MovieChat Forums > Staying Alive (1983) Discussion > You look at this movie differently if yo...

You look at this movie differently if you think Travolta is gay

posted 11 years ago by Jane2005
12 replies | jump to latest

Now that there are significant rumors, and fellow actors commenting, that John Travolta is gay, this movie makes much more sense. I like Travolta, and I could care less about his orientation. I'm just saying....the fact he became so cut for this film, the near nudity, the rag wardrobe for the "Satan's Alley" show, etc...it all makes much more sense.

This film has a "gay" quality to it to me and I wondered why Travolta was in it.

-Jane

[–] balboa76 11 years ago

This is one of the all time dumbest posts on IMDB. Even if Travolta is gay, what the hell does it have to do with the film Staying Alive? The character Tony Manero isn't gay, he's having sex with two different women you moron! What nudity? So he's cut in the film, does that make him gay lol

"This film has a "gay" quality to it to me and I wonder why Travolta was in it"

OK MORON! Here's the answer to all your pathetic stupidity. Travolta was in it because he had to give Paramount pictures a third film and the original Saturday Night Fever was a cultural phenomenon.

It's amazing that after viewing the film you came to the conclusion that Travolta must be gay to have done this film, and there were all kinds of gay themes in it. What kind of logical person comes to that kind of conclusion?

[–] davidcoppola36 11 years ago

Right on Balboa!

Oh, BTW, I just picked up a Hein Gericke size 48 in mint condition!

[–] ticktickBOOOM 10 years ago

Um hello - Satan's Alley !

The name of the production is the biggest hint at forbidden homosexuality.

...and a pair of titties that make you wanna stand up and beg for buttermilk

[–] chas437 9 years ago

Yup. This movie has so many gay undertones, its ridiculous. The irony was that Stallone was trying to make the Travolta character into a macho, hetero idol. Its just goes to show how badly this film flopped...critically.

[–] Jane2005 10 years ago

>>The character Tony Manero isn't gay, he's having sex with two different women you moron! <<

Seriously? That's all you got? You think gay men never have sex with women?

And "Balboa76", you have to separate yourself from the movie (if you can). I was talking about Travolta being gay, not the character in the movie.

-Jane

[–] chas437 9 years ago

You sound like a gay bashing homo, coming on here defending a terrible movie from 30+ years ago. Its like you take it personally. Get help.

[–] djrage54 10 years ago

Uh... No... Just no

[–] pullman1881 10 years ago

the fact he became so cut for this film, the near nudity, the rag wardrobe for the "Satan's Alley" show, etc.

#1: he's a dancer; of course he would be in excellent physical condition. Do you see many flabby, unmuscular dancers? All of the dancer's costumes were certainly minimal. Part of this film is skin.
#2: do you think he picks out his own wardrobe? He wore what was designed for "Satan's Alley".

Many people think all male dancers must be gay; some/many are, but I don't see anything in this film that remotely has a "gay quality" to me. Cheesey 1980s style and hair? Yeah.

[–] Jane2005 10 years ago

Look, there are people who slammed Vin Diesel for doing the movie XXX (saying it was one of the "gayest" films ever). I thought the movie choice was fine and didn't think it was "gay" at all.

So if people think XXX is "gay", I can only imagine what they think of John Travolta choosing to do Staying Alive. Frankly, I liked the movie. I have it on DVD. I'm just saying it makes sense to me that he did this movie.

-Jane

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chas437 9 years ago

Staying Alive is pretty much the gayest film of the 80s. The irony was that Stallone was trying to make Tony a macho, hetero icon.

[–] ReturnOfWhiskey 9 years ago

Stupid

