"Stonewall" movie flops VICIOUSLY at box office

[Supersonic 49,375]

I don't know anything about the story of stone wall. All I know is the trailer didn't look good...

If you don't mind I'm gonna break it a little down.

Back in 1969 the LGBT community was very heavily profiled and harassed by the police forces of the USA (similar to how Black people are still victims of racial profiling in the USA). The police regularly shut down and occupied LGBT centers and arrested the people who peacfully protested against their basic human rights being taken away for "resisting police force". Especially black & latino LGBT members were targeted by the police.

A gay bar in the Christopher Street in New York called "Stonewall" (hence Christopher Street Day/Pride and Stonewall riots) was yet again raided by the police and the people in there started defending themselves against the police which caused a heavy and enduring riot. The people who lead the fight for equality back then were primarily black and latino transgender women, namely Marsha P. Johnson (who was also a drag performer) and Sylvia Rivera (she is sometimes credited with throwing the first brick at a police officer) along with other activists like Stormé DeLarverie and Miss Major Griffin-Gracy.

The riots caused a major shift in the legislation of the USA which had been HEAVILY anti-LGBT prior to it and every year Pride marches are held worldwide at the end of June to celebrate the anniversary of the riots.

 

[DrewStevens 5,249]

 

It's insane to compare those situations.

Stonewall's failure at the box office will be used in board rooms all over Hollywood as a justification for not green lighting more gay films. "The gay audience didn't show up to a film about the birth of their revolution, why should we fund a project about Marsha P. Johnson, etc..."

The film makers offered a specific version of history in the hopes that the story would be palatable to a larger audience. They were misguided and wrong. They weren't motivated by homophobia or transphobia. The film makers didn't molest their sisters, they didn't deny anyone their right to marriage, and they didn't call a flight attended a *******. They just ****ed up, in the same way  HBO turned Leonardo Da Vinci into a ladies man, or Spielberg made no mention of  Lincoln's homos-xuality.

People should have seen the movie, and made criticisms about it's historical inaccuracies afterward.

 

My post was not comparing anything. I just said that we are finally exposing people who do ****ty things towards the community. 

Yes, they ****ed up. The film makers offered a white/cis washed version of LGBT+ history in the hopes to make money. There's no excuse, these actions only promote trans and black erasure. 

[SKANK 14,288]

My post was not comparing anything. I just said that we are finally exposing people who do ****ty things towards the community. 

Yes, they ****ed up. The film makers offered a white/cis washed version of LGBT+ history in the hopes to make money. There's no excuse, these actions only promote trans and black erasure. 

 

You equated Kim Davis, Azealia Banks, the Duggers, and the box office bombing of the Stonewall film as victories for the LGBT community. That is an unfair comparison.

From what I have heard from one of the three people who actually saw the film, Stonewall was a ****ty romance that happened to take place during the riot as opposed to a historical film about the riot.

As for trans/POC erasure, I have never once heard  Stonewall be discussed without mention that it was the "trannys and queens who threw the first stones." The riots and Marsha P. Johnson's name go hand in hand. There is no threat of trans/POC erasure when it comes to Stonewall.

[JbGaga 2,261]

If you don't mind I'm gonna break it a little down.

Back in 1969 the LGBT community was very heavily profiled and harassed by the police forces of the USA (similar to how Black people are still victims of racial profiling in the USA). The police regularly shut down and occupied LGBT centers and arrested the people who peacfully protested against their basic human rights being taken away for "resisting police force". Especially black & latino LGBT members were targeted by the police.

A gay bar in the Christopher Street in New York called "Stonewall" (hence Christopher Street Day/Pride and Stonewall riots) was yet again raided by the police and the people in there started defending themselves against the police which caused a heavy and enduring riot. The people who lead the fight for equality back then were primarily black and latino transgender women, namely Marsha P. Johnson (who was also a drag performer) and Sylvia Rivera (she is sometimes credited with throwing the first brick at a police officer) along with other activists like Stormé DeLarverie and Miss Major Griffin-Gracy.

The riots caused a major shift in the legislation of the USA which had been HEAVILY anti-LGBT prior to it and every year Pride marches are held worldwide at the end of June to celebrate the anniversary of the riots.

 

Ty. so why is this movie bad/ inaccurate. what did they do?

