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

When it is fifty bucks for two tickets two sodas and one thing of popcorn, theater rom com's are basically extinct.It is why they are running franchise flicks into the ground. They can at least be cheap on the paid advertising and rely on social media to create all the buzz.

 

You don't know the singer David Cassidy?-- or the Partridge Family!




Maybe you might also recognize the famous Shirley Jones (playing the mom)? Or, if you were a fan of L.A. LAW, the oldest sister is a young Susan Dey. And of course, who doesn't know Danny Bonaduce?

 

Yours is a confusing post, but I'm sure a big part of that is my not knowing the perspective, from which you're speaking. Since you say you "hear," straight men don't have enough (male) friends, can I take it that you are a gay male? Or are you female?

My reaction, had you been a straight male (which it does not appear that you are) would have been that you seem very insecure in your masculinity, to feel that just because a movie about gay guys, uses the title, "Bros," it now changes the meaning of the word, among your own Broheim. I would guess that the reason for the title is that the two start off as just friends, bros, and then there is all the angst over changing that relationship. I mean, the same idea has been done, many times, about hetero friends. When Harry Met Sally, for instance.

 

Oh, so P.C. still exists? Any female leads,especially in a traditionally male role, such as a superhero, fits into one of those categories. The good news is, as people start to not see it as being woke or "PC" anymore, there is no longer as much need for those labels' existence; the ideas just fuse into a part of what is considered "normal."

 

I am in the middle of watching the first episode of AMC's new series, Interview With the Vampire, and paused to come to this thread, right after the scene in which the vampire, Lestat, "turns" the man with sublimated homoerotic urges, Louis, so I could post something similar to what you have already said, here. Though the description I just gave might make it sound very "gay," nevertheless, because of the story line, the vampire thing remains the primary driver of the story, and the brief kissing scene, which begins with a woman between them, is very artistically done, with palpable passion; that is, it reads as just one individual, with pent up desires, finally dropping his inner pretenses, and giving in to his true desires-- not especially as one gay individual, if that makes sense. It portrays a real human emotion, recognizable to anyone, by a character, whose sex really only feels a secondary consideration.

 

Nobody has a problem with a female lead ffs. Tomb Raider. Kill Bill. Resident Evil. Aliens. We've always had this. Nobody called Ripley in Aliens "woke"

What we have a problem with is representation for the sake of representation. A check list. "do we have a black trans female?" Nope? Better write one in! Dunno how it's gonna work in the story but put er in there!

Or when they over compensate and make a female lead a mary sue because heaven's forbid a female have a story arc. See the last Star Wars triligoy. Bitch didn't even know the force was real and then a half hour later is using it to mind control storm troopers!

Or when they go off on toxic masulinity because it's so posh to do so now a days. "I'm a female and I'm better then you!! Hear me roar!" Ever recall Ripley needing to **** on men to prop herself up? I don't. Why? Because she was given her own agency and depth that it didn't require it.
This sucks.

This doesn't.


Or when they replace traditionally white male roles with something other because white males are apparently bad.
Iron man is becoming a black female.
Captain America is now black.
Let's make Superman black!
James Bond? Yup let's make him black!
The all female Ghostbusters...and their shitty ***** jokes.


It's funny how shitty society has become towards white men. How easy we can cast them aside and replace them. Let's make a black superman! but black panther? blade? Better dare not make those white. The double standard is real.

Hey how about instead of replacing white male roles, you just come up with your own origininal idea and instead of that idea focused around trying to puff themselves up by ******** on white men or simply due to them not being a white man, you invent an original character with their own agency?

So how about instead of focusing so heavily on representation and ******** on white people, especially men...you just come up with a good ****ing idea? And if that good idea happens to have something other then a white person or man as a lead that's great!

 

I read Anne Rice's book Interview with a Vampire a long time ago, and several that followed after. I haven't seen the movie yet, but if it follows the premise of the book at all, the sexuality is more about the actual person, rather than what gender they are.

 

i won't be watching, but the rotton tomatos rating is 5 stars and the critics love it.

