Twitter gays triggered by It: Chapter Two

[CautiousLurker 16,578]

I guess... I need to see the movie first to make that call, but... 

To the people saying 'oh, it's what prompts It to come back, that's why it's in the book' - the first movie did not establish at all what It is and what makes it appear, so unless they are overt with the fact this time, I'd question the decision to include this scene simply because inclusion of it will appeal to certain markets, and you can be damn sure some people will take it as 'this is morally acceptable' as the message... 

This is why when it comes to portrayals of homophobia, you better have a good reason 

[xcx 1,129]

I just came back from watching the movie, and that scene felt so completely pointless. In the first movie, at least, the "evil" characters got their comeuppance and were possessed by Pennywise so they seemed relevant. This time, those people who committed the hate crime didn't come back so they felt completely irrelevant to the movie. If they wanted to make some social commentary about how hate is still in the world by including that scene, then they completely failed. It was so irrelevant. I love horror movies, but this felt so much more unnecessary and irrelevant than any kill I can remember from a horror movie I've seen.

Spoiler

However, I was really happy with the way they portrayed Richie and his storyline of being in love with Eddie. I think that somewhat redeemed how terrible the opening scene was.

 

[beaublue 3,865]

Showing homophobia isn’t homophobic... Sorry they didn’t make a sesame st film where every little thing is explained to you cause thinking takes too much effort 🤷🏻‍♀️ There’s a REASON that scene is in the movie, if you can’t understand the point of it then maybe you should sit down & think a little harder

[HorusRa2 4,978]

1 minute ago, androiduser said:

But it does define him, because his biggest fear is being outed and the clown plays on that

It didn’t make the totality of his personality when many modern movies have their orientation be the entire subject matter of their character. Ritchie’s is deeper than that. 

[ltlmnstr 2,771]

1 hour ago, PoshLife said:

I'd rather we stop using the word "triggered" to try to delegitimize the feelings of people we disagree with. That sort of BS belongs on 4chan, not on GGD. Truthfully, that's the only thing I got out of this sad thread.

Yeah after the 2016 election, GGD has become more and more hateful. There was a thread awhile back demonizing femme gays for like femme things and Gay men should be “men who act like men and date men only”

[androiduser 7,097]

Just now, HorusRa2 said:

It didn’t make the totality of his personality when many modern movies have their orientation be the entire subject matter of their character. Ritchie’s is deeper than that. 

yeah, I understand what you are saying, but I just think that's the whole point... he's so stuck up about being gay that he doesn't allow it to define him at all, and at the same time it defines him entirely because it's his biggest fear throughout his whole life.

[CautiousLurker 16,578]

9 minutes ago, lovedillon said:

Showing homophobia isn’t homophobic... seriously over everyone always trying to b*tch about stuff

That's the thing tho - in some cases it can be...

One of the reasons gay characters aren't really a thing in big Hollywood movies is because inclusion of them means the movie might be banned in certain countries, for instance Russia, and China are infamous for that... In Russia for example, they will only allow that if the 'gay' character is a villain, changes their sexual orientation, or dies by the end which they see as the movie sending a message that ultimately this 'lifestyle' will be someone's ruin... 

I guess you could argue that this is basic marketing strategy and it's not homophobic if you just want the movie to earn more money, but it's most certainly not gay friendly when you're consciously making a movie with a market in mind that will see this as promoting of heterosexual lifestyle and condemnation of... THE GAYS

[androiduser 7,097]

7 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

I'd question the decision to include this scene simply because inclusion of it will appeal to certain markets, and you can be damn sure some people will take it as 'this is morally acceptable' as the message... 
This is why when it comes to portrayals of homophobia, you better have a good reason 

I am okay with the scene, but I do agree with you on this part... the movie portrays the attack as a fact, without anything bad happening to the attackers, so homophobic moviegoers will enjoy this scene, and won't even be told that this was wrong. Especially because the gay couple was kissing in public (gasp!) and one of the guys was really sassy.

[beaublue 3,865]

6 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

That's the thing tho - in some cases it can be...

