The Boys In The Band (1970) vs The Boys In The Band (2020)… which do you prefer?

It's a blue whale! Oh, Mary, don't ask!

Comparison is the thief of joy.

They both have their charms, but — and I’m sure many will disagree — but I liked Zach Quinto’s interpretation of his character better than Leonard Frey’s and it changes the dynamic of the piece. That character was based on Mart Crowley’s real best friend and in the 2020 version I do believe Harold and Michael are BFFs. In the 1970 version Harold is a toxic monster.

Because Harold was a monster but they still loved him.

I always found Bernard and Larry to be very attractive in the original.

I don't like most of the cast of the remake, so my vote is for the original.

I don’t like the flashbacks of the remake.

They tried to tone down the bitterness in the 2020 version by showing scenes of friendship (with no dialogue) and I felt it didn't work. Yes, the 1970 version made gay men look like sad damaged people incapable of relationships but I suspect that in 1968 (when the play was written) that would have been true fore a great many gay men given the climate of the time. Yes, it aged poorly and it's nice to imagine that most gay men in the 1960s were happy, strong and mentally healthy... but I have doubts.

The play was very honest of the times

I was listening to a podcast and some dumb millenial on it said he liked the 2nd one more because it "moved faster" or something...I swear that generation gets antsy if they arent overstimulated for one nanosecond..

Anyway, the 70s one for sure, the grittiness of old NYC and Michael's apartment (the second one looks far too polished) but, ESPECIALLY the performances blow the new one out of the water. The only one that stood out for me in the new one was the guy that played Bernard. He was really good.

That said, I did like a couple of the new touches in the new one....I didn't mind the outro where they showed each character doing their thing, for instance. But it lacks the fire and grit the og one has, which tends to happen in remakes.

Larry was a hottie in the OG

Ok it's funny with Harold because I watched the original one about 12 years ago for the 1st time and I remember thinking Harold was the same, super toxic and mean. I watched it again a couple of years ago and, I have to say, idk where I got that. "Hally" is probably one of the least toxic, healthiest characters in the film. He is self aware, accepts who he is, he may have some self loathing issues but he at least acknowledges them, from the beginning he starts waming Michael about drinking too much and becoming an asshole, he doesn't insult or really mock anyone like most in the play do, he ops out of playing Michael's game because he knows it's toxic as fuck and warns the others not too (I love how he spends the game leafing through a Joan Crawford book lol). Yes, he delivers that painful monologue to Michael in the end but it's actually done with mercy and I think, with good intentions.

So yeah, its weird how your point if view can change. I consider him probably one of the most human and humane characters, and wise too.

The original because those actors stuck their necks out by being outwardly gay in a movie in 1970 that would label them for the rest of their careers when playing gay was career suicide. The remake featured a bunch of openly gay out queer boys who were playing a part they couldn't possibly relate to as they were fabulously gay and out when it is fashionable and they can still work. Also the remake felt like a high school play

“ Actor Reuben Greene, who plays Bernard, refuses to discuss this film, or have contact with his cast mates or the crew. As of 2015, he lives in virtual anonymity.”

I wonder what happened that caused him to be this way.

Michael was the real toxic one.

Exactly R15, exactly

R14 I think he didn’t want to be publicly labeled as gay, for whatever reason. Mart himself seemed unclear on whether Reuben was gay or not, in interviews.

[quote]some dumb millenial

Pot, meet kettle.

I like that the original play cast were all cast for the film version. That rarely happens.

I wish I could see the 2002 sequel play that was in San Francisco, also written by Matt Crowley.

I heard its awful R20...idk if I'd want to.

The wildest thing to me is that William Friedkin said, of his version, that he believed Alan is straight. I think that always biased me against the 1970 version because it’s SUCH a misreading of the text. There’s no way Alan is straight! To be fair I don’t think the actor was playing it that way…his performance screamed repressed gay.

R20 yeah…see if you can find a copy of the sequel script to read before you say that. It’s pretty dreadful, I think Mart wrote it at a bad time in his life.

R22 Friedkin told the actor to play it differently every night. He wanted it to be ambiguous.

Idk if he was gay but repressed, for sure. I definitely think he had left his wife...the reasons, who knows

Alan comes off angry and repressed but not necessarily gay. It’s a very ambiguous portrayal and I think it was done that way on purpose.

It's great that the original cast got to make the movie but, let's be honest, who else were they going to cast? Burt Reynolds? James Caan? Clint Eastwood? I'm sure no Hollywood agent would even consider allowing their client to do it.

R26 open castings in NYC. Probably would attract the same people who auditioned for the play.

R26 This is true. Heck, a lot of the play actors’ agents told them not to do it

R13 is right. It's a period piece (it already was a bit dated post-Stonewall when it was released) and the 2020 cast doesn't understand the period. The stage actors had been playing it every night and lived through the period--even the straight actors understood what they were playing.

Quinto has a certain amount of presence but he's not a leading man, esp. on film. I've never seen him in anything where he made me care about the character he was playing.

Leonard Frey is brilliant. The following year he got an Oscar nomination for Fiddler and had a nice career after that so playing a gay character didn't seem to hurt his career.

