All “Who’s gay in Hollywood?” speculations are based on the not unreasonable assumption that a gay male actor would have no chance of achieving star status unless he kept it in the closet. Certainly that was true for most of Hollywood’s history, but is it true today? After all, the barrier is at least starting to break down for lesbians.
Sir Ian McKellen has been both uncloseted and a movie star for several decades now.
I am really serious here…
Considering some of the absolute nut cases that currently have fame and riches, I don’t see why being openly gay would be that large a hurdle. So, my vote is yes, they could.
Do you really need a list of uncloseted gay hollywood stars? That would be a pretty long list.
Jack from Will and Grace…wasn’t he out when he got that job?
Good point, but the issue is a little more nuanced than that. O’Reilly brought this up on his show recently (and it spawned a Pit thread by someone who didn’t understand his point). The idea is, could an openly gay male be a leading man type Hollywood start like Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, or Nicholas Cage? I seriously doubt it.
I’m thinking superstars, on the Tom Cruise level. And not a one comes to mind.
TV don’t count.
I’m pretty sure that guy (Sean Hayes, I think is his name) never came out - or is not out, or whatever.
Ruppert Evrett and Ian Cumming are both way gay
Dunno if a British shakespearian actor mainly known in movies from supporting rolls in a few sci-fi/fantasy pictures really counts as a hollywood superstar.
I think the most likely route for this to happen is for a closeted actor to make it big and then come out of the closet. Becoming a superstar is largely about marketing oneself, and the fact is that a large chunk of the movie going public is not yet comfortable with a gay man being a sex symbol. An openly gay hollywood star will happen eventually, but not in the immediate future without some subterfuge at least at the beginning of their career.
Do you mean Alan Cumming? My understanding is he sleeps with humans.
Rupert Everett is, I think, about as close as it gets to the successful gay hunk, and he’s really more of an art-house idol than a Hollywood big-hitter.
Well, by the time The Da Vinci Code finishes its run, he’ll have been in four of the top 50 grossing movies of all time. Supporting roles (key supporting roles) or not, that’s got to count for something.
I do agree that it will be a while before we see an openly gay guy in the traditional “good looking, tough, gets the girl” leading man role, especially in “guy movies.” Vin Diesel and The Rock may be slightly more sensitive, nuanced and brainy than their 80s counterparts Arnold, Jean-Claude and Seagal, but we’re still a long way from seeing a steroind enhanced Sean Hayes as The Gay Terminator. 
What about Vin Diesel?
Is he even gay? The IMDB bio on him doesn’t make it clear one way or another; neither does the Wikipedia article. But both include a telling quote – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Hayes#Quotes:
Is rumored to be gay, right? Even if the rumors are true it doesn’t make him fit the description in the OP.
It counts for a lot (I’m sure Gandalf is counting all the money he’s making), but I think to even debatably count as a “superstar” you have to have the leading roll in atleast a few blockbusters.
Maybe, but Sir Ian is a hell of a lot more respected, more talented, and probably a lot happier than Tom Cruise.
And he’s done a lot more movies than just the X-Men and Lord of the Rings.
Gandalf is a much better actor the Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise and Will Smith all put togeather. But that’s sort of the problem, being a good actor isn’t really what makes a well known “superstar”. If it was, then it would just be a matter of time before a talented gay actor starred in a popular move, got on the cover of a few magazines and started drawing 50 million dollar per movie paychecks and the conditions of the OP would be met. Sadly, as I said before, becoming an acting celebrity appears to be only loosely linked to one’s talent in acting.
Yeah, but that’s what he’s know for amonst us Joe Schmoes in the street. I’ve seen Apt Pupil twice and I didn’t even know that was him in it till I looked at IMDB
I think you need to start by defining Superstar. Box office draw. Large salary demand. Long term career. Do they need “heartthrobability” (Tom Hanks is cute, but seldom shows up in “my celebrity crush” threads). Do they need to be able to act? (i.e. did George Clooney cross some threshhold with Oscar nominations?)
I think fewer and fewer superstars are being made now. The system isn’t set up for it the way it once was. Its been a long time since the demise of the studio system, where superstars were manufactured like car parts - the decline has been long and steady. But with the current environment feels different.
And with fewer and fewer superstars being made, the chances that one of them will be out and gay - slim. Not impossible, just slim. Gay will hold them back and make it less likely - they will be less possible to market as heartthrobs - but that is only one component of stardom.
That’s one sign of a really good actor. E.g., Gary Oldman, who has been called “the disappearing actor.” Who would watch Bram Stoker’s Dracula and recognize Dracula as Lee Harvey Oswald in JFK?
And at the other end of that spectrum you have, say, Michael J. Fox, who has spent his entire career playing Alex Keaton. Not that he’s a bad actor. He’s a very good actor within his limited range.
But we all know which one’s the superstar. A Michael J. Fox cover story will sell a lot more issues of People than a Gary Oldman cover story. Partly because of the above.
Add me to the list. No, not the list of gay actors. I can’t see why being openly gay would eternally handcuff a male actor. I CAN see a problem with a gay male actor playing the alpha male in an action movie, unless he’s rather convincing.
I’m not gonna mention Tom Cruise, I’m not gonna mention Tom Cruise, I’m not gonna mention Tom Cruise, I’m not gonna mention Tom Cruise, I’m not gonna mention Tom Cruise,
I just :dubious: 'd so hard I think I sprained something. Please, please do explain this fascinating statement.