Movie starring openly gay man in action role opens to $300 million worldwide

[quote]irregardless

Oh, dear!

What about C-3P0?

R2 That bitch was supporting.

Do you honestly think any living soul went to this intellectual property, summer action flick solely because of one actor in it named Jonathan Bailey?

Shut yer mouth, r4, he IS beloved.

Next week OP will say Suoerman opened to $900M because people love David Corenswet and/or Rachel Brosnahan.

That’s suoer, R.6!

Is Jonathan Bailey white?

These responses are silly. I think OP is partly right, this actually is pretty meaningful. Yes, of course, this is another in a long line of IP-dependent sequels that have a lot of built-in success because of their legacy, but Bailey's popularity just keeps rising and rising. Obviously, it helps that he's ridiculously handsome, can be straight-passing in roles and is naturally charismatic.

[quote] Do you honestly think any living soul went to this intellectual property, summer action flick solely because of one actor in it named Jonathan Bailey?

If none have already, I'm about to in 30 minutes.

Is Jonathan Bailey yellow?

I think this movie would have done well no matter who they cast in the lead role. It really has nothing to do with gay people and acceptance.

{whispering a one-word inaudible}

I agree, R9. It's not that the movie was sold on the star power of Jonathan Bailey, but no one at Universal decided "We can't have an openly gay actor as the lead of this summer blockbuster." It's a barrier that probably could have been broken much sooner, but I think we can take a little bit of pleasure that it finally happened, and no one really made a big deal about it.

Maybe Jonathan Bailey's next studio movie will be sold on his star power, at least to the degree it's even possible nowadays.

… and bombs in week 2, OP.

R14, life doesn’t revolve around Hollywood. No great barriers or glass ceilings were broken. Grow up.

Jonathan Baily's last three movies in the last year where he is (at least) a feature player:

Wicked Part I - Blockbuster Hit

Jurassic World Rebirth- (on its way to be a) Blockbuster Hit

Wicked Part II- Audience anticipation points to another Blockbuster Hit

(I would cast him in a move, if not for star power, then for the luck he brings.)

[quote]These responses are silly. I think OP is partly right, this actually is pretty meaningful.

No it’s not. Only to infantile gay men.

r4 Where did OP state "solely because of one actor?"

R17 = Jonathan Bailey.

The film is a critical bomb and no movie did amazingly. It’s a low bar.

r16 You doing ok?

[quote] … and bombs in week 2, OP.

You can always hope and pray that it fails at the box office. After all, even haters have dreams, even if they are rather sad ones.

r18/20/21 and your numerous other posts here - you seemed to be happier in the Errol Flynn smells bad thread.

I'm happy for Jonathan. He's a nice guy. Hot too. He deserves the success.

Openly gay man who isn’t playing gay or at least no sexuality is discussed… so what’s your point? He wasn’t the lead btw.

r26 No one said he was the lead. I'm not OP, but what is YOUR point?

That people didn’t go to see JURASSIC WORLD (the 7th film in the series) for Jon Bailey. If anything having movie star ScarJo as the lead was a selling point outside of the JP brand itself.

R27 I’m with r26

Go re-read what your title says, your OP says and what every response from you has been. Praising the films success on the “openly gay man” when no one went to see this because of him. And he is not the lead of this film like OP makes it sound.

r28 And no one is claiming that, dear

r29 I'm r27, but not OP. I don't see where OP is praising the film because of the openly-gay man. You're reading what you (oddly) wish to see. It would appear that OP was just happy that a movie with an openly-gay man is successful at the box office.

If I were to see this, which may happen on the 12th, Jonathan is the only reason.

R32 yeah that’s bullshit. Welcome to reality. And he isn’t the lead.

FFing people calling you out on your bullshit post so they can’t reply is bullshit too. If you’re gonna speak bullshit be willing to hear the truth

r33 I'll probably go see it. It's playing at the mall near me.

r33 What is the bullshit part of r32's post? It's just his opinion.

I'm not OP, and I have not FFed anyone in this strange thread. But, a couple of you are very strangely angry over a simple post.

