Twitter gays triggered by It: Chapter Two

[GAYHEMikey 8,008]

No wonder why the LGBTs can’t get fully appreciated if they’re complaining about EVERY LITTLE THING

(I am bisexual so don’t think I am homophobic )

[Alphaz 7,956]

What do we learnt from the movie?

Don't be gay. Being gay get you killed.  

[bionic 50,106]

1 minute ago, RudzXinc said:

What do we learnt from the movie?

Don't be gay. Being gay get you killed.  

I know you're joking but

Spoiler

One half of each gay couple survived

 

[Alphaz 7,956]

1 minute ago, bionic said:

I know you're joking but

  Hide contents

One half of each gay couple survived

 

Which one? They never mentioned anything after. Nobody knows what happen to him.

[bionic 50,106]

52 minutes ago, RudzXinc said:

Which one? They never mentioned anything after. Nobody knows what happen to him.

Well I suppose in the abstract

Spoiler

everybody dies one day  

 

[Guest]

So according to the social warriors of social media, nobody has to die or has to go thru any type of PROBLEM in the movie if they are:

-Gay

-Black, latino, asian etc 

-Other sexualities

 

The people allowed to die are :

-White people

-Men (White only)

Oh I forgot, do not make any DOGS die! How dare you? Also pregnant women, transgender women adopting a baby (the baby should not die, only white people's babies can)

[Deagan 608]

I actually get the Twitter gays' concern... this gives all homophobes in the audience a little incentive to go YEAH KILL THE ***S!

[androiduser 7,438]

50 minutes ago, Deagan said:

I actually get the Twitter gays' concern... this gives all homophobes in the audience a little incentive to go YEAH KILL THE ***S!

I agree with you.... I don't think the story should have been changed purely because of this, but that scene will give the homophobes a moment of pleasure, for sure.

[Ziggy 11,795]

My two cents: pretty much every person critiquing this hasn’t read the book so to the guy going “I don’t care that King was impacted by it it’s my trauma!” stfu. It isn’t your trauma. It is someone else’s, don’t appropriate and pretend like it’s yours. It can affect you but it isn’t yours.

AND if you’re going to come to the gun fight, know who you’re fighting. In the book, it’s an incredibly nuanced scene that actually *is* quite important. King’s writing contains a lot of world building (why the books are usually long af), and this homophobic attack was meant to make the point of “evil and horror exists in our own humanity” not “homophones are in small towns!”. If you aren’t even going to critically think, don’t critique; it comes off as lazy and, frankly, immature.

I can respect someone not liking this scene’s inclusion in the movie, I haven’t seen it yet so I can’t speak to it. It sounds to me, though, like it could have been handled with a bit more nuance or doesn’t translate well from book to screen but that it was very important to King that it was included because *he* included it with very specific purpose in mind.

I personally think that as long as it isn’t supported or fetishized, this kind of violence is important to see. It *should* horrify us, that’s the point and King’s point is that you should be horrified by yourselves and your neighbors. Humanity is horrifying. I saw no one bat an eye at the Guantanamo torture footage, actual footage of brown people in dog chains and the like, used in Vice spliced with comedic scenes interspersed so I really don’t think the wider culture has room to talk about depictions it violence. “BuT tHeRe’S a PoInT 2 ThAt” and there is to this as well.

Horror films can be massively problematic, but we just accept it when it’s violence against women (the most common trope), but ope! offend some white gay men and they feel personally triggered and their privilege means we all need to hear about it and agree with them or we’re problematic as well.

The Amazon is burning and Chechnya is still killing gay folk left and right; gather some perspective, hop off Twitter, do the good work, and get off your high horse.

[Ziggy 11,795]

4 hours ago, Hurem said:

The point was he won't kill someone because they're homophobic. He's not a SJW.  

Sounds like you just came up with the Maleficent version of It. Penny wise is actually an antihero 

[FentyGa 14,340]

there needs to be trigger warnings for things like this

[Inferno 2,880]

14 hours ago, gypsygay said:

I think you need to see the movie to understand why the scene makes no sense. It would be like putting in a rape scene for you to never see anything more about the characters. It was just there with no meaning other than to show the brutality. Trust me, watch it and you will understand it was unnecessary. 

 

14 hours ago, LibraOctober98 said:

I don't even think that happened in the original? I certainly don't remember it so... Yeah maybe a lil unnecessary

Clearly no one here actually read the novel or is aware that it was one lol

The entire first chapter is the whole story of that dude and his bf, the death of that gay guy plays a big role in the book and was the first that kicks off the return of Pennywise. Theres way more characters in the book in general that all tie together. Its actually a very homoerotic novel in moments, theres like one paragraph where hