played for laughs.

I remember Looking had a scene of Jonathan Groff douching.

Soooooooooooooooooo..... there's a significant group on DL who would choose to have douching shown in any movie about a man loving a man. All righty then.

[quote]There are many books that were published under the YA banner since the boom in that category that would be reclassified as New Adult if published today.

In a related vein: I haven't read many YA books since I was an actual youth, but last year I read "Aristotle and Dante Discover The Secrets of the Universe" in my book club after we decided on a theme of Books That Asshole Republicans Have Tried To Ban From Texas High Schools. This one was near the top of the list, and the reason is no surprise: the two lead characters are Hispanic high schoolers, and the book is set in late '80s El Paso. It's won a ton of book awards, and I pretty much bawled throughout it.

That said, I'm mentioning it because I recently bought its much newer sequel, "Aristotle and Dante Dive Into the Waters of the World." They were published nine years apart, and while both are YA, the newer book is *significantly* more explicit. The first one had zero use of the word "fuck," let alone even a *hint* that the boys were hooking up, but the sequel sure as hell does (and it picks up almost as soon as the first novel ends). I had no idea YA had "evolved" to such an extent, but interesting to know!

I am, however, wholly unfamiliar with New Adult novels, so I went ahead and bought the book version of "Red White & Royal Blue" out of curiosity. (Part of it is seeing how a woman writes a gay sex scene.)

‘Red, White and Royal Blue’ director on why Prince Henry is not on PrEP:

Ha, R398! I can't believe they actually *asked*! I guess it makes sense that they had to figure this stuff out, and I can definitely see why Henry wouldn't be able to get any PrEP considering it'd be impossible to do so without the Palace finding out.

Btw did anyone else see the lube bottles on the bed after they fucked? I noticed the condom wrappers but didn't see anything else near them.

I'm confused. People their age sill use condoms?

There was no need to deal with the whole/hole question of douching because Henry is a bottom and he's the one who initiated sex. He'd clearly come prepared.

[quote]There was no need to deal with the whole/hole question of douching because Henry is a bottom and he's the one who initiated sex. He'd clearly come prepared.

Prepared? He's a WHORE!

[quote]In a related vein: I haven't read many YA books since I was an actual youth, but last year I read "Aristotle and Dante Discover The Secrets of the Universe" in my book club after we decided on a theme of Books That Asshole Republicans Have Tried To Ban From Texas High Schools. This one was near the top of the list, and the reason is no surprise: the two lead characters are Hispanic high schoolers, and the book is set in late '80s El Paso. It's won a ton of book awards, and I pretty much bawled throughout it.

Speaking of, the Aristotle and Dante movie releases theatrically in September. The fabulous diva playing someone's mom is Eva Longoria in this case.

My book club also read it. From the trailer, they appear to have nailed it.

Paul Rudnick wrote a YA novel called GORGEOUS. The word Fuck is on the first page. I was a bit shocked, not being familiar with how YA novels have matured. And I never knew the term New Adult until now.

It was cute, but very Hallmark in tone. True, Hallmark doesn’t have anal sex, but that’s the future people. Look for Hallmark’s new Rosebud Collection at a greeting card aisle near you.

[quote] Look for Hallmark’s new Rosebud Collection at a greeting card aisle near you.

Aww, my Nana would love a card with a nice picture of Prince Henry's clean royal pink rosebud...

you know, before Alex wrecked it and gaped it...

[quote]Soooooooooooooooooo..... there's a significant group on DL who would choose to have douching shown in any movie about a man loving a man. All righty then.

[quote]“We talked about, ‘Does the prince douche before they go in? Do we need to tell the audience that? Does the audience just assume that that’s going on?’”

Apparently, it WAS an issue - lol.

[quote] can definitely see why Henry wouldn't be able to get any PrEP considering it'd be impossible to do so without the Palace finding out.

Even if he were on Prep, I'd argue someone like Henry would use condoms since STDs would still be an issue - and you know the gays.

If you use condoms there is no need for PREP.

--- all the whores of the 1980s and 1990s who did not get HIV

At one point Alex tells Henry to come to his place where he (Alex) plans to "do lots or nasty things to you." That's a total disconnect with Alex's supposed gay virginity revealed later. And Alex does "do" anything to Henry - just gets a BJ from the prince.

Alex is from TX but while Uma Thurman and Clifton Collins Jr. manage regional accents of varying quality, Perez can't be bothered to try. Probably beyond his meager acting talents.

Correction: Alex doesn't do anything to Henry.

[quote]Alex is from TX but while Uma Thurman and Clifton Collins Jr. manage regional accents of varying quality, Perez can't be bothered to try.

I had friends from Dallas who had no accent whatsoever. They could have been talking heads on the news, their speech patterns were so clear, so non-Southern in any way.

I don't think it's weird that they only had oral sex and not anal that night r409. Neither one would have been "prepared" to make sure anal sex is good to go.

[quote]Correction: Alex doesn't do anything to Henry.

Clearly, you're not a gay man who has had a lot of experience with blowjobs if you think you can't "do" nasty things to the one giving it.

Franky, you're not a DL regular if you haven't clicked on some of the pron that gets linked here obsessively.

Side note for those interested.

Amazon has just released a deleted scene that is a fan favorite from the books.

It's cute.

I read something with the director that they took it out because it deflated some of the tension with the following scene with the interview.

R413 That was what I thought... holding the prince by the back of his head, and fucking his throat with aggressive intent, making him gag, making him beg for the dick, would qualify as "doing nasty things to him"....

This pallid movie must be doing something right to activate so many picayune responses.

[quote]This pallid movie must be doing something right to activate so many picayune responses.

Mary!

It's a cute little movie starring attractive guys, nothing more, nothing less. However, the fact that it's been this successful when gay themed movies don't usually get such mainstream traction is worth noting. Most of the other DL obsessions (you know who you are) are popular within a particular niche, but are not nearly as successful.