 

Thanks for your reply, and for helping me better understand the perspective you presumably share with others, about the whole "woke" thing. You touched on a bunch of different ideas, which I am not going to try to address, in this reply. While I could give a counterpoint, in a couple of cases, I also think you make some valid points. So I will only point out that, though there certainly have been female heroines, the number of women is equal to the number of men, yet the main characters of films, have not been anywhere near 50% female. So it is a false impression you have, if you believe that the opportunities for women-- and this has been far truer, for minorities-- have been at all commensurate with those, for white men.

But yeah, original ideas are better than merely redos, with actors of a different color or gender.

 

Adjusted for inflation, the Ten Commandments would be #6. Ben Hur, The Robe, and the Passion of the Christ also make the list.

 

I've read them ALL. I have not seen this new series yet but I will.
I think the books are amazing. She created such a good vampire lore and even explains their ORIGINS in later books. She actually makes it make sense. Too bad we won't get any more books from her.
I actually emailed her once and she actually responded.

 

Ill just say, I saw the trailer, and I wasn't remotely interested in going to see the movie. I suppose, if it gets to prime or netflix, and there isn't a better offering on HGTV, I might be moved to watch the movie...

 

Though I think there may have been a film, in the past, what I was talking about was a new t.v. series, on AMC (American Movie Channel is what that stands for, but they have had quite a few of their own series', both long term and short run, special ones). Though the set up for this one is different from the book (which I also read), it's too soon for me to tell how much new material may be introduced. It may just incorporate material from a number of books.

Though I no longer recall all the details, I did read one other, The Vampire Lestat, but whether that was a prequel, or a continuation, I cannot remember.

 

Because supposedly they painted the story with a coat of WOKE. I will see it myself though before making judgements. She-hulk was supposedly "woke" and I love that show so I have to treat every show as AN INDIVIDUAL before judging but my guess is they probably put alot of SJW stuff in there. Maybe they have oppressed black vampires that weren't able to get a state ID and vote. who knows. I'll be watching it soon and giving a full review

 

I have only seen up to the point I described, in my original post to Collateral Damage, maybe halfway through the first episode (which is 82 minutes, with commercials). However, my comment about the different setup has absolutely nothing at all to do with "Wokeness." In fact, when I read your post about having read ALL of Anne Rice's books, it occurred to me that, though they are calling this Interview With the Vampire, the setup that they're using may, conceivably, have been used by Ms. Rice, in one of her later works. Since it will not give anything away, I will explain.

The series starts off by showing this very successful, older reporter, who we learn has some sort of health concern. He is talking to his doctor on the phone, while opening a newly arrived package. The box, it turns out, contains his old voice recordings, of that original interview with the vampire, and a card, written to him, from Lestat, inviting him for a do- over, now decades since that original interview.

Does that make it woke?

 

Not in my opinion. The only show I have seen that is actually "WOKE" is that new saved by the bell series on peacok channel. I love anne rice and i'm gonna see anything related to her stories regardless.

 

Interesting take on it. I still can't stop thinking that Anne would be rolling in her grave given the rewrite and the equity management of this series... The "modernization" from the show runners seems to intentionally want to drive a specific agenda here. Why? The original story was fascinating by itself. This is just another example of how the Hollywood narrative is destroying good story telling to produce woke BS. Sorry nothing compelling about this one.

 

So, just pointing out, you'd lept to the false conclusion, that it must be "woke," merely from my saying that it has a different setup, than in the book of the same name (as it takes place, in the present, 2022). Kind of makes it seem like you're being a bit overly fixated on this woke thing, such that it's affecting your judgement, wouldn't you agree? Or do you feel you'd had a reasonable basis, to assume that I must have been referring to "woke" differences, in the setup?

 

Can you give any examples of what you are referring to-- without spoiling the last half of the first episode for me? I have, as yet, to see any meaningful changes in Lestat's actual story, thus far. Since there has only been one episode so far (#2 airs Sunday), I suspect your comment is utterly baseless, if you even watched the first episode, at all.

 

it is not a false conclusion. I tried to be nice but I see you couldn't return it, and now I regret it. I'm willing to have an open mind here but don't push it man.

Here is where I wreck your narrative beyond the point of no return. You earned it.

Why is Louis’ situation changed from the book?


