Film | Film and TV | News

BigGayDeal.com

Breaking: 'NY Times,' Hollywood Surprised To Learn Gay Men Like 'Magic Mike'

MagicMikeTimes

The New York Times has cracked the story of the century: gay men enjoy a movie featuring hot men taking off their clothes.

From today's edition.

…Interviews around the country indicated that gay men have been flocking to “Magic Mike” in numbers not seen since the release of “Brokeback Mountain” in 2005. But unlike that film, about two cowboys in love, there’s nothing explicitly gay about “Magic Mike.” Unless you count muscled men thrusting their pelvises without pants. That was enough for Bill Venne and his friends.

“Let’s be honest: it’s men taking their clothes off,” said Mr. Venne, 49, who lives in Minneapolis and saw “Magic Mike” on Sunday with 16 gay men and one straight woman.

Sue Kroll, president for worldwide marketing for Warner Brothers Pictures, said the studio coordinated a “well-concentrated and tailored” campaign intended to capture gay moviegoers’ attention. The demographic wasn’t part of the studio’s initial marketing push, but that quickly changed, Ms. Kroll said, once it became clear there was interest among gay men.

"Once it became clear"? So, Hollywood was also caught off guard by the gay love? Maybe they don't understand what "gay" means?

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Some gay men with bad taste like magic mike

    Posted by: say what | Jul 5, 2012 8:17:07 AM


  2. It's not exactly a feather in the cap of the gay male community that it would still want to attend a movie that is explicity and totally geared toward heterosexual women in both its storyline and extremely tame stripping scenes. The "attention" that was paid by the movie studio to the community was basically an afterthought toward gullible people apparently so lacking in visual stimulation that they would subject themselves such humiliation.

    Posted by: patrick | Jul 5, 2012 8:21:17 AM


  3. If a movie about male strippers is de-gayed like I understand this one is: I am not paying a ticket for it!
    =)

    Posted by: George F | Jul 5, 2012 8:45:46 AM


  4. Must be too many straight execs at WB...and hollywood has a short term memory.

    30 plus years ago, women and gay men flocked to "american gigalo" because Richard Gere had a full frontal nude scene.

    Posted by: QJ201 | Jul 5, 2012 8:46:46 AM


  5. Having had a lot of experience with marketing departments, this doesn't surprise me.

    Posted by: Chad | Jul 5, 2012 8:48:20 AM


  6. @Patrick: Given your review of the "storyline and extremely lame stripping scenes" it sounds as though you too were amongst the "gullible people" you are passing judgement on. But if you didn't see the movie, then you aren't really qualified to provide a review or critique of the people who saw it.

    Posted by: Chadd | Jul 5, 2012 8:49:27 AM


  7. I must be one of the "weird" gay men who is not going to see Magic Mike.

    When I read about the lack of "gay content" and the "tame" stripping scenes, I lost all desire to see this movie.

    Plus Matt Bomer has barely any screen time apparently, so I will not even go to see it in support of him.

    It is unfortunate that so many gay men felt the need to watch this movie, because it allows Hollywood to continue excluding us and avoid alienating some straight viewers, since we will watch for scraps anyway.

    Posted by: Blake | Jul 5, 2012 8:54:50 AM


  8. Matt had a lot of Screen TIme...not as much as Channing or the younger guy but he had significant time. Joe had less to do than Matt.

    Just love that "oh i wouldn't see such a movie" yeah...kinda like i wouldn't watch porn type right?

    Posted by: kevin | Jul 5, 2012 9:06:13 AM


  9. What a bunch of self righteous sissies you all are. Commenting about a movie you didnt see and acting like you know something about it. I saw it with my partner and it was surprisingly good. There isnt as much strippng as you think there will be and its paced pretty well. Its not brilliant, but Soderbergh is an awesome director and he doesnt do much wrong. Channin Tatum's nakedness is not a detractor, either. Since when does every movie need a gay storyline in order to be watchable? Seeing the very openly gay Matt Bomer costarring in it was good enough for me. Plus, it DID have an LGBT storyline, and if any of you had watched it you would know that...and then youd qualify to review this. You guys need to take a Midol for you lady cramps and stop the attidtude.

    Posted by: MrJ | Jul 5, 2012 9:12:37 AM


  10. Is this like a new trend? A huffington post thing? I keep noticing that bloggers "report" these stories half read, or half comprehended. It is not news to Hollywood, they very specifically targeted gay men, how did that not come across? The article's tone could suggest, to someone not really reading it, that they didn't know it would be a hit with gays, BUT YOU QUOTED THE PART WHERE THEY MENTION THAT THEY TARGETED GAY PEOPLE.

    Maybe I am the only one annoyed by reading an article only to find that it was a total waste of time. I don't like this sensationalist twist where you infuse some sort of humor or drama into the headline for page clicks. Try bringing on a blogger who can write classy opinionated columns from some point authority to fill space when you need clicks. This is just the equivalent of spam.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Jul 5, 2012 9:13:47 AM


  11. I thought the movie was garbage. I was disappointed by the lack of Bomer in the film and the terrible acting done by the "love interest." I felt it was filled with cliches.

