This is a good point! allot of times the "relationship" part of a movie that isn't about a relationship is really unnecessary and could be left out anyway. I'm saying that in many movies where the focus isn't on any relationships, the main character might well be gay...who's to say they are or are not? it's just not the focus of the movie.

A gay hero.

I'd like to see one. For years gay men on the big screen have been mostly relegated to the sexless best friend or the comic relief. I think we all know what balls that new age minstrel show is.

What I want is a tough guy. Not in the meathead, Sylvester Stallone tough guy sort of way. No. Someone cool, someone masculine. (I know, I know, heteronormativity. ) I know it's unlikely anytime soon, but I want the hero of a story to be a gay or bisexual man.


Willem Dafoe's character in Boondock Saints comes close to what I mean in some ways, even if his one scene where he's in bed with another man was played for laughs.

The "hero" shot of Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain where he's standing in front of the fireworks on the Fourth of July is what inspired this thread.

If I were King of the World...

That is, if I were in charge of production of such a film, I would try as best as possible to keep the character's sexuality neutral in portrayal. It wouldn't be his defining feature, but it would get better than just a vague allusion. You're right that too much in the way of sex scenes would come across as shock value for the sake of it, but an openly portrayed queer character deserves better than an offhanded reference or a quick camera shot of His and His towels in the bathroom.

it's not the main focus, but it's a focus. the reason all those hero movies provide some kind of love interest is a writer trick.

if you give the protaganist a love sub-plot, it makes the character human and more relatable to the audience. without some kind of internal struggle, they play woodenly. giving them internal conflict makes them human and not gods. and the audience san then see themselves in the character in some way.

since so many action movies are ridiculously macho, the romantic plot character (almost always female since the hero is almost always male in these movies) also gives the women who aren't hypnotized by the ridiculous testosterone orgy on-screen someone to relate to... in a sad mysoginistic way, mid you, but that's what they give.

same with "chick flics", except the roles are reversed, and they only focus on the love story, and the other becomes the sub-plot.

Alexander focuses somewhat on the homosexual nature of the world's greatest conquer.

however Troy left off the homosexual relationships in the Iliad as did the 300 leave off the strictly enforced homosexual nature of Spartan military forces.

Did you ever see Watchmen? The film had two gay superheroes in it, but I think the gay guy murdered the gay girl as part of a fascist set up. It's long and there are many subplots but it is very cool to watch, great special effects.
[Edited 1/12/10 13:18pm]

Alexander was crap though.

It had such potential to be excellent as a historical piece, as an action movie, as a biography, as a gay love story, and it failed on all points. And consider this: all the hoopla over Colin Farrell playing bisexual, and his character doesn't even once kiss Hephaestion, the love of his life.

I'm calling shenanigans on Alexander for not being good, and Troy for de-gaying everyone.

Being a huge fan of the graphic novel, I kind of have mixed feelings about the Watchmen film but I do have to applaud the fact that they didn't erase the little bits of queer that were in it.

A good chunk of the Star Trek fanbase, including myself, believe that Kirk and Spock were meant to covertly portray a romantic relationship, and not just one of close friends or fellow officers. Hell, Nichelle Nichols (the orginal, and only, Uhura!) actively supports the idea.

Can you IMAGINE if Paramount decided to go that route in the next Trek flick? I know they won't do it. But can you imagine how huge that would be for pop culture if one of the most famous sci-fi heroes were to be written that way? Wowzers!

tiny lil' bits... crumbs, really, but yea.

[spoiler]there is the argument that ozy is gay, but he's also the villain[/spoiler]
[Edited 1/12/10 17:11pm]

A little bit is better than nothing, I suppose.

sadly true.

i guess we have to have this moment in our evolution. the blacks had the blaxpoitation poeriod, we're in our gaysploitation.

bring on the minstrel characters.

maybe i can sell some of my play scripts as they get finished. they at least balance gay, straight, male and female in equal measure.

you know what i've always wanted to do? a movie about a female squadron in a real military setting. kind of "a league of their own" about female soldiers, and honest about the sexuality.

i wish that there was a historical example to base it on.

Pull an X-Men and set it in The Not Too Distant Future?

possible. might have to if i ever want to write it. god knows the military isn't going to be smart enough to make it a reality anytime soon.

my mother's wife was a sgt. during 'nam and gave me a great book on the female vietnam soldiers, but sadly they were mostly just medical as far as i can tell.

I didn't know any women served in Vietnam.

But then, my knowledge of military history is pretty limited, so what do I know?

mine too. my military knowledge is shit. i don't even understand the chain of command.

but i really want to write a female squadron action/drama piece. like if you took all the females in "aliens", added more women, and dropped them into a warzone.

More bad-ass heroine, less damsel in distress.


Maybe we should start a list of things Hollywood should have more of.

fuck a damsel in distress. i hate DinD. i had to fight a co-writer heavily to keep our female lead from being a DinD in my last show.

i flat out refused to write her as a DinD, and stood my ground until the third co-writer sided with me.

it's the most boring cliche in entertainment existance.

i'm not so much big on spock and kirk making out, however chris pine and zachary quinto? yes, please.

what does bug the hell out of me about trek is that there has never been a strong gay character within five different series. a utopian future where gay people don't exist? thanks a lot.

Yeah, that pisses me off too. The Trek universe is one where humanity has supposedly rid itself of all racism/sexism/homophobia/other -isms, and yet in over 40 years there have never been any queer characters. (Unless you do count Kirk and Spock, but even with the supporting evidence it's all still speculation so only kinda counts)

Roddenberry stated shortly before his death he intended to add a gay character, or out an existing character, somewhere, but when he died that all went to hell fast.


Zach Quinto and Chris Pine making out? Yes, please!

I'd like to make out with one of the Romulans.....

when i was in vegas, my frends and i got SMASHED in the star trek experience bar. they had a... what are those things with the big ears?

And how.

I really enjoyed Joss Whedon turning that trope on its head in the Buffy series. More often than not the DinD was a guy that needed rescuing by the womenfolk of the show.

HAHAAH! I don't know but Romulans have big ears too.

Yeah, that pisses me off too. The Trek universe is one where humanity has supposedly rid itself of all racism/sexism/homophobia/other -isms, and yet in over 40 years there have never been any queer characters. (Unless you do count Kirk and Spock, but even with the supporting evidence it's all still speculation so only kinda counts)

Roddenberry stated shortly before his death he intended to add a gay character, or out an existing character, somewhere, but when he died that all went to hell fast.


Zach Quinto and Chris Pine making out? Yes, please!

it starts with a c... carpathians? capulets?