The guys are gorgeous and their characters fall in monogamous love immediately after penetration. Not surprising it’s a hit at all since that’s exactly the kind of story that will bring in a big straight female audience. Which is not to say I didn’t like it; I thought it was cute.

After watching it, I'm not sure Matthew Lopez had much to do with the final product. It felt more Greg Berlanti than Matthew Lopez to me. Exec Producers have a lot of control in TV.

See, R415, this a good point. The director took it out because it would affect the pacing with the next scene? See, I really like this scene, it fills out some of the gaps and I prefer it instead of a collage of quick scenes of them making nice when Alex went to the UK to repair the mess. Directors make choices and of course they're subjective, but I think he should have left this scene in.

[quote]See, I really like this scene, it fills out some of the gaps and I prefer it instead of a collage of quick scenes of them making nice when Alex went to the UK to repair the mess. Directors make choices and of course they're subjective, but I think he should have left this scene in.

I agree. There are so many erratic cuts that don't make much sense. They should have left that cute little scene in for character development. Also, scenes operate on a scene/sequel structure. There is no sequel to the scene where Henry arrives in the car and they take pix.

The editing is already iffy - like after the polo match, they're suddenly in France? What? Henry asked if Alex wants to eat, so they went to France from Windsor where the polo match was for coffee? Story continuity is a thing. The Corentto scene provided a transition from Alex's arrival in London to the next day's events with the interviews and hospital visit.

Also, I found the look on Alex's face adorable when he took a big bite of ice cream and then started talking with his mouth full.

[quote]The editing is already iffy - like after the polo match, they're suddenly in France? What? Henry asked if Alex wants to eat, so they went to France from Windsor where the polo match was for coffee?

There was apparently a lot of stuff cut from the polo scene as well. Alex and Bea first met there.

There's a polo scene in the book, but it actually takes place in Connecticut.

[quote]The editing is already iffy - like after the polo match, they're suddenly in France? What? Henry asked if Alex wants to eat, so they went to France from Windsor where the polo match was for coffee?

I assumed I'd made a mistake thinking the polo match was in England—that it was in France instead.

[quote]There's a polo scene in the book, but it actually takes place in Connecticut.

The book polo scene in the tack room is a lot sexier than what happened in the movie - and McQuiston is not a particularly good writer, so that says a lot.

Wasn't the Polo match in Uruguay?

[quote]The book polo scene in the tack room is a lot sexier than what happened in the movie - and McQuiston is not a particularly good writer, so that says a lot.

The book also had an added element of urgency because this was like the only private time Henry and Alex were going to get for a while, and they only had an hour.

[quote]The book also had an added element of urgency because this was like the only private time Henry and Alex were going to get for a while, and they only had an hour.

Overall, that's the biggest problem with the movie - it lacks any dramatic tension. Even the big crisis of being outed doesn't build. It goes from Alex getting on a plane to Henry waking up and finding out the emails had been revealed.

I will concede that if you're paying very close attention, you know that the reporter did it because at the prime minister's dinner right before Henry arrives, he tells Alex that he read the Texas memo - so somehow he got his hands on a confidential memo suggesting that the emails are not as secure as one would expect. Combined with seeing Henry at the DNC, you know the guy is going to go snooping, not to mention he's a jealous queen who was into Alex.

And there's not even comeuppance for him. In the book, it's a leak from the Republican candidate's campaign, and we see him defeated in the election and outed as a sex pest (and bear in mind he's kind of a Mitt Romney analog). Nothing really happens to the Politico guy.

Deleted scene

In the sequel Steve Grant can be the older Alex

Really wish this had been a series so they could have expanded on some things and had some more character development.

Really wish I could smell their pits after sex.

r432 Agreed, but it would have to be three or four episodes at the most. We've seen how gay shows with more episodes than that bomb in the ratings, which then only discourages execs to greenlight more of them.

[quote][R432] Agreed, but it would have to be three or four episodes at the most. We've seen how gay shows with more episodes than that bomb in the ratings, which then only discourages execs to greenlight more of them.

With streaming, they're making a lot more use of "limited" series. I don't think they've figured out how to use them, except as part of franchises, like Marvel and Star Wars. The economics of a 6-part miniseries that runs with 42 minute episodes must not work, even in streaming.

Meh.

This wouldn't work as a mini-series, in my view. If the woman who wrote it in the first place was interested in subtlety and 'real' people, she wouldn't have made a British Prince and an American First Son her primary characters.

It was absolutely fine as what it was - gay Hallmark. And it's doing very well, so kudos to them all. I'm grateful for the introduction to TZP.

I know that some of you disagree but that's the point of this place, after all.

[quote]I know that some of you disagree but that's the point of this place, after all.

Obviously didn't get the memo.

The point of this place is pointless bitchery - it's in the tag line.

That tack room scene at the polo match was very relatable

I finally figured out why some of the kissing scenes seem so awkward.

Whenever they grasp or hug each other while kissing, they both only use their hands to hold the other person. They hold each other's faces or one puts his hands on the others torso or grasps the waiste.

They never wrap their arms around the other's body in full body hug. Whenever you see people passionately kissing, they grab on to the other person with both arms and hold them close. They never do this. It's almost like they use their hands to hold the other person at a distance. Even in the red room scene when Alex has Henry against a wall, leaning on a table with his leg up, there seems to be a respectful distance between them. They never grind into each other like you'd expect two horny guys to do.

Straight-guy kissing. What do you expect?

R440 Choreographed by the Intimacy Coordinator. Like Sister Mary Peter with the ruler at the joint St Ignatius/Marymount dance: "six inches --- stay six inches apart!!"

R440 that's right it was the intimacy coordinator showing them how it works, LOL! As if Taylor needs instruction. At least in Love, Victor when they kissed the reached for one another's asses and were lifting up t-shirts. I vividly remember one scene at Benji's house. They were supposed to be studying but they were making out and Benji's trying (very successfully,) to unzip VIctor's pants. He went straight for the crotch, when his dad walked in to tell them to come and get some of mom's pie. Victor had to grab an afghan to drape it over his lap, and Benji's dad wanted to talk about how grandma made that for Benji. It was a fun scene.