To be perfectly frank, I didn’t know how to tell the plantation owner story. I wasn’t going to be the writer to do it. The other reason was aesthetic. If you were going to make this heightened Gothic drama, what is the next period in New Orleans where there was a sexiness, a feast of the senses? I’ll say this, we’ve given Louis a little bit more of a spine.

TO BE PERFECTLY FRANK, he didn't know how to tell the plantation owner story because he changed Louie from white to black. Now we have compromised story line just so they could put some woke paint on it.
I actually am a big fan of that actor but he looks nothing like Louie is described in the 10+ books I've read with him as a character.
Also, don't lie, if they announced Blade the vampire hunter was going to be played by a white guy, you would be mad!

Again, doing woke crap just for the purpose of being woke.

That being said, I'll still watch it, but totally stupid to change what is already a good story just to get some points with the woke community.

 

I, first of all, did not realize that you knew anything about the series, before reading about it here; I certainly had no reason to suspect that you had done research on it. So, that is why-- understandably, I hope-- it seemed to me that you were jumping to conclusions, based merely on my statement, that "the setup is different." Do you understand my thinking? You could have simply clarified, that you had read this from the screenwriter, and spelled out the "woke" change, to which you were referring, without getting so apparently worked up, over my mistaken assumption (since you had mentioned, that you had not yet seen the episode).

If we can move on from that, I would still question if merely recasting this role with a (light colored) black actor, makes this show "woke." That seems like a double standard, as white actors have played parts in real stories, or those regarded as real, in which original characters were not white, all the time. If just putting a black actor in a part from a book-- of fiction; this show is not a documentary-- makes a story "woke," then so much for the Right's oft-used argument that the best way to deal with racism is to not treat people with different skin color, any different.

Except when they are put in a role meant for a white actor, that is--
then, it's discriminatory, and woke.


Is it not possible, this was primarily meant to add appeal to another demographic (which is what broadcasters try to do, to increase ad revenues)?

 

of course we can

Changing that specific character is strange when him being a former slave owner was integral to his journey. Why not just add a new black vampire into the mix? The books had vampires of all races (well except Asian but no surprise there, they never get representation). Sometimes this bothers me, sometimes it doesn't. Black Kingpin in daredevil didn't bother me because Michael Clark Duncan size wise looked way more like kingpin than any white dude I could have thought of at the time. Then again I am not a huge daredevil fan so it might have bothered other people.
With regards to white people playing middle eastern people and stuff like that, I think that happened way more in the past when there were less minority actors. We have actors of every color of the rainbow these days and it is not necessary to do this anymore.

I never said DISCRIMINATORY. But hell yes its WOKE, its WOKE because they only do it in ONE direction. Again, the only way you can prove me wrong is if they made blade White (which I would hate!)

If you can prove they did this 100% to try and get more black people to watch it (so they can make more money off of the show) and not to appease the woke community, fine, i'll accept that as a reason.

 

So many things. There is quite a difference between 1791 and 1911? or whenever this is now set. What attracted Lestat to Louis was the death of the brother and his despair, not the strength of a new orleans pimp.... The principle of the book isn't to suggest that fanboy fantasy gay love happened between Lestat and Louis. Again, if you read the books by Rice, you'd know this. Virtue signaling that Louis wasn't the rich white slave owner that he was to replace that with victimized target of segregation and racism simply tries to ignore the real conflict of Louis for which he is attempting to flee from.

It seems more "Originals" than Interview with the Vampire. And it seems more look how cool being gay is, how powerful being gay is, etc than the true conflict of Anne's narratives.

I find it hugely disappointing.

 

I still don't understand this BS from the left where they constantly push gay black into the forefront today. There are so many examples. Is it training, indoctrination? Trying to make being gay and black and male cool and acceptable within a community that still retains the stigma of it? It's hard to say. Can you imagine when they start on the Indian immigrants being gay?

I agree, the show misses the central conflict of Louis, who was a slave owner. Anne made a point of using that point in time to create the conflict. And now, there isn't one. A stinger character, as your quote from the show runners point out, is a deliberate act to fundamentally change the dynamic that caused the Louis character his internal conflict. It doesn't leave much room then for the self loathing of his character in the future, nor does it lend itself to being something of a sympathetic character. Is that on purpose? I think that would be very counterintuitive then.

 

delete