R33, I haven’t FFed anyone. Not even you. And what I said happens to be the truth. I have a friend who organizes a bunch of us to do “dinner and a film,” as he calls it, every Saturday and holiday. And next Saturday, I believe he’s planning on JB in JP. I can’t imagine how that made you so angry.

It could have been Jonathan Groff or Ben Platt and the box office would have been exactly the same. It’s all about the dinosaurs not the supporting actors.

r37 Yes, dear, we know that. No one said otherwise.

I like dinos!

It’s interesting how sad people have become due to the isolation that’s come hand in hand with our digital future.

They develop these strange alliances with things that have nothing to do with them, and attack anything that might change its “supremacy.” Jurassic Park is an example — we have a crazed stan on this forum who is obsessed with attacking this new movie because HOW DARE IT even breathe the same air as the original movie.

No one went because of him, but no one stayed away because of him, either. His cachet with the teen & young adult “Wicked” crowd is strong, and they don’t care about his sexuality. He’s on the verge of major movie stardom and that IS significant.

I’ve never watched any of the Jurassic Park films, and despite Bailey, I won’t be watching this one.

R42 Oh shoot, ok. Thanks for letting us know. This changes everything.

[Quote] His cachet with the teen & young adult “Wicked” crowd is strong, and they don’t care about his sexuality.

But surely you realize the Venn diagram of Wicked crowd and Jurassic park crowd isn’t two circles occupying the same space?

Not sure why people are fighting this idea so hard, but OP is right — studio heads thought that his homosexuality wouldn’t matter to the action flick crowd, and audiences are proving that right. And that’s good news.

He was a boring lead.

The homosexual circular firing squad — it always forms!

I don't feel obligated to like or care about an actor just because of we both suck cock, r46

Yes it seems the opposite, r47

Bailey, a seasoned practitioner of the pink oboe, was allowed to play clarinet on the Abbey Road soundstage.

Hollywood can take one step forward and then two steps backward.

California fae

[quote] Is Jonathan Bailey yellow?

No.

[quote]It could have been Jonathan Groff or Ben Platt

The only role Ben Platt could play in a Jurassic Park movie is one of the dinosaurs.

[quote] The only role Ben Platt could play in a Jurassic Park movie is one of the dinosaurs.

I disagree. He could play the corpse of Richard Attenborough.

He's playing it too safe with these PG-13, IP popcorn films.

Buy he's having a very believable affair with Scarjo!

90% of Americans don't know he' s gay. The rest of the world couldn't care less.

I’m sure they’ll cast him as the lead in the next Top Gun!

[quote]The only role Ben Platt could play in a Jurassic Park movie is one of the dinosaurs.

Now now, there might be a place for him if they decide to introduce Cha-Ka in a later sequel. He could even bring Noah along if they need some tiny venomous lizard to hiss menacingly at the leads.

They keep him interestingly asexual in the movie

Cha-Ka Khan?

I love him; he is fine.

I plan to go see him kick dinosaur ass.

One thing that was odd was they made him out to be American with an American accent, which was completely unnecessary and distracting.

I think the point here is that it didnt put the public off; a long held view in Hollywood. Its Not that JB brought in punters (im sure he might have brought in some), but that the public dont care. That is Good to see.

[quote]This is a very significant step for gay actors, irregardless of the movie being derivative IP flotsam.

Buuut nobody’s going to see this because of the gay actor. The dinosaurs and scarlett johansson trump (no pun intended) the gay.

r65 Reading others' posts is challenging, isn't it? No one here has claimed that people are going to see it because of the gay actor, dear.

It is sort of a big deal than an out gay actor got cast in this franchise — that wouldn’t have happened a decade ago. That he played Fiero, the prince charming character in WICKED probably didn’t hurt.

But it’s also a safe bet that the drive-in crowd expected to be the ausience for this were not dedicated “Bridgerton” fans, nor do they know he won an Olivier for singing “Not Getting Married Today” in COMPANY, nor did they likely watch him sucking Matt Bomer’s toes in FELLOW TRAVELERS.

But he has broken through and cracked the American market wjere he can make big bucks while still doing Shakespeare in London when he wants. That’s got to be the ideal of every actor, and especiallt difficult fir a British one.

Do Josh O’Connor or Paul Mescal dream of having this kind of career or is it their idea of a nightmare?