Going back a bit:

[quote]Speaking of, the Aristotle and Dante movie releases theatrically in September. The fabulous diva playing someone's mom is Eva Longoria in this case.

Holy shit VOTN! I had no idea it was being made into a movie! This is FUCKING AWESOME!!!

[quote]I remember Looking had a scene of Jonathan Groff douching.

I was about to reply with the same thing, though "Looking" isn't a romcom per se (plus it was a continuing series). Still, I thought it covered the topic well, along with ones like "bottom shame" that don't get discussed enough.

[quote]There was no need to deal with the whole/hole question of douching because Henry is a bottom and he's the one who initiated sex.

I think you might wanna think back to your own first times fucking or getting fucked. Did you have *any* idea you needed to douche, or do anything other than cleaning your hole's periphery? Even if you've watched a lot of internet porn, they almost never show any of the necessary prep work, plus porn's even more extreme considering all the anal waxing & bleaching often required.

[quote]Alex is from TX but while Uma Thurman and Clifton Collins Jr. manage regional accents of varying quality, Perez can't be bothered to try.

Sorry, but I'm also from Texas, and it's entirely normal for kids of parents with accents to have none themselves. If anything it's unrealistic that even *Uma* had one: she's around my age, and I don't know anyone who has a discernible accent. Nowadays it's mostly older people (70-and-up) and rural folks who have twangs, and Uma's character was neither (nor was Clifton's). Really, this is true in most of the US: people basically have "American accents" stemming from watching so much TV featuring characters without specific accents.

[quote]The guys are gorgeous and their characters fall in monogamous love immediately after penetration. Not surprising it’s a hit at all since that’s exactly the kind of story that will bring in a big straight female audience.

Well, it was written by a female author (and a lesbian at that), so I'd say that was definitely a factor. Also, not to quibble, but they were obviously head over heels with one another well before getting to any actual fucking. It's not like they fucked and suddenly "knew" they were in love, though I know this is how a bizarrely large number of frauen seem to think it should work.

[quote]The editing is already iffy - like after the polo match, they're suddenly in France? What? Henry asked if Alex wants to eat, so they went to France from Windsor where the polo match was for coffee?

It's a two-hour trip to Paris from London on the Eurostar. Not *that* big a deal. And if y'all want to see more of the deleted scenes, fucking let Amazon know already! (It's not like director's cuts are in any way unusual, at least for theatrical releases.)

[quote]Overall, that's the biggest problem with the movie - it lacks any dramatic tension.

What, seriously?? Alex gets outed shortly before Election Day, and TEXAS is the main state up for grabs. I think the notion of his mother losing to a Republican asshole solely because he's bi is *very* dramatic! As for Henry: yes, anything and everything involving the Royal Family is ridiculously overheated, but anyone who recalls "Megxit" knows how dramatic almost anything is for a British prince, even "the spare."

[quote]I will concede that if you're paying very close attention, you know that the reporter did it because at the prime minister's dinner right before Henry arrives, he tells Alex that he read the Texas memo - so somehow he got his hands on a confidential memo suggesting that the emails are not as secure as one would expect.

Interesting comment about paying attention, since you missed several key facts. An anonymous person – one never revealed in the movie – hacked into one of their phones, downloaded all of their emails to each other, and posted it all on Reddit. The reporter guy was the first one to *write* about it in the media, but there's no suggestion that he was the one who did the leaking (and in the book it was the result of oppo research). Considering the extent to which the British media has ACTUALLY hacked the phones of both royals and celebrities in general – this was a big issue in the News of the World scandal a decade ago – this is 100% believable.

[quote]Even in the red room scene when Alex has Henry against a wall, leaning on a table with his leg up, there seems to be a respectful distance between them.

How about the bedroom scene, when they're inches apart for close to a minute as Alex gently penetrates Henry's vise-like sphincter, en route to hitting his prostate and creating a royal explosion?

R446 I don't think anyone would challenge the situations as you describe them. IMO that's the point; yes the facts, the set up, is that Alex is outed shortly before the election and Henry is dealing with fall out too because of their leaked emails. But the director leached all the tension out of the situation.It was almost anti-climactic. I don't know if it was the pacing or what. I think their crisis could have been more...critical.

[quote]Holy shit VOTN! I had no idea it was being made into a movie! This is FUCKING AWESOME!!!

You can thank Lin-Manuel Miranda (who also narrates the audiobook for the original and its sequel) and Kyra Sedgwick, who were both producers.

Excuse me if I missed this but are both actors straight? They seemed fairly comfortable with it.

R449 Nicholas has said he's straight in interviews R449 but may not be. Taylor hasn't said anything but has a boyfriend/husband named Garrett who he scrubbed after getting cast in the Kissing Booth movies

R450 I know it's stupid to speculate but I'm kind of hoping Nick is at least bi, but I guess we have to take his word for it. I'm not one of those guys who objects if someone wants to stay in the closet, but lying about it is not cool.

I think Richard Madden's response to the question was fine: "I keep my personal life private", although that's not helping him too much now that Froy is out and about. We really don't have a right to know about the personal lives of actors.

[quote]We really don't have a right to know about the personal lives of actors.

Yes and no.

There is a certain amount of invasion of privacy that any person should expect to have - part of creating a fandom that supports you in your projects is that people are so interested in you that they want to know everything they can about you.

You are plain and simply not going to be a big box office draw if you don't have a fan base. Few people are such good actors that people are only interested in their acting and not their personal lives.

Also, if YOU put your personal life out there, then you have to accept that people will dig further.

"I keep my personal life personal" is a lame excuse. So many people have give excellent responses over the years without admitting or denying anything.

As a rom com entertainment it’s fine. I enjoyed it. This ain’t Chekhov gang. Lighten up. And a movie like this could never be made 25 years ago although Making Love came close. In this the Presidents family and friends are totally ok with gay. That is what separates this film from Making Love.

[quote]As a rom com entertainment it’s fine.

It is fine.