    Posted by: Alex | Jul 5, 2012 9:21:35 AM


  12. Does this confirm the Right contention that Hollywood is "out of touch with America"?

    Posted by: gregory brown | Jul 5, 2012 9:22:26 AM


  13. I watched it. The story had some problems (they cut some of Pettyfer's scenes because he was a diva on set). He was the main co-star but towards the end his story fizzles.

    The ass scenes were great though. I think the DVD is suppose to contain extended versions of the stripping scenes.

    Posted by: Josh | Jul 5, 2012 9:24:07 AM


  14. What? Really? Mmmmmm.

    Posted by: Barney | Jul 5, 2012 9:57:03 AM


  15. This was a nonsense piece from the New York Times - absolute nonsense. It's pure political pandering to suggest that "the gays" like Magic Mike. It's also arrogant of the New York Times to claim to know what "the gays" like. Flush the New York Times - it's garbage.

    As for Magic Mike, it was basically about men stripping for women. There were no men in the audience watching the male performers strip. There were no gay male relationships. I suspect the producers didn't want it to look "too gay" to Johnny Jock and his twit cheerleader girlfriend.

    Posted by: jason | Jul 5, 2012 10:12:13 AM


  16. In Pittsburgh, I was the one and only man -- gay or otherwise -- in the sold out theater.

    In response to the haters: It was a fun movie! It was awful in many parts, the plot was weak, but man...when those clothes came off, the whole theater went wild with cheering. I haven't had that much fun at the movies since opening night of Snakes on a Plane.

    Lighten up.

    Posted by: John | Jul 5, 2012 10:28:07 AM


  17. Kind of a diary-like reality approach to the story, Tatum is charming and funny, Matthew McC is dynamic and sleazy. They downplayed the apparently gay nature of McC's character, but it feels like he has more than a business interest in his strippers.

    Some bisexuality (lesbian)

    watchable. funny. fellini-esque by way of construction and visualization

    and some stupid characters, like the gay, puffy, latino DJ who seems to be there to remind everyone at home that the real men in the story, the good looking ones, all like girls. Because you know, this is what gay guys look and act like. Except maybe the boss, and except maybe the guy that wants to share his wife...

    Feels tampered with, and soderberg may have been experimenting with using actors script-free, meaning you take the starting and ending points of a scene and let them make up the middle to get a more realistic interaction. Works sometimes. If that is what he was doing here, or had to do, then it did not quite work. Whilke the kid's sister is good as a controlling freak, she is not so good at chemistry with Tatum, who is so adorable you'd have to work at it to not fall into synch with him. Maybe there is a lack of respect for him since he actually was a stripper...

    Posted by: ted baldwin | Jul 5, 2012 10:32:20 AM


  18. Wait a homo-mo. Didn't John Travolta, allegedly, claim that Hollywood was run by "the gayz" How could they not have initially marketed this film to its #1 fan base?

    Posted by: mikeflower | Jul 5, 2012 10:47:34 AM


  19. Channings "team" has always focused on two groups...the young girls and the gays. The strategy is clear...If you have them you have success. Nuf said.

    The pandering to "the gays" is evident.

    Posted by: Will | Jul 5, 2012 10:51:20 AM


  20. Of course they market to the gays- it was marketed on this site! And you know what? I'm fine with that. This movie was too uber gay. There was plenty of male affection, sweat, muscles, music, drama. No same gender affair / coming out memes (which bore me) but still much to interest us. I thought Tatum was brilliant. Plot was fine by me and not as clunky as people describe it here. (MAN, we're a bitchy bunch!)

    A fun night at the movies and a welcome break from the usual hollywood drivel. If every gay / bi /questioning man in America sees this, there will be more geared toward us- you watch.

    Posted by: Rob | Jul 5, 2012 11:13:51 AM


  21. I feel like I'm flabbergasted that they didn't choose hotter actors.

    Posted by: ggggb | Jul 5, 2012 11:28:17 AM


  22. Is there not enough porn online? Going to the movie seems like a lot of extra work.

    Posted by: anon | Jul 5, 2012 11:32:27 AM


  23. The story really is that the movie is not very sexy at all.

    Posted by: Jeff NYC | Jul 5, 2012 11:45:35 AM


  24. My 2 sisters in San Antonio went to see the movie last week and said there were only about 3 men in the theater.

    For me, I'm not interested in the seeing the movie in the big screen. I'll wait until it streams on Netflix or is available for $1 at Redbox. Maybe. Only to see Joe. ;-)

    Posted by: FunMe | Jul 5, 2012 12:12:04 PM


  25. my partner wants to go see this vapid piece of artistry. I said only if they show everyones butt and I want to see real bulges. outlines, stiffies, glans stretching fabric.....not mounds that may have been airbrushed to be palatable to mainstream females

    Posted by: stevenelliot | Jul 5, 2012 12:14:52 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Justice Department Pushes DOMA Cases Toward Supreme Court« «