This thread is better

But anyway, you win this time Magnus. I will have my revenge in the future, though! Watch outttt

I would be more concerned if it got a R rating out the gate.

Um, if it is about a flaming gay character and it's cited for "graphic sexual content" or whatever, I would assume that means graphic gay sex. Something I don't think all the guys who loved Borat will be a huge fan of.

If its played for comedy, why not? Gay, straight, funny sexual situations are funny sexual situations.

Borat had a nearly 5-minute long graphically naked wrestling scene, I doubt that many people who loved Borat would be that sensitive about it.

Yes, but it wasn't "gay", at least not from the fucked perspective of 20 year old heterosexual males, it was all just a "joke" and while this will be too, it's "gays" that are not doing it. Not guys who are in love with Pamela Anderson. So it could be a lot worse in the aforementioned fucked up perspective.

Why is their perspective fucked?

Because they think lesbians fucking is totally hot but gay men fucking is the nastiest thing in the world. Cause they think 2 completely naked straight guys fighting and wrestling is totally hilarious, but make an exact duplicate of that scene with two guys that are said to be gay and they'll hate it.
I am, obviously, talking in generalities. Some of them are perfectly logical people that aren't douches, but in majority, yeah, that's fucked up.

You could probably make the same argument for heterosexual girls and guys of many age groups though.

And I'm sure there are some homosexual girls and guys that find straight sex disgusting. Hell, I've read comments along those lines in this very forum.

Yeah, that exists, but because "heterosexuality" is so...mainstream, it's hard to really have a problem with it, even if you want to. Of all the people I know, the only group that USUALLY says they are grossed out by the sex they are not attracted doing sexual activity, is straight, young males.

Straight guys like two woman going at it because it turns them on. Two guys going at it doesnt. I dont think thats a f_cked perspective at all.

In a business sense, it could go either way (depending whats in the film) but attracting the majority straight audience makes more sense.

Im glad this got an NC-17 on first cut. Its going to have a HUGE opening weekend so total will be good regardless of legs.

Bruno is an awful character, no where near as funny, marketable or interesting as Borat. It'll probably open to 20 million, but then crash and burn.

It doesn't even necessarily mean it's going to be gay sex. I could see an over-the-top scene of it thrown in for laughs, but that's about it. You could argue that Borat had one . I mean, I know people who were just as disgusted by that (hilarious) scene and labeled it "gay." Besides, a lot of those people who would be offended by this movie probably won't go and see it. It's not like it will be hidden that this character is a flaming homosexual.

An article in Time basically states the main reason for NC-17 being a scene of seemingly graphic anal sex with another man. It's actually a stupid article if you read it, it keeps making the MPAA and Bruno's initial rating appear to be this huge deal, but then admits in its last paragraph, like we all already know, that the studio will obviously get it trimmed to an R and that Bruno will be immensely popular in its "Unrated" version on DVD, no harm, no foul. It's a waste of an article.