But, a bit more...something...and it could have been more than fine. Clueless, Ten Things I Hate About You, and Legally Blonde were light fluff rom/coms that ended up being more than fine.

I think folks see a missed opportunity and regret that they couldn't do more since they got so much right.

[quote] So many people have give excellent responses over the years without admitting or denying anything.

Examples?

R453 Time flies, old man. Making Love was over 40 years ago, not 25.

[quote]I know it's stupid to speculate but I'm kind of hoping Nick is at least bi, but I guess we have to take his word for it.

Just out of curiosity, are there any queer celebrities – with the obvious exception of Kit Connor, but I guess also Nico Tortorella – who've specifically come out as bi versus gay, queer or nonbinary in the past couple of years? That said, both Nicholas & Taylor have done a remarkably good job of keeping any mention of their love lives out of the media / away from crazy-ass stans. I know about the Garrett rumors, but there's really not much to them IMO.

[quote]But, a bit more...something...and it could have been more than fine. Clueless, Ten Things I Hate About You, and Legally Blonde were light fluff rom/coms that ended up being more than fine.

One major difference: the first two are modernized versions of classics! "Clueless" is an updated "Emma" from Jane Austen, and "10 Things..." is based on "The Taming of the Shrew." Matthew Lopez had to work with the material as it existed: people who've read the book are already pissed that they had to cut so much material from it, and making major *changes* to the events left mostly intact would've only further alienated the fans, though I agree it would've made for a better cinematic depiction.

I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the movie has a sequel quickly greenlit, and since thankfully there's no sequel novel – just the one scene set in a future where Henry & Alex are living together in Brooklyn and possibly getting married – perhaps they could use the opportunity to have a romcom with a bit more substance to it.

R457

Kit Connor felt forced to state his sexual orientation because of sm bullshit. Sucked.

[quote]One major difference: the first two are modernized versions of classics! "Clueless" is an updated "Emma" from Jane Austen, and "10 Things..." is based on "The Taming of the Shrew." Matthew Lopez had to work with the material as it existed: people who've read the book are already pissed that they had to cut so much material from it, and making major *changes* to the events left mostly intact would've only further alienated the fans, though I agree it would've made for a better cinematic depiction.

While I certainly concede the point that the source material for two of those were from masterpieces of literature, it's quite possible to have a horrible adaptation of Austen - as the Dakota Johnson Persuasion proves.

I don't necessarily think they would need to change much more of the plot or characters (I actually think that the ones they cut and streamlined made perfect sense). Rather than reductive, I think they could have added some scenes, adjusted the speed of beats and length of scenes to modify pacing, fixed some of the weird editing and continuity, and would have produced a much better movie.

They actually should have included more Nora and Alex interaction to expand HIS characterization, as well as Bea Henry for the same purpose. Also, it needed at least one Percy/Henry scene. I know they wanted to start right with the action with the cake, but the start was too abrupt.

Script Writing 101 says that you need to show what life is like for the characters before the inciting incident - the cake - to make the incident more impactful. We see Elle (using the non-Austen example) in her natural habitat before her application and acceptance to Harvard. If we had just started her first day at Harvard or even her acceptance, it wouldn't have felt the same. This movie started with her first day at Harvard.

Finally, as lovers, there is no try/fail cycle to ramp up tension. Sure, they flirt, but there needed to be more than a bit of ghosting before the prime minister's dinner. Rom/coms always benefit from just a bit of will they/won't they even for the nominal tension when when know they eventually (as they always do in rom/coms) will.

While many used to - & some still do - claim bisexuality as a mere placeholder, I wonder if now some, like Kit Connor, do so only to ward off attacks for being straight & playing a gay character.

[quote]While many used to - & some still do - claim bisexuality as a mere placeholder, I wonder if now some, like Kit Connor, do so only to ward off attacks for being straight & playing a gay character.

While I believe that some bisexual people exist, in most instances, it's the last offramp before gayville for people who just can't quite deal - although I do also think that announcing you're bisexual, non-binary, and "queer" is not merely a way to tap into the current social pressures, as you note.

R460 thank you. You make an excellent case for improving the movie. I agree .

R460, I don't really disagree with anything you said, but I'm curious how you'd suggest fitting in all of the above into the movie – in part because it'd need to be more like a full-length series to incorporate all of it. And fair point about the lack of a try/fail cycle. I know it's not gay, but this was one of the reasons I loved "Ordinary People" with Paul Mescal: even though the duo seems made for each other, there's ALWAYS something that turns their tries into failures.

Btw I can't find the mention of it, but the director said he cut some scenes, trimmed a few others and added at least one based on reactions from test screenings. That was apparently the reason the scene cut by Amazon and then posted a couple of days ago was axed – point being that the scenes that are (and aren't) there were included (or not) for a reason.

[quote]That was apparently the reason the scene cut by Amazon and then posted a couple of days ago was axed – point being that the scenes that are (and aren't) there were included (or not) for a reason.

Yes, but that's just it. The reason is based on an already faulty foundation.

For example, I can see where the Cornetto scene they released might have slowed down the story. BUT, it could also be that it's the stuff before and after that were the problem. The easy (and least creative and likely less expensive) solution was to cut the scene. However, I'd argue that the scene did much more for the story and character development than a bunch of the other stuff they did include. Not that I'm trying to save that particular scene, but the pacing problem they were trying to solve is from the scenes leading in and out of that scene, not that scene itself. That scene is actually one of the better ones because it also does what I noted by changing the rythym of the beats within the scene, thus providing a contrast which was MUCH needed.

Scenes with Zahra changed up the rythym within scenes, as well, because of that actress's delivery and comic timing. Compare the zip of her scene at the beginning when she tells Alex he has to go back to London and the scene where she finds Henry in the hotel with other scenes. There is a good comedic rythym to her that the others in the scene match which is different from most of the other scenes. Not that every scene should be like that. It would get exhausting watching that scene after scene. The key is changing up to keep the audience off guard, ramp up tension, and keep the audience engaged about what's going to happen next.

