“Bros,” billed as an all gay comedy, is a box office disaster.

While I did read two of the books-- Interview, and The Vampire Lestat-- it was long ago, and they had not left a very deep impression on me, with the specific details of their stories (I remember a few things). But as I'd been answering your comment about Anne Rice "rolling in her grave," in your post in which I think you were commenting on the "Wokeness," of the rewrite, thus the things you mention, like the year, seem irrelevant, to that argument; such changes could, clearly, merely be updates to make a literary work, more appealing cinematographically, not to mention, to an audience of another decade, from the one in which they were written. So putting your list of changes through that screening, leaves most credibility to your one citation of the relationship between Lestat & Louis. As I said, I can no longer recall many of the specifics, other than the basic plot. In the books, were they not lovers? I guess I would have to acknowledge that this would clearly be a change, meant to appeal to the modern audience, who you would refer to as "woke." However, it seems to me that a homoerotic element probably was present in the original, as it is not an unnatural attribute, of many vampire stories. That is, the blood sucking can often be connected with eroticism & sex; so that vampires are often depicted as slim, stylish, sophisticated, and androgenous. Perhaps Anne Rice's work even contributed to this current image?

 

I'm a gay male. Though not a practicing member.

I have heard studies that found that adult men tend to end up in social isolation and have few friends. The older they get, the worse off they are, and they tend not to pick up new friends as they age. Although they might like to.

I have also heard that men who call themselves straight do not want to pursue romantic relationships with gay men, although some might not be totally against the idea of a one-night stand, they do tend to drop gay men at the drop of a hat in the pursuit of women. Stories I have read say that gay men should avoid straight men if they are looking for a fulfilling relationship. Because none of it is to be had. It's always temporary.

 

That sounds about right. And it brings up an interesting dimension of being a gay man, which I'd never considered: are you saying that, even as "non practicing," you continue to make new male friends, on a regular basis? I have found, unless one is working with them (so forced, as it were, to see them every day, or on a regular basis), it is difficult, to make new friends. I suppose that might be different, if those new "friends," were hoping for sex to come out of the friendship.

But, to my own experience, even on this forum, for God's sake, I've had mostly guys (I assume), who I've started to hit it off with, move our conversation to private messaging, then have the other person "disappear." One of these people, to whom I'd mentioned the odd phenomenon, speculated that it was because they were afraid of intimacy, or some such.

Okay.
While I'm willing to listen, if this was merely something you had wanted to express-- I'm not sure why you are telling me all of that, so am
at a little bit at a loss, as to what you might expect, of my reply.

 

No, I don't make male friends all of the time, at least in person. I'm not attractive enough. I'm too fat and have facial hair.

Online, however, I do make male friends easily.

As far as online intimacy goes, it's always a countdown to one or the other party disappearing. Why? It's my thought that to break it off one party will leave because they don't want to interact anymore, and they aren't brave enough to keep posting in the same place as the other. I've seen this happen to other people and also to myself.

My point is that it seems pretty far-fetched that a "bros" relationship would turn romantic. It seems a bridge too far for many people.

 

Oh, is that the story line-- that one of them isn't gay? I'm not sure that's right (but couldn't be sure you're wrong, either, as I really don't know anything about the film, other than what I've read here). If that is the case, I'm surprised I haven't seen other posts, talking about the same thing. My impression had been that the romantic challenge had been because one guy was athletic and "hot," while the other was dweeby. But if this is a story of the dweeb "turning" the other to "the gay side," that is a very different film, entirely, from what I understood it to be.


Oh, BTW, I didn't mean, in most cases, that the person with whom I'd thought I'd begun a friendship, left this site, but only stopped private messaging with me. So maybe "backed off," would have been more accurate, than "disappeared."

 

I don't know anything about this film other than the trailer either, but I don't plan to see it in theaters. Maybe I will watch it if it goes to streaming.

 

In that case, I would disagree with your earlier assessment:

Friendship, I believe, can often lead to sexual desire, I personally have found, though it of course varies according to the individuals. But not at all "far-fetched," or certainly not rare, for one member, at least, in a platonic relationship, to begin having romantic feelings towards their "friend." Are you serious?

 

Yes, I've noticed the sexual desire too, but you and I are gay men. Our perspective isn't typical or indicative of the general population.

Tell me, do you also have sexual thoughts about any women friends in your life? Perhaps that would be a better perspective for you or I.

And yes I'm serious.

 

CORRECTION-- I am very much a straight man (insert your joke, here); you know what I mean: I am not gay. I thought that my asking you about the gay male experience with making male friends, in contrast to the straight one-- which I'd confirmed, held true, in my case-- had made that clear.