[Supersonic 49,375]

Ty. so why is this movie bad/ inaccurate. what did they do?

They disregarded the black, latinx AND transgender community by erasing all of the historical figures and replacing them with a fictionalized white, "straight-acting" gay boy as the riot AND gay rights movement leader. The entire cast of the movie except from one supporting actor is entirely white and cisgender. Erasing any people of color from a historical movie or purposely miscasting them is known as "whitewashing". This is not just bad for purposefully misrepresenting facts for the sake of a bigger chance to get a box office hit, it also keeps actors that belong to specific minorities (i.e. LGBT actors, black actors, latinx actors) out of mainstream cinema which gives them less visbility and lower chances of succeeding in the industry (like the white actors that get cast instead) and to some degree also harms generations of young LGBT, black and latinx because they never see themselves represented. This could also lead to a lot of internalized self-hate due to thinking that people like them are not worth being represented.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

You equated Kim Davis, Azealia Banks, the Duggers, and the box office bombing of the Stonewall film as victories for the LGBT community. That is an unfair comparison.

From what I have heard from one of the three people who actually saw the film, Stonewall was a ****ty romance that happened to take place during the riot as opposed to a historical film about the riot.

As for trans/POC erasure, I have never once heard  Stonewall be discussed without mention that it was the "trannys and queens who threw the first stones." The riots and Marsha P. Johnson's name go hand in hand. There is no threat of trans/POC erasure when it comes to Stonewall.

I didn't equate anything. I said "Another day another slay" and the proceeded to list some people. That's not a comparison. I watched the movie in a film festival and it's bad, it's obviously made for commercial purposes and not for any benefit to the community. It's a awful trashy Hollywood and generic version of 'Milk' with a few touches of 'Hairspray'.

They didn't have to make a historical film about the riot, but why did they waste such an important event in such a cheesy movie? 

Their excuse is to say that they made this to reach larger audiences but the truth is that we live in a different time. Trans people and the LGBT community in general are more exposed than never before. If they would have made a really important movie about the riot they wouldn't be facing this backlash, the critical acclaim would be better and the box office would be way better.

The only good thing that came out of this is that now younger generations who were not aware of this events are learning what really happened.

[Angel Baby 106]

Never heard of this movie until now......

[Kermit 15,807]

Good, that movie is racist, a black transgendered woman threw the brick...

[SKANK 14,288]

I didn't equate anything. I said "Another day another slay" and the proceeded to list some people. That's not a comparison. I watched the movie in a film festival and it's bad, it's obviously made for commercial purposes and not for any benefit to the community. It's a awful trashy Hollywood and generic version of 'Milk' with a few touches of 'Hairspray'.

They didn't have to make a historical film about the riot, but why did they waste such an important event in such a cheesy movie? 

Their excuse is to say that they made this to reach larger audiences but the truth is that we live in a different time. Trans people and the LGBT community in general are more exposed than never before. If they would have made a really important movie about the riot they wouldn't be facing this backlash, the critical acclaim would be better and the box office would be way better.

The only good thing that came out of this is that now younger generations who were not aware of this events are learning what really happened.

 

"I just listed things that are in no way comparable, the list was arbitrary, it wasn't really even a list, it was stream of consciousness, I wasn't comparing anything, it was verbal vomit."  Whatever you say gurl. lmao

I'm certainly not defending this mess of a film, I just think the boycott was not particularly helpful and will have negative consequences for other gay films.

 

Good, that movie is racist, a black transgendered woman threw the brick...

 

I think you are referring to Marsha P. Johnson, a trans woman of color, who actually is portrayed in the film.

[MJHolland 12,723]

 

It's insane to compare those situations.

Stonewall's failure at the box office will be used in board rooms all over Hollywood as a justification for not green lighting more gay films. "The gay audience didn't show up to a film about the birth of their revolution, why should we fund a project about Marsha P. Johnson, etc..."

The film makers offered a specific version of history in the hopes that the story would be palatable to a larger audience. They were misguided and wrong. They weren't motivated by homophobia or transphobia. The film makers didn't molest their sisters, they didn't deny anyone their right to marriage, and they didn't call a flight attended a *******. They just ****ed up, in the same way  HBO turned Leonardo Da Vinci into a ladies man, or Spielberg made no mention of  Lincoln's homos-xuality.

People should have seen the movie, and made criticisms about it's historical inaccuracies afterward.