[quote]I loved "Ordinary People" with Paul Mescal

Buck would never...hell,[bold] Conrad[/bold] would never...

Now you've just gone a bit too far, PaulMescalTroll.

If Taylor is truly gay my mussy is wet, ripe and ready to go

[quote] If Taylor is truly gay my mussy is wet, ripe and ready to go

Let's hope he would avoid fucking any gay man who used the term "mussy".

The NYT collapse is complete:

It's defending Uma's accent.

Read the book over the weekend. Call me a Philistine, but I actually prefer the film.

Well, the film is a lot shorter.

[quote]Well, the film is a lot shorter.

It took you more than 2hrs to read that book?

^^^ Yes. I had to stop every 10 pages or so to roll my eyes.

[quote]^^^ Yes. I had to stop every 10 pages or so to roll my eyes.

Yes, I can see that.

R469, that article is fucking PRICELESS. Leave it to the queen on The Times's showbiz beat to completely miss the fact that a "Southern drawl" is not the same thing as a Texan twang, or even all that close to it.

OTOH he has a point here (albeit one that induced me to clutch my pearls and exclaim "Mary!"): "And though President Thurman’s hot gay son is hesitant to come out to her, that didn’t really track for me: How can you fear homophobia from a woman who once did a five-episode arc on 'Smash'?"

One more. I just did a literal spit-take.

"To me, it’s far more embarrassing that “Red, White & Royal Blue” rips a page from Ryan Murphy’s handbook and forces Thurman to drawl about Truvada and bottoming just so the moment can go viral on Gay Twitter."

The movie has no "legs." It came out, people were excited, everyone watched it some multiple times, and in a couple of weeks or so., no one will be talking about it. There are no memorable scenes or dialogue to be quoted or replayed. It's a well executed, fluffy piece of nothing that had everyone excited to see to guys fucking.

[quote]The movie has no "legs." It came out, people were excited, everyone watched it some multiple times, and in a couple of weeks or so., no one will be talking about it.

It's still at #7 after having been #1.

R478 it's a shooting star. It's been out less than 2 weeks and dropping.

[quote][R478] it's a shooting star. It's been out less than 2 weeks and dropping.

I'm not suggesting it's Titanic or anything.

I think the stans will go for a few more weeks. The discussion on reddit is, ahem, "instense." Those folks are a bit overwrought.

[quote]The movie has no "legs." It came out, people were excited, everyone watched it some multiple times, and in a couple of weeks or so., no one will be talking about>

So like most things? In general something comes out, makes a splash, and then people move on.

Particularly when you don't have the actors going around the doing media to keep drumming up discussion.

I'm a 16 yo girl trapped in the body of a 62 yo man. I cried like a baby at this scene.

Me, too, R482.

People appear to love the museum dance scene. It is a nice scene.

Interestingly, the lighting is low because the V&A Museum wouldn't let the film crew use any additional lights beyond what was already at the museum. The movie lucked out because the lighting adds a lot of atmosphere to the scene.

[quote]People appear to love the museum dance scene.

I love gay slow dancing scenes. One of my two favorite scenes in QAF was when Brian showed up at Justin's senior prom, and they slow danced to "Save the Last Dance for Me." The tears would not stop running down my cheeks.

Loved their slow dance and I loved the song.

Roman Holiday + Will & Grace + Bel Ami = Red, White & Royal Blue

I like all of those things, yet not RWRB.

I haven't seen Roman Holiday in years.

I wonder if I can find it streaming for free on one of the silly number of subscriptions I have.

It's on Kanopy R489

R488 Contrarians are a bore.

Nicholas Galitzine made a movie with Luke Perry.

I have to say that Galitizine is a better actor than I thought given the variety of roles he's done.

He's like one really good role from breaking out. I don't think RWRB is it, but it seems like he's very close. I wonder how good his movie with AnnE will be.

Galitzine is certainly a better actor than Taylor. Let's be honest, Taylor's primary talent is that he is really hot. But hey that matters in the entertainment industry.

Wow Galitzine's pillowy lips were even more outrageous in his twink years.

Wonder if Nicholas Galitzine is related to Jackie Onassis great pal designer Princess Irene Galitzine?

[quote]Wonder if Nicholas Galitzine is related to Jackie Onassis great pal designer Princess Irene Galitzine?

According to wikipedia:

[quote]Nicholas Dimitri Constantine Galitzine was born on 29 September 1994 in Hammersmith, London, England. His surname Galitzine, a gallicization of Golitsyn, has been used to claim that he is a likely descendant of the Russian princely family, House of Golitsyn.

He's never claimed such a thing, and interestingly, this text has changed several times in the past couple days.

As I read through both of their bios, it seems to me that Nicholas has had more opportunities than Taylor, and therefore more experience.

Great chemistry between the two leads.

R497 here. I think Taylor got off to a much later start than Nicholas.

[quote]I think the stans will go for a few more weeks. The discussion on reddit is, ahem, "instense." Those folks are a bit overwrought.

Y'know, I would've said the same damn thing about "Heartstopper" and DLers when it came out, but 18 months later our overwrought resident HS stans are still filling an entire thread every day or two, despite almost nothing actually *happening* to the cast and a grand total of four hours of actual show premiering since then.

Don't be surprised if this movie has legs as well, especially if Amazon greenlights a sequel quickly (which they should).

R497, have you seen "Bottoms" yet? While, sadly, it has nothing to do with the types of bottoms most DLers go for, Nick has a small role in it (and does a perfect American accent in it).

[quote]our overwrought resident HS stans are still filling an entire thread every day or two

Better than a separate new thread five or six times a day.

R501 Saw the abysmal trailer for Bottoms apparently the title is all it has going for it.

R503 If no one ends up bottoming in that movie I'm calling them out for false advertising!

'Bottoms"... You rang.

Bitch stole my act.

[quote]Prince Henry George Edward James Fox-Mountchristen-Windsor

Nope, r505.

