Fact: If you don’t watch and like Red Eye? You need to check your pulse!

Does the terminally snarky Greg Gutfeld not see the obvious irony in his premise?

While he and some of his panelists make jokes at the expense of gay actors in Hollywood, he wonders out loud why gay actors are encouraged to stay in the closet lest they offend some movie goers like those on Red Eye.

I’m tired of Hollywood’s disgusting anti-gay bigotry! If they demand that every gay person should be out and proud, shouldn’t they at least follow their own dictum? I guess they don’t have the courage of their convictions. Bunch of capitalist careerists, if you ask me.

another homophobe..

Ah, more false equivalencies by the crew over at Red Eye. A crew of blowhards who prove that, even though you might have thought you had heard the most superficial rendering of a topic known to man elsewhere, you truly haven’t seen the epitome of superficiality until you’ve watched Red Eye’s take on an issue.

The military was desegregated long before “HOLLYWOOD” embraced African Americans in films beyond the role of maids and butlers. That still doesn’t mean it wasn’t appropriate to desegregate it. In large part, such acts of government desegregation of it’s military is what eventually led to African Americans actually getting respectable lead roles later. That’s because when such social barriers are broken, it leads to the psychological barriers of a future TV, film, or music audience to also to be broken down. In other words, once people of different backgrounds begin to realize that they can fight, work, and eat together, then they can imagine that there are stories of shared experiences to be told to an audience willing to accept them.

ALL AMERICAN tax payers pay for the military and thus, all American, should be represented in it’s ranks. AMERICANS tax payers DO NOT pay for Hollywood films. The receipt from it’s sometimes homophobic audiences (like the tools on the panel) do. The difference is that the government is openly segregated and, in doing so, did not provide Constitutional protections for certain Americans who worked for the government.

But, again, all those facts and points were missed out so that these clowns can take a swipe at obscure Barney Miller characters. Barney Miller, really. What year is it, Greg, 1975?

tigerprez said:
Bunch of capitalist careerists, if you ask me.

Yes they are, which is why, while the likes of Sarah Palin spend an inordinate amount of time obsessing on criticizing Hollywood, she actually makes the perfect Hollywood celebrity–someone who is superficial, self-interested and lame.

@A Kim Bo…

Barney Miller was a fun show.

The people that finance movies are all about pure numbers. What works in America may not sell in foreign markets and vice versa.

This is a media site. The public isn’t especially dumbed down. It’s the purveyors of the media that take sample that reflect their thoughts that are responsible for any “dumbing down”. And they make money.

Over the years, I’ve changed as I’ve grown older. I’m not that impressionable anymore. I don’t react to the 1st scene that intrigues me, I laugh at “product placement” and I can get screeners anytime I want now via Bit Torrent.

I still like to see good art even while I sometimes dig pure car chase and/or explosions.

The actors know that they can be blackballed…I’m not saying it is correct; it is a fact.

As long as people who protest are consistent in their beliefs…good for them.

lazzzlo said:
@A Kim Bo…

Barney Miller was a fun show.

Be that as it may, it’s not the last time that there has been a gay character on TV. But it might be one of the last examples of a gay character that lives up to the stereotype of homosexuals in Greg Gutfeld’s head was on TV. Shows how antiquated his thinking is.

Come on, Greg, you’re trying to pawn yourself as a hip and with it show. If this is what you think the epitome of being gay is all about, then you’re woefully out of touch. You might be cool by conservative standards but my Grandma is more forward thinking than anyone on your panel.

By the way; DIVA is what I consider a good art movie…it almost covers every base. Plus when the actress hwo lip syncs Wilhamena Wiggens Fernandez to the aria from La Wally while the kid secretly records the aria…that’s good art.

And then the movie kicks in! You can’t make that type of movie these days in America.

Here’s the trailer for DIVA (1981)

And the aria…one of the most beautiful things in the world…

Ooops, I lost the Diva links….

Why does a gay stereotype have to be discussed? Actually, if you check out the Village Voice…Michael Musto proves me wrong.

That’s my point. I’ve lived in this world for 50 years and have seen a lot of change. Some gays think that every straight person is the enemy. Some straights think the reverse.

A fair amount of people are in the middle and don’t really care. I just honestly don’t give the factor of someone being gay or atheist or whatever too much thought in my life.

I treat people the same; I react to people with divergent thoughts from me the same as well.

Diva aria

The La Wally…in certain circles I’d get the sh*t kicked out of me for this music. I just think it is one of the most beautiful pieces of voice ever done.

Apparently the link doesn’t work…what a bummer.

Actually it does…yay! In my opinion, everyone should hear the La Wally solo.

Yes, Greg’s right, how ironic that DADT is encouraged in Hollywood. How sad, too.

Problem is there is some truth. Being openly gay male actor and maybe losing a few potential roles seems like a much better option than telling people to lie about their love life. Everyone knows that if someone doesn’t answer the question about being gay, then they’re gay. So, to me, Matt Boomer from White Collar is openly gay and it doesn’t affect his portrayal. If you aren’t gorgeous, handsome and masculine, you couldn’t play those roles either. Most roles it doesn’t matter at all. Who knows, maybe the military folks are right, that being openly male may impact operational effectiveness just like Hollywood worries about profitability. Either way, isn’t the point that if you can do the job, it shouldn’t matter about your sexuality?

Can I see either Rupert or another gay actor as the romantic male lead, no. But, I’m not so sure it has anything to do with his sexuality. He just doesn’t have the rugged handsomeness of a male lead. The only limit would be the huge movie star roles, which are rare anyway.

Give Greg credit. It is really ironic that gay men are more likely to be practicing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ in Hollywood than they are in the barracks of the marines right now. Maybe actors should worry about that more.

Blame it on profitability just like DADT worries about operational effectiveness. In the end, the US military is implementing a more open gay culture than Hollywood does. That’s the definition of ironic.

lane, I think your last paragraph stated the semi-obvious. Some of the backlash may be coming from here…not alll.

If you aren’t gorgeous, handsome and masculine, you couldn’t play those roles either. Most roles it doesn’t matter at all

So does it really matter? If you are an actor you can do it.

I’m not saying anything other than the fact that most of middle America doesn’t really care.

I always like gay people better. Have you ever noticed they have prettier smiles, eyes? They really do, well, probably not all of them but a lot of them do. I like them. Besides, they tend to be more interesting and besides myself, there’s seldom anyone interesting around.

“I always like gay people better. Have you ever noticed they have prettier smiles, eyes? ”

And where are you meeting those gays people? At a fashion house or movie studio? Because the gay people I know look just like everyone else, some are even fat and hairy.

Yeah, thanks for promoting stereotypes.