 

1000000% agreed. Thanks for posting!

[JbGaga 2,261]

They disregarded the black, latinx AND transgender community by erasing all of the historical figures and replacing them with a fictionalized white, "straight-acting" gay boy as the riot AND gay rights movement leader. The entire cast of the movie except from one supporting actor is entirely white and cisgender. Erasing any people of color from a historical movie or purposely miscasting them is known as "whitewashing". This is not just bad for purposefully misrepresenting facts for the sake of a bigger chance to get a box office hit, it also keeps actors that belong to specific minorities (i.e. LGBT actors, black actors, latinx actors) out of mainstream cinema which gives them less visbility and lower chances of succeeding in the industry (like the white actors that get cast instead) and to some degree also harms generations of young LGBT, black and latinx because they never see themselves represented. This could also lead to a lot of internalized self-hate due to thinking that people like them are not worth being represented.

Well if there was Latino, Black, trans, ect.. people in the movement and not depicted in the movie then that's awful. This is going to sound bad but for someone like me who didn't know or doesn't know about Stone Wall is it considered a good movie, if the Race roles and "Whitewashing" is ignored"?  

[Supersonic 49,375]

Well if there was Latino, Black, trans, ect.. people in the movement and not depicted in the movie then that's awful. This is going to sound bad but for someone like me who didn't know or doesn't know about Stone Wall is it considered a good movie, if the Race roles and "Whitewashing" is ignored"?  

Well if you just objectively want to look at the movie without the whitewashing it doesn't seem to be the critic's pet, it got horrendous reviews for the clumsy plot (which is probably due to trying to rewrite historical events lmao) and it got criticized heavily for the lead actor of the movie being bad as well
The rotten tomatoes score is 10% which signifies that the movie tends to be kinda of horrible nevertheless. The audience score by the website goers is suspiciously high at 94% though.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/stonewall_2015/

Metacritic calculated an average score of 30/100

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/stonewall

 

[DrewStevens 5,249]

 

"I just listed things that are in no way comparable, the list was arbitrary, it wasn't really even a list, it was stream of consciousness, I wasn't comparing anything, it was verbal vomit."  Whatever you say gurl. lmao

I'm certainly not defending this mess of a film, I just think the boycott was not particularly helpful and will have negative consequences for other gay films.

 

 

I think you are referring to Marsha P. Johnson, a trans woman of color, who actually is portrayed in the film.

You really don't know how to argue without trying put others down, do you?

It wasn't a comparison. It's just like saying "Another day another criminal in jail. A murder, a thief and a 
rapist, all in jail". Am I saying all those people are equally horrible? No, I'm saying they are all criminals. It's not a comparison, it's putting subjects together in a certain category because they share something in common.

I hope it has negative consequences for awful movies with negative effects.

[venusian 4,686]

 

It's insane to compare those situations.

Stonewall's failure at the box office will be used in board rooms all over Hollywood as a justification for not green lighting more gay films. "The gay audience didn't show up to a film about the birth of their revolution, why should we fund a project about Marsha P. Johnson, etc..."

The film makers offered a specific version of history in the hopes that the story would be palatable to a larger audience. They were misguided and wrong. They weren't motivated by homophobia or transphobia. The film makers didn't molest their sisters, they didn't deny anyone their right to marriage, and they didn't call a flight attended a *******. They just ****ed up, in the same way  HBO turned Leonardo Da Vinci into a ladies man, or Spielberg made no mention of  Lincoln's homos-xuality.

People should have seen the movie, and made criticisms about it's historical inaccuracies afterward.

 

the movie is whitewashed bull****. i have no want to watch this. anybody who supports this movie needs to check themselves. its racist.

[SKANK 14,288]

You really don't know how to argue without trying put others down, do you?

It wasn't a comparison. It's just like saying "Another day another criminal in jail. A murder, a thief and a 
rapist, all in jail". Am I saying all those people are equally horrible? No, I'm saying they are all criminals. It's not a comparison, it's putting subjects together in a certain category because they share something in common.

I hope it has negative consequences for awful movies with negative effects.

 

I'm sorry that you feel that I am putting you down, that really isn't my intention. It's just that you aren't making much sense.

"It's not a comparison, it's putting subjects together in a certain category because they share something in common."

That is literally the definition of comparing.