Prince Henry George Edward James Hanover-Stuart Fox

I'm almost positive there'll be a sequel, but I don't think it will be as successful. This one had the gimmick of a Prince hooking up with the First son. A sequel will not be as unique. It'll be 2 guys in their 20's hooking up. One wealthy and famous, the other Famous. And all the cutesy cliche's about find an apartment and living together.

Prince Henry George Edward James Hanover Stuart-Mountbottom.

R507 That was his full name in the book

R508, while I'm sure you're right about the novelty having worn off, there are numerous sequel possibilities that could be of interest. Since Alex is conveniently bi, his ex GIRLFRIEND could always pop up. Or how about Alex running for office himself? Gotta admit AOC would give Prince Henry a decent run for his money, to combine the two.

Also, the Crown is nothing BUT drama, so I'm sure there could be some sort of succession crisis, e.g. the king AND primary heir kick the bucket, leaving Britain with its first homosexual monarch!*

*First openly so, since 90% have likely enjoyed pegging.

OMG so cute! Taylor just posted a story on his IG – he's out on the town in NYC with Casey McQuiston! (can't tell where though)

Did someone post the sex scene already?

Damn, it's hot!

Do two guys really talk during sex, like in the above scene?

I don't think I ever have.

I'm usually just saying "Oh fuck yeah, harder!!!" while in the throes of getting my ass pounded.

Having a black woman prime minister of the UK is hilarious. A woman president of the US is not much of a fantasy, but the UK a black woman? Not happening. I get why British dislike this since they are in general more advanced than the US on gay issues, but to pretend the royal family is progressive is a non-starter. There must be a ton of royal LGBTQ+ closet types in the current adult generations. Toxic and vicious environment without a doubt.

Nicholas singing

^^^Interestingly, of the handful of songs like this that Galitzine has posted, Can't Help Falling in Love with You and a Lana Del Rey song are among them - both name checked in the movie.

Both songs have now gotten a LOT of views since folks are desperate for anything since they can't promote the movie.

Makes me wonder whether the songs might have been switched out when the producers realized that they couldn't do any promotion because of the strike.

God, he has great hair.

[quote] A woman president of the US is not much of a fantasy,

That's still pretty much fantasy at this point. The US in real life is still very sexist and quite homophobic. A real life American politician with an openly gay or bi adult child wouldn't have a chance of becoming elected or re-elected POTUS. At best in real life, it would be another Dick Cheney VP type situation.

Heartstopper Stans are mentally ill the way Twilight Stans were.

And the CMBYN fanatics.... starts with simple appreciation and then taps into deep obsession. I don't think I've ever had that kind of dopamine high from movies or performers.

Matthew Lopez is doing what he can to keep up discussion during the actor's strike. He wants to let us know that Taylor Zachary Perez called him into his trailer to have him inspect his ass before his nude scene. Also that Taylor calls him "babe"

[quote]Matthew Lopez is doing what he can to keep up discussion during the actor's strike. He wants to let us know that Taylor Zachary Perez called him into his trailer to have him inspect his ass before his nude scene. Also that Taylor calls him "babe"

Well, to be fair, Perez does have an exceptional ass worth inspecting very, very closely.

[quote] Taylor Zachary Perez called him into his trailer to have him inspect his ass before his nude scene. Also that Taylor calls him "babe"

I find that hilarious.

And it really makes me think that Taylor is a total gay baiter whore who will do anything to get (and keep) a job.

It rubs me the wrong way, to be honest.

It's kind of like "I'll do and say anything to stay on your good side. Even show my ass, and make you think I'm attracted to you." I don't like that.

Just be yourself, motherfucker.

If you're straight, then be straight.

But don't fucking gay bait. That's the lowest of the low.

[quote]Having a black woman prime minister of the UK is hilarious. A woman president of the US is not much of a fantasy, but the UK a black woman? Not happening.

One might've said the same thing about a mixed-race British / South Asian / African PM a year ago. Also an interesting remark considering Britain's first female PM was named 40+ years ago now, while the US still hasn't had a female president. (But fair point re: VP Harris.)

[quote]I get why British dislike this since they are in general more advanced than the US on gay issues, but to pretend the royal family is progressive is a non-starter.

In what way is the show's royal family "progressive"? The king DEFINITELY wanted Henry to go back to pretending everything's here and definitely NOT queer, even after they heard the rapturous crowds outside of the palace walls. (The crown may not be progressive, but obviously the British have very strong feelings about progressive issues! See, e.g., Literally Everything Related to Meghan.)

The king opting not to murder his grandson by pushing him out the window of Buckingham Palace after he greets the crowd whilst holding hands with Alex does not, in any way, mean that the family has accepted Henry being gay. (And keep in mind that the original book was published during the Trump years, and assumed a fantasy scenario that President Uma won the 2016 election. The period also included the decidedly *not* fantasy exit of Harry & Meghan from the royal family, which happened despite the Windsors clearly despising the idea.)

Also, the British are "more advanced" on gay issues? Such as? The US began legalizing marriage equality over a decade before Britain did, as did dozens of other nations. (And really, dear, no one says "gay issues" anymore: it's now "queer issues." Do try to keep up.) Britain's fallen appallingly behind most of the rest of Europe due to its idiotic Brexit move, and much like NYC, it's only "welcoming" to newcomers who happen to be trustafarians of some sort.

[quote]Also, the British are "more advanced" on gay issues? Such as? The US began legalizing marriage equality over a decade before Britain did, as did dozens of other nations.

True, but the British are also not in the process of making it illegal again, like the US, are they?

[quote]And really, dear, no one says "gay issues" anymore: it's now "queer issues." Do try to keep up.

^^^I'm with Lucille.

OK in the sequel,Henry and Alex are engaged and planning a wedding for next year. Henry's mother gets killed in a plane crash and his grandfather tells him he cannot get married because he is now the heir. Grandpapa King is in the hospital with a heart issue and they can't operate because of his age.

Four things to know about Taylor!