One of the reasons gay characters aren't really a thing in big Hollywood movies is because inclusion of them means the movie might be banned in certain countries, for instance Russia, and China are infamous for that... In Russia for example, they will only allow that if the 'gay' character is a villain, changes their sexual orientation, or dies by the end which they see as the movie sending a message that ultimately this 'lifestyle' will be someone's ruin... 

I guess you could argue that employing basic marketing strategy isn't homophobic, but it's most certainly not gay friendly when you're consciously making a movie with a market in mind that will see this as promoting of heterosexual lifestyle and condemnation of... THE GAYS

Literally one of the main characters, who’s part of the losers club, is GAY... so saying they made them die just to get the movie into countries who only allow it if gays die or are villains makes no sense when a main character is gay. The actual issue is that people are too lazy to think & want the movie to explain every little thing & elaborate on stuff that you should already be able to grasp as an adult.

[HorusRa2 4,978]

12 minutes ago, androiduser said:

yeah, I understand what you are saying, but I just think that's the whole point... he's so stuck up about being gay that he doesn't allow it to define him at all, and at the same time it defines him entirely because it's his biggest fear throughout his whole life.

I’m going to disagree. The way they handled the aftermath where he went to the carving of R & E initials showcased in a implicit way that while he was not okay with him being gay, it was a step forward because he has to face his feelings (and likely guilt) for Eddie and the fact he never told him. It’s just my opinion but I think you’re taking the movie at face value & you’re missing some nuances. 😃

[CautiousLurker 16,578]

1 minute ago, lovedillon said:

Literally one of the main characters, who’s part of the losers club, is GAY... so saying they made them die just to get the movie into countries who only allow it if gays die or are villains makes no sense when a main character is gay. The actual issue is that people are too lazy to think & want the movie to explain every little thing & elaborate on stuff you should already be able to grasp as an adult.

Again, I haven't seen the film yet, but I'll reserve my skepticism because even if the main character is gay, it can still be handled poorly...

As for lazy people wanting everything explained - sometimes you kinda need to have that, especially if the movie is gonna be shown to a large audience... Movies and media in general are good at shaping world-view, so the last thing you want is to allow your movie to be misinterpreted as condemning a certain lifestyle by cultures who are already primed for that sort of thinking... unless of course it's your intention to keep things ambiguous for financial reasons 

[androiduser 7,097]

1 minute ago, HorusRa2 said:

I’m going to disagree. The way they handled the aftermath where he went to the carving of R & E initials showcased in a implicit way that while he was not okay with him being gay, it was a step forward because he has to face his feelings (and likely guilt) for Eddie and the fact he never told him. It’s just my opinion but I think you’re taking the movie at face value & you’re missing some nuances. 😃

oh I definitely agree with you about the ending scene... but throughout the whole movie, before the finale, and presumably throughout his whole life, he's in fear of being outed... that's why I say that him being gay does define him.

[beaublue 3,865]

15 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

Again, I haven't seen the film yet, but I'll reserve my skepticism because even if the main character is gay, it can still be handled poorly...

As for lazy people wanting everything explained - sometimes you kinda need to have that, especially if the movie is gonna be shown to a large audience... Movies and media in general are good at shaping world-view, so the last thing you want is to allow your movie to be misinterpreted as condemning a certain lifestyle by cultures who are already primed for that sort of thinking... unless of course it's your intention to keep things ambiguous for financial reasons 

Well, “again” you didn’t say you haven’t seen the film when choosing to reply to me, someone that has. So yes, by all means reserve your opinions for after you actually see it, or hey, maybe read the book?

[DC 25,164]

33 minutes ago, ltlmnstr said:

Yeah after the 2016 election, GGD has become more and more hateful. There was a thread awhile back demonizing femme gays for like femme things and Gay men should be “men who act like men and date men only”

[RAMROD 96,325]

These people are ridiculous. There are context in the fiction. Why taking it way too personally?! I don't feel it this way when I saw it the other day. Cos I understood the context. And that it was set in the 1980s where things a whole lot different than today. Tisk tisk tisk