I had been saying, in cases when the two friends' sexualities were compatible, it seemed not unusual for at least one member of the pair, to develop romantic/sexual feelings, for the other. (I could cite the expression " friends with benefits," here, but I don't want to confuse things, since I think that situation may often be based more on just familiarity and convenience; so think, instead, of all the teen movies, with the male character in love with his best friend, female character, who has no clue, about his true feelings). Remember my initial example: When Harry Met Sally.

 

Oh, you had me going there. I assumed you were gay based on your agreement with me on men having few male friends, and talking about having people stop talking to you when you hit on them.

I'm sorry, I made a mistake.

I don't think about having sex with every male friend I make, though. More often I will just be myself and people approach me.

 

Also, just for the record, I never said anything about "hitting on," any of those with whom I'd believed I had sparked an incipient friendship.

 

Funny post. But let me ask you, have you seen the latest KFC commercial, with an Hispanic aunt, I think (my Spanish is rather rusty), saying, "You got KFC, hijo?" Then the guy tells his aunt what a good deal he got, while she thinks, "a good deal for you, but you didn't bring any home for me." Now, would you think that KFC chose those actors, in order to appeal to that market, or are they spending their money, just to "virtue signal?"

Same question, about all the McDonald's advertising, that uses black families-- to make McDonald's more money, or decision based on wanting to nobly serve some higher social purpose?

If you understand that these are business decisions, I don't know why you have trouble, translating that understanding from commercials, to t.v. shows, and to films. Either of those, takes a large investment, from many who, generally speaking, are doing it primarily, to see a return on that investment, not to change society, or lecture to, or shame anyone, or even to make a better, more equitable world.

I'm not saying that if a show has high ratings, and is well established, they don't gain some freedom, to maybe have a little bit of a social conscience, if they want. But that is a tiny minority of shows, and that is way down the line, from when they start. At the beginning, a show is just fighting to be given a chance, by a network. They are in no position to make casting or other decisions, for social engineering purposes.

There was a series, recently, in which the two stars, were overweight young women, who were occult warriors; kind of Buffy the Vampire Slayer meets My Big Fat Life, or something like that. I guarantee you, this choice was meant as a play, to gain more of the overweight viewership, in that age group, which has been growing (and growing). The thing is, people find it easier to identify, with others who look like them. So to aim to serve, under- represented demographic groups, just makes smart business sense.

Speaking of the young & overweight crowd, I just saw the first episode of a new SYFY series, called Reginald the Vampire. It is one of those shows that tries to stay fairly light (though the subject matter, is anything but) while maintaining serious dramatic interest, which can be a hard tack, for which to maintain an effective balance. The first show was likable enough, though it's too soon to know what kind of staying power it'll have. That will largely be determined, by whether viewers get personally, emotionally invested, in the main characters, the most central of which, the title character, is an early 20's, overweight guy, with a ton of student debt, working at a menial job, in love with a female coworker, who seems much too attractive for him, but who he hits it off really well with, as friends. Again, "virtue signalling," or smart business move? He is also not Caucasian, but of a somewhat indiscriminate racial composition. For some reason, I'd thought East Asian, but he could just as well be Mexican, or a blend of both-- it's not very clear, other than that he's not plain white. Once more, we have a growing demographic within the younger generation, who are mixed race. I would in no way, call the show "woke," in any sort of preachy sense. But the writers and producers will, naturally, bring their own perspective to the show-- what other option do they have? So maybe it is only a few more, ethnic writers & producers, which you are translating as the entertainment media, having a woke "agenda." The only example I can think of-- and it's not even really woke-- but before a vampire kills a guy (who was treating his girl, pretty crumby), he asks the guy if he eats a lot of meat, because the vampire had read that raises something unhealthy, in the blood: he was trying to "eat" healthy.

So what do you think? Does it sound like something you would classify as "woke?"

 

I would posit that if you look at television today what you will find is that the VAST majority of white males are now either stupid and need assistance from a woman, a gay person or minority. Or he’s a ******bag who needs help from a woman, a gay person or a minority to learn to not be a ******bag or he’s the evil bad guy.

It’s basically every single tv show or movie and commercial.

Homosexuals make up less than 3-6% of that total population and yet they make up 12% of the total characters on television with speaking roles. Black and ethnic minorities make up 13% of the total workforce and yet they make up 30% of the total characters on television with speaking roles.

And yet they STILL are demanding more representation and less straight white people.

Eventually these idiot white peoples are going to wake up and realize these folks don’t want representation that is comparable to their overall population rate. They want less straight whites and more of anything else.

 

I'd appreciate links to your stats; they seem a bit inflated, to me, though I don't watch a ton of t.v.

 

Actually they were under inflated as I was going from memory.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...port-breaks-down-lgbtq-visibility-tv-n1251153

“Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people make up an estimated 4.5 percent of the U.S. population, and, according to Nielsen's inaugural report, they were 6.7 percent of the top 10 recurring cast members in the top 300 programs on broadcast, cable and streaming platforms in 2019. The report also found that 26 percent of the top 300 programs included at least one cast member who identifies as LGBTQ.”

