Homo-Erotic


Does anyone else think this movie is a bit homo-erotic? Scott Wolf and Ryan Phillipe should get it on already. ;-)

reply

[deleted]

It makes me sad to think that men (boys) cannot have camaraderie without somebody thinking is is homoerotic. I think it says more about the poster than the movie. Sailors were 99.9% men, at sea for long periods of time, and STILL they weren't known for doing it to each other.

Shame on you for thinking so... but yes, I still think it COULD have been hot.

reply

It makes me sad to think that men (boys) cannot have camaraderie without somebody thinking is is homoerotic. I think it says more about the poster than the movie. Sailors were 99.9% men, at sea for long periods of time, and STILL they weren't known for doing it to each other.

Shame on you for thinking so... but yes, I still think it COULD have been hot.
It's a shame homoerotic is still seen as a bad thing.

And, yes, lots of sailors got it on. It's like prison.

--

reply

[deleted]

If only it were, and not a lengthy A&F commercial with h-e-a-v-y and unnecessary underscoring. All the boys are so relentlessly coded as hetero, it becomes embarassing and insulting to the audience. God, but when Scott missteps he sure missteps grandly.
On the other hand, filming on water, let alone an ocean, is a technical challenge most of us would balk at.

reply


Many of the comments that I have read show the lack of understanding that a film can be homoerotic without any of the characters being homosexual, or engaging in homosexual behavior. One of the definitions of homoerotic is "Tending to arouse homosexual desire." The films POWDER and JEEPERS CREEPERS 2 show that homosexual activity or plot is not needed for a film to be homoerotic. POWDER had those lingering, slow panning shots of the male studs' bodies at the school, and the rear full nude shot of Powder was gratuitous. JEEPERS CREEPS 2 had the infamous scene, derided by many critics, of the male teen hunks sunning themselves on top of the bus. The lovingly way that the camera slowly panned their male flesh, looked more like a trailer for homosexual porn than a scene from a horror film. Even 300, which does not have any references to homosexuality amongst the males, is probably one of the most mainstream homoerotic films ever made. The choices for costuming, especially the very scant leather crotch wear, and chest straps, along with most of the 300 having bodies that can only be gotten with modern gym equipment, and how those bodies were shot, make the film seem like a homoerotic S&M spectacle. I agree that females might also want to see a hot male body on screen. But, don't for one moment forget that movies are a business. As a business, like other businesses that offer a nonessential product, the homosexual market plays an important part in decision making. Homosexuals as an economic group are sought after, because statistics show that they are one of the economic groups that have a very high amount of "discretionary income" (The amount of an individual's income available for spending after the essentials (such as food, clothing, and shelter) have been taken care of). So, the next time that you see hot looking sweaty shirtless guys, or male nudity, in a film that does not have a homosexual plot: Allow yourself to think that at a production meeting it was probably suggested to put that scene in to raise the the film's potentional grosses by using some homoeroticism (Tending to arouse homosexual desire).

reply

Out of curiosity, what do you call scenes where the camera pans, zooms & generally caresses a young woman's body. Which, btw, happens in almost every movie released in the United States.

You probably know by now that this is true, and you probably think that "well, yeah, that's just the way it should be. A chick's body is made for that but a dude's body? That's just not right...nobody wants to see that!"

Nobody wants to see that for two reasons:

1- Guys are uncomfortable seeing other guys naked; heck, guys are uncomfortable seeing hot guys shirtless, period, forget naked. But I say "hot guys shirtless", because it's always been very funny to me that guys have no problem at all seeing a guy shirtless that isn't hot at all. They have zero problems with that...AT ALL!

2- They have a problem with it because a large percentage of "straight" guys are constantly fighting the fight of their lives to keep any kind of "gay imagery" out of their heads. It freaks them out because they've been freaking out about it since anywhere from grade school on.

If not, ask yourselves why it is that women have no problems seeing other women in various states of undress? Is it because they're all secretly lesbians?

Think about it. Then think about any straight guy you may know that doesn't have a problem with seeing a hot shirtless or naked guy. They exist & it's not because they're in the closet; as a matter of fact, closeted gay men are the worst offenders when it comes to showing various kinds of aversion to anything that can be construed as being gay, like being ok with a scene with a hot shirtless guy. Make the guy not so hot & "poof!"...no problem or freak out.

Hmmm, odd innit'?

reply

They're on the ocean in the hot sun. Who would wear a shirt in that temperature? THats as bad as sandals with socks.

---
"You make a place for things... Things come. "

reply

[deleted]

This thread is amusing. The film clearly eroticizes beautiful young males - if it were females, no one would even blink at someone calling it "erotic"

reply

Exactly.


Sister, when I've raised hell, you'll know it!

reply

[deleted]