R29 it wasn’t dated in 1970.

R30 I don’t think he acknowledged it much back then. Most didn’t know he was in it. The movie was a financial disaster that no one acknowledges

[quote]Leonard Frey is brilliant. The following year he got an Oscar nomination for Fiddler and had a nice career after that so playing a gay character didn't seem to hurt his career.

That is a great point. I suspect it may not have hurt his career simply because TBITB didn't create tremendous buzz in mainstream audiences. Some newspapers refused to run ads for it and I imagine mainstream audiences in 1970 were hesitant to attend. The Boys in the Band was a film starring a bunch of unknowns and I imagine few people connected the dots between the Leonard Frey in the Boys in the Band and Leonard Frey in Fiddler.

[quote] it wasn’t dated in 1970.

Indeed. Stonewall didn't change everything overnight.

It’s still not dated. The topic of gays being unhappy and not having healthy relationships is still very much relevant. Many Gays now still don’t have good relationships or a fucked up view of what a relationship is. All they care about is looks and your body now, and the majority of them seem to be into sex work, just like many gays back then. It’s just now it’s been normalized to do it and they can do it from the comfort of their apartment and post it online instead of selling it on the street or to a porn studio.

I do think for all it's show of toxicity, they do showcase a loving couple that, while obviously has it's problems, is healthy and loving enough that they manage to come to an understanding and compromise and end up reconciling. The play/film gets alot of heat for only being negative but it's not at all just that. Hank and Larry's relationship arc in the play/film is quite touching actually.

And realistic. Again, still very common in the gay community for the gays to struggle with monogamy, even when one wants it.

It’s sad the actor who played Cowboy in the original ended up addicted to drugs after filming the movie and went back into being a prostitute hustler, leading him to get aids and dying in the 80s

^and was cared for by Cliff Gorman and his wife. Very sad.

R32, the movie was hardly a financial disaster. While it initially did not make a profit (it grossed $7m on a $5.5m budget), it was no Cleopatra.

TBITB (1970) was on TCM about a month ago. I recorded/watched it and enjoyed the arrival of Harold - the highlight of the movie for me. I actually saw the movie in the early 70's at a theater in Washington, D.C. - along Pennsylvania Ave & 21st Street. I found it depressing at the time but my most recent viewing has changed as have I. The 2020 version is of no interest to me - I really don't care for any of the actors and I doubt the film captured the grittiness of the original. Of course I am biased as I was just starting to bloom and the gay scene in D.C. in the 70's was really fun for me. To each her own I guess.

With the 1970 film I feel like I'm eavesdropping on a private party and the remake feels like a bunch of actors acting.

R39 it didn’t gross $7 million. Why are you making up numbers? Both box office mojo and IMDb have the box office listed.

It went on to earn $3.5 million in US/Canada rentals later on. But its initial box office release was a massive failure. To no one’s shock.

Andrew Rannells as Larry in the remake was terrible.

The Emory in the remake makes you love the one in the original. I hated Emory in the remake. The original was over the top and annoying but also sensitive and gentle and sweet. He just came off like a loud sassy Latina queen in the remake

For me it's a period piece with some brilliant performances....I had zero interest in the remake.

[quote] [R39] it didn’t gross $7 million. Why are you making up numbers? Both box office mojo and IMDb have the box office listed.

Sweetheart, the link you provided says the film grossed $2996. You really think that's correct?? BOM was started under 20 years ago. They don't have accurate grosses for smaller films that were released more than 50 years ago. Don't be dumb.

The reports are $3.5m in RENTALS. That means the money that was returned to the studio after the theater took its share, which back then was usually always a 50/50 split, hence the $7m gross.

[quote] It went on to earn $3.5 million in US/Canada rentals later on.

And when was that, dear? When it went on the midnight circuit after The Rocky Horror Picture Show? There was no "later on" for this film in terms of theatrical releases. We're not talking about Star Wars.

R47 it’s correct lmao. The year a website started doesn’t change the numbers that have always been available. You’re a fucking joke. FFing the Paul Mescal troll when you should be the one FFd for your lies and crimes.

I can provide links that back up the numbers. Where is your link showing it made $7 million on 1970? (it didn’t).

Really? You can prove the film only grossed three thousand dollars? Go for it, asshole. I can't wait to put you in your place.

R50 I have links. Where are yours???

And yes. It made just around $3,000 in 1970. It made its money when VHS and video stores became a thing. Welcome to REAL LIFE

Here you go, fuckface. Quotes from Daily Variety in 1970 where the film made $35000 in one theater in its first weekend. Now please fuck off this site forever, because your kind of stupidity is not wanted here.

Still waiting for your counter proof, idiot. Actually, just shove it up your ass. That's where it belongs.

Making the Boys is a fascinating documentary. Hard to find but excellent.

R53 where is the $7 million?

Where is the $2996?

I estimated $7m because other places had the RENTALS at $3.5m. Rentals are usually half the box office gross.

[quote] Making the Boys is a fascinating documentary. Hard to find but excellent.

Do you really think it's that good? I thought it was shoddily done and very cheap. And the need to shoehorn in a bunch of D-list gay "celebrities" just so he could have their names on a poster when not one of them had anything useful to say about the film was just wasted time. Most of them had never even heard of it. And he uncovered nothing that hasn't been well tread ground before. I was super disappointed.

R57 rentals isn’t box office. Where is the $7 million you claimed?

Dude, you lost. It's over. You're wrong. Give up.

Bye, now.

R60 where is the $7 million?

It earned $3.5 million over the course of 2 years in the states and Canada. It didn’t earn $7 million and didn’t earn $3k. Most people didn’t know of its existence outside major cities. Almost no one would even run its ad. But it did well with the gays and gay activists of NYC and California and Canada. Canada plays a big role in its box office.

[R20]: I saw a production of the sequel, “Men From the Boys,” in a little theater in L.A., not long after it had played at a little theater up in San Francisco, and had undergone a few changes. Essentially, the plot concerns a reunion of the surviving characters from BITB, who gather at Michael’s place after Larry’s funeral.

Michael has now been sober for some years, but is still dealing with a much younger bf, with other issues. The younger bf exists in the text, so that all the other characters can be explained to him. Hank is devastated, and not much else. And I don’t recall what’s going on with the others.

It kind of meandered nowhere.

But, according to a friend who saw it up in S.F., the version he saw had Larry’s ghost presiding over the proceedings!

Best thing about it was the evocative title.

R58 not who you responded to but while I got a mild whif of cringe when Christian Siriano was all "Um what's that??" when asked about the play/film, I enjoyed it (Carson Kressley's genuine love for the film compensated for the Christian thing). And I loved getting Larry Kramer and Edward Albee's input on it. I always wanted to know what Tennessee Williams thought of it, I know he had to have seen it.

The one thing that dissapointed me was that it was more a bio on Mart Crowley than an actual doc of the bts of the filming, which I had expected. I especially would have liked to know more about the actors. We get some bits and pieces of it but not enough.

It actually was somewhat surprising that the film didn't do better, considering it was a smash off broadway success of 1968 and a ton of A list celebs went to see it (apparently Marlene Dietrich went to see it and then took the cast out to Sardi's for dinner.

But cinema and theater are sometimes different animals I guess.

Celebs aren’t normal people. Your average NYer wasn’t going to see that play. And it was groundbreaking but wasn’t a smash success. It did well but it was also cheap to go see.

For the moron banging on about it making 3k - scroll down on your own link, idiot. That $3,000 figure was for a 2000 re-release. BOM doesn't give any numbers for the original release

R67 pretty sure we all moved past that retard.

R66 "It was cheap to see"...the fuck does that have to do anything? The fact is they were usually sold out and there were often lines several streets long to see it. The point is the play was very succesfull because alot of people went to see it and almost purely through word of mouth, and attended by people like Jackie O...if that isnt a smash success then wtf is?

R69 there was not lines blocks long to see it. That’s a lie.

r68 Well if I made as big a fool out of myself as you did, I guess I'd want to move on too.

You're the same poster who talks about gay men in the third person aren't you? Frau, huh? No wonder you couldn't admit you were wrong.

Tell that to Mart Crowley and Laurence Luckinbill who played Hank.

Troll off, fucknut.

Can we get rid of this troll?

Why has this not been turned into a musical?

Billy Porter IS musical Emory!

R70 you are wrong. R69 is right. It was a smash hit in the theater, and that’s documented in the MAKING THE BOYS documentary.

That having been said the theater-going audience in NYC is much more sophisticated than the general film-going audience in the US and success on Broadway (or off-Broadway) is not necessarily going to transfer to film. That was true then, it’s true now. There’s plenty of controversial plays that get tons of Tony noms and are the talk of their seasons, that would absolutely bomb if made into a film.

It was a HIT for what it was. It was never a contender for the big shows and had it moved to Broadway it would have died a painful death.

R77 Idk about that. If Short Eyes from Miguel Piñero (a very dark prison drama with several gay/bi characters, implied gay rape, child molesters, etc) written by an actual convict could do well on Broadway 6 years after, a play about a birthday party could have had a chance.

Though to add to that, they also made a film about the play and it also bombed.

Why didn't they use that actor who played Emmet Honeybutt?

This is on my never wanted to see remade, not planning on trying to watch it.

R75 Emory is endearing, has a sense of self depreciating humor, Porter is incapable of delivering. He is equally deep, yet shallow, fun loving and is lovable. Tall order for Porter.

^list

[quote] The one thing that dissapointed me was that it was more a bio on Mart Crowley than an actual doc of the bts of the filming, which I had expected. I especially would have liked to know more about the actors. We get some bits and pieces of it but not enough.

I'm guessing that was because Mart was still alive and so much of the cast had died, and it's definitely more compelling to watch someone talk about an experience first person than watching people chime in on things second hand. It's a shame, but I will give the director a pass on that particular aspect. I'm with you, though. I wanted to know so much more about the cast.

Was it "cheap to see" R66? Did it only gross $3000 off-Broadway, too?

Fucking dumb ass.

BITB is so tired, when you can watch this:

BITB lives and the argument over its box office gross is proof that we are still sad, deranged, petty, and probably pock marked.