1. "Throughout his childhood and high school, he swam competitively, and almost swam at the collegiate level until he decided to go to UCLA, where he studied history and Spanish." As Aunt Becky & Lynette Scavo can attest, getting into UCLA is hard! (But at least Taylor kept that hard-ass bod.)

2. He's one of eight siblings – and one of his sisters apparently just passed away this summer, for unspecified reasons. :-(

3. He's outdoorsy, though not quite as much as he thinks – hiking Kilimanjaro isn't quite the same as Everest – but quite adept at the pronoun game: "Unsurprisingly because of his love for the outdoors, his type, he says, is someone who is outdoorsy like him: 'I love adventurous people, someone that says yes all the time. I paddle board and hike and surf, so I feel like my friends are my type. I’m a huge proponent of dating friends or people you’ve had heart-to-hearts with before you become intimate. Emotional intimacy is way more important to me than sexual intimacy.'"

4. Latinx representation is important to him, and I'm kinda wondering if this falls into "dialing the phone with a pencil" territory: "'For me growing up, [the movie] Selena was my family’s cultural enjoyment. We watched it probably once, twice a month, even if it was just in the background. We just loved it, loved it. Selena [Quintanilla] always reminded me of my mom because I never really saw women of color that looked like her on television,' he told ET. 'And honestly I think the nearest one next was Eva Longoria on Desperate Housewives. That was the next strong, leading, Latina woman that we watched in the household.'"

To be clear, I'm from Texas, and Selena is basically royalty around here, but OTOH I don't know even a single *straight* male Latino stan of hers. And I know he's a Millennial, but Eva Longoria sure as fuck wasn't the first or only strong leading Latina on TV! (Was he watching DH to see Andrew getting it on with another dude in Bree's pool?)

What are our thoughts about these revelations?

[quote]OK in the sequel,Henry and Alex are engaged and planning a wedding for next year. Henry's mother gets killed in a plane crash and his grandfather tells him he cannot get married because he is now the heir. Grandpapa King is in the hospital with a heart issue and they can't operate because of his age.

Henry has an older brother who is the heir after their mother - it was his wedding at which the cake incident happened that started the whole thing.

[quote] Latinx representation is important to him

You lost me at Latinx.

That's not a word.

It's meaningless.

[quote]Henry has an older brother who is the heir after their mother - it was his wedding at which the cake incident happened that started the whole thing.

I know. My point is that Henry is still heir to the throne if anything happens to his brother. (Even if his brother has kids, it's possible they could perish in some awful accident.) Having "the spare" assume the British monarchy would be interesting all by itself, but all the more so if it's a fictional gay prince (Henry) or real-life straight prince who despises the crown (Harry).

[quote]You lost me at Latinx.

Drama queen much? I literally quoted Town & Country exactly, and I'm not a fan of Latinx, either.

R532, all words were made up at some point.

Queerbaiter Taylor r524?

Though publicly closeted I believe the internet has decided he is very gay and in a long time relationship with Garrett Gerson.

He could be closeted due to his family. A good amount of Latino families are still very homophobic.

^^^not to mention middle eastern is in the mix, as well.

[quote] (And really, dear, no one says "gay issues" anymore: it's now "queer issues." Do try to keep up.)

Fuck you, and pretend FF.

[quote]But don't fucking gay bait. That's the lowest of the low.

Speak for yourself.

[quote]But don't fucking gay bait. That's the lowest of the low.

Speak for yourself.

His Landslide was just dreamy. Luv Nicki's petit earing. Tres Key West 1976.

Don't know about the earing but that boy has a set of Zoolander CSL!

Without the bleach job Nicholas Galitzine looks quite Slavic. Could play a young Rudolph Nureyev.

I don't like his look in r451.

I like him best styled as Prince Henry.

What is Galtzine's ethnicity? His mum is Greek and his dad is Brit of Lithuanian extraction?

He didn't get those lips from daddy who looks like a typical lipless Brit. The mother and sis are fugs. Are his smackers real? Has he had some "enhancement"?

They're real.💋

Gawd at least he didn't get mums teeth.

Prince Henry George Edward James Mountbottom-Zoolander

R543. Galatzine would be a perfect Nureyev. Can he dance? Doesn't matter they can fake it as they did in Black Swan.

How cute: Taylor wasn't sure if he should shave for his sex scene! (No, definitely *not* his face.)

“I go into Taylor's trailer — we've been making this movie for like, five, six weeks at this point — and Karen looks at Taylor and says, 'Alright, tell him what you told me,' and he goes, 'I don't know if I should shave or not,'" López explained. "I'm like, 'Your face?' and he goes, 'No, babe.' I'm like, 'Alright, well, what do you want to do about it?' He goes, 'Just look, okay?' So, I had my hair and makeup person there as the chaperone, because I didn't want my career to end before it began, and Taylor, like, lowers his pants and he's like, 'Look at my ass,' and I'm like, 'You're fine, you look great! A body itself, as it is naturally, is a gorgeous thing. I told Taylor, yeah, just bring your hairy butt to set."

Let's all take a moment to THANK JESUS PERSONALLY for Taylor getting his butt hair au naturel!

I watched the movie closely and don't remember his hairy butt. They are both physically gorgeous that's for sure.

[quote]I watched the movie closely and don't remember his hairy butt. They are both physically gorgeous that's for sure.

The scene where Zahra enters his hotel room at the DNC just before she finds Henry hiding in the wardrobe.

As she enters, Alex runs into the other room nekkid and puts on his suit pants with his very nice butt on full display.

Thank you I just rewatched it. Lightly hairy. Lovely. He probably shouldn't have buzzed his chest hair so close. He's very ripped. Nicholas is softer.

I just watched "Purple Hearts" to see how Nicholas played a straight guy. My conclusion is that I don't think I can look at him objectively.

The actress in Purple Hearts didn't do so well with a very badly written character. Nicholas played straight by just being neutral. I think he's fine. He's better looking in Purple Hearts than in RW&RB.

Nicholas is going to have the career Joe Alwyn wishes he had. He's got the acting chops.

I hope Nicholas Galitzine is considered as a candidate for the next James Bond. Damn he would be good.