 

Better source.

“This year’s study found that of the 775 series regular characters scheduled to appear on scripted broadcast primetime programming for the 2021-2022 season, 92 characters (11.9 percent) are LGBTQ. This is an increase of 2.8 percentage points from the previous year and marks a new record high percentage of LGBTQ series regulars on broadcast. There are an additional 49 LGBTQ recurring characters on the platform for a total of 141 LGBTQ characters on broadcast.”

https://www.glaad.org/blog/glaads-2...lgbtq-representation-reaches-new-record-highs

But of course GLAAD is calling for MORE representation because 2-3x their actual population rate apparently isn’t enough.

 

You might be on to something. The main character's hair is white, because of the coldness, I guess. But if it were warmer, would it be blue?



But I've never seen either movie, so I can't be sure on that theory. But you seem to be a Frozen afficionado, so I'll leave the floor to you.

 

Um, no, the original numbers you gave, were not lower than the ones quoted, here.

ShadowX said: ↑
I would posit that if you look at television today what you will find is that the VAST majority of white males are now either stupid and need assistance from a woman, a gay person or minority. Or he’s a ******bag who needs help from a woman, a gay person or a minority to learn to not be a ******bag or he’s the evil bad guy.

It’s basically every single tv show or movie and commercial.

Homosexuals make up less than 3-6% of that total population and yet they make up 12% of the total characters on television with speaking roles. Black and ethnic minorities make up 13% of the total workforce and yet they make up 30% of the total characters on television with speaking roles.
<End>


You'd claimed that homosexuals made up 12% of total characters with speaking roles. The revised, accurate number you now give, is "6.7 percent of the top ten, recurrent cast members," which is barely more than half of what you'd claimed, and not really out of the ballpark, compared to the more precise estimate than you'd initially offered, of 4.5% of the population, being gay. Sure, proportionally speaking, you could say that 6.7 is 50% higher than 4.5. But that would only be, if someone had been keeping track, & in charge of making sure that total characters, on all shows, exactly matched national demographics which, on its face, is an absurd notion. IOW, especially since one of the things that provides interest, to t.v. programs, is their showing us things we haven't already seen, having 6.7% of the most common, recurring characters, be gay, does not stand out as being any sort of plot, or favoritism, at least, to my mind.

 

As this citation of yours, vastly differing from the prior one, clearly shows, statistics can be manipulated, to suggest different things, depending on the way they are calculated, and the desires ot the presenter of the stats. Here, obviously, GLAAD wants to tout the increase in gay roles. As their can be a huge difference in both screen time, and number of lines, among all the "regular characters," appearing on a show, I think these figures you take to be from a "better source," are actually less representative of the true situation. Perhaps the better figure, to just get an overall, general picture of the state of things, from your first source, was the stat that I'd not looked at, earlier: "The report also found that 26 percent of the top 300 programs included at least one cast member who identifies as LGBTQ.”

So, one quarter of the top 300 shows, had at least one LGBT cast member. Would it seem unrealistic to stipulate, that one in 4 people, know someone who is LGBT?

 

No the reason I gave the second source is because the first source just speaks of the top ten recurring cast members in the top 300 shows.

The second source refers to ALL of the recurring cast members with speaking roles in the top 300 shows. Which more accurately describes my assertion.

 

Not sure what their expectation was, but obviously they targeted a very narrow audience (gay men).

 

No, it more supports the statistical distortion, I spoke of, by considering minor roles in a cast, beyond the top 10, together with the prime, major roles. It paints a false picture, to conflate those. By the same math, one might contend that blacks enjoyed an equal place in the casting of Gone With the Wind, as white characters (analogy offered only for effect, to make my point; not a literal contention, of that particular film, necessarily).

 

You might think that if you have common sense, but the Hollywood loonies don't see it that way. They can't imagine why most people are repulsed by men making out with each other.

Who knows, maybe they made this movie so they could whine that no one went to see it and accuse America of 'hate', which is their favorite pastime.

Anyway, only $2 million in their second weekend, so trying to guilt people into seeing it didn't work.

 

I am sure they are well aware of it, especially when it was actually made by gays. They are pretty much experts on how general population receives them, and that most people would not be interested in such movie, They calculated the narrow audience worldwide would have been enough to turn a profit, and maybe in the end it will do that since it was low-budget to begin with.

 

I just wanted to ease your mind, Drluggit, that Anne Rice is almost certainly NOT spinning in her grave, over this television serialization, based on her work. I realized this, as I was watching the opening of the second episode and-- Darth, you'll want to hear this, as well-- I saw, prominently displayed, Anne Rice, as an EXECUTIVE PRODUCER of this project!