R558 I concluded that he's unique as an actor. He has some sort of indecipherable quality that I can't put my finger on.

R558 The name is Bottom... James Bottom

He seems still a bit too young to be Bond. Maybe in 5 years.

R559 are you referring to his strikingly carnal blow job lips?

What is the cinematic purpose of the key hitting the prince's face every two seconds in that intimate scene?

[quote]What is the cinematic purpose of the key hitting the prince's face every two seconds in that intimate scene?

Inexperienced blocking and staging by a first time movie director?

It's supposed to represent the dick going into the hole and possibly unlocking the second door, d'oh. Have you never had anal? Because when it's amazing, it feels just like some untold paradise is being unlocked inside you.

It gives me hands free orgasms

Gosh, this show's very premise is embarrassingly juvenile and tacky. However, I can imagine lots of fat women with piercings and multi-coloured hair, furiously masturbating to this while they imagine themselves joining in on the action and turning both men straight with the power of their cellulite.

Taylor Zakhar-Perez aka Alex Claremont-Diaz sporting a ridiculously fake penis with pubes that look like astro turf😂

R563/ R564 Pretentious old kweens droning on like it's the bloody Battleship Potemkin. 😂

R567 Gosh! Calm down hon. This is Princess Dairies meets Bel Ami. Enjoy it for the eye candy it is. If you can see it with your cataracts.

Perhaps I need a high def TV but this arse doesn't look hairy.

^ It's been decades since the fraus and septuagenarians on DL have seen a hairy ass.

Gather the book (written by a dyke) had a rabid teen girl/frau following of shippers. Film had a built in audience. No doubt with that desirable base there will be a sequel.

Based on the way Galitzine is not filling out those polo pants he's a natural bottom.

[quote][R563]/ [R564] Pretentious old kweens droning on like it's the bloody Battleship Potemkin.

Settle down, Mary.

It's stunning to me that fewer and fewer folks on DL can follow the joke anymore.

^ The little bitch will definitely need a fake cock if he plays moi.

R575 We follow you Agnes. Difference without distinction.

[quote][R575] We follow you Agnes. Difference without distinction.

Cryeth the guy whining about pretention.

Mary.

[quote]Cryeth the guy whining about pretention.

Spelleth the guy incorrectly the word "pretension."

Here's a Part 2 thread, should the need arise.

[Quote] I hope Nicholas Galitzine is considered as a candidate for the next James Bond. Damn he would be good.

He who lives upon hope dies fasting

These guys did have chemistry. Though Nicholas Galitzine was the better actor. Given that it was a Romcom he gave a fairly nuanced performance as Prince Henry. Taylor Zakhar-Perez was weak. With the heavy mascara and the eye popping in some scenes I was flashing back to...

I think he has double eyelashes. Like Elizabeth Taylor and Nestor Carbonell

More of a persona thing, R562, but not discounting those lips.

Maybe he just has a unique charisma. I don't know.

Maybe I just really want to suck him off.

Taylor wasn't anywhere near that queeny, though, R582. There were moments when it sort of seemed he was gayish (not a criticism or homophobic)

[quote] —Theo James

or Dickie Madden

[quote] Based on the way Galitzine is not filling out those polo pants he's a natural bottom.

I was really trying to avoid being negative about the beautiful boy by pointing out that he doesn't look well hung. But you never know. I think we've all seen disappointingly small softies swell up quite nicely to an impressive size.

R567, this thread's nearly maxed out. If you think frauen are the only people interested in this movie, you are SEVERELY mistaken.

[quote]Gather the book (written by a dyke) had a rabid teen girl/frau following of shippers. Film had a built in audience. No doubt with that desirable base there will be a sequel.

It's already been written! Here's the synopsis: "Now that they're out to the world, Alex and Prince Henry want nothing more but to escape it. The paparazzi. The hysterical fangurls, and now fanbois, lined up by the hundreds outside of Alex's house, throwing their Calvin Klein panties at the windows. Predatory old queens like Bryan Singer trying to get into their pants, using any means necessary – even drugs. Flummoxed and frightened, they drive to a remote part of the Pacific Northwest, where they happen to meet a lovelorn, and almost bizarrely hot, werewolf named Jacob..."

Just watched it...it's a likeable puff piece...just a puff piece. Taylor has a nice deep voice and Nicholas was okay in Purple Hearts with the material he was given.

Galitzine continues his specialization of playing aristocratic homos in his new miniseries George and Mary. He plays the title character of George Villiers Duke of Buckingham the lover of King James I. In fact, the romance between the two is referenced in the Red, White, & Royal Blue novel, in the book the fictional Prince Henry writes, "I feel that James I, who fell madly in love with a very fit and exceptionally dim knight at a tilting match and immediately made him a gentleman of the bedchamber (a real title), would take mercy upon my particular plight." In a fun turn of events, actor Nicholas Galitzine is set to star as both Henry in Red, White, and Royal Blue and as the "very fit knight," George, Duke of Buckingham. Ruffles and bottoms indeed.

He's certainly moving up in the world.

Julianne Moore stars as Mary Villiers, Countess of Buckingham

Nicholas Galitzine stars as George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham

Tony Curran as King James I

Laurie Davidson as Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset

Trine Dyrholm as Queen Anne

Ruffles and Buggery. I'm there.

Bitch stole my act.

Can't see him being any worse then Chalamet in Henry V. Rat boy just does not have the gravitas to play period. Galitzine has the voice and the chops. Looking forward to him in this mini series.

Ok with Nicholas Galitzine as George just can't see Taylor Zakhar Perez as Mary. Sorry.

Bit of advice. Stick to the ruffles & buggery Nicki. If they offer you a pair of tights run don't walk.

This guy is at the same point Timotee was after CMBYN all the teenage girls and freaky fraus and old pervs are staning him. In a couple of years he'll be discarded and a new "it" twink will come up. That's the way the" business" works.

Those lips look fake.

They should develop a spin-off series.

In conclusion, I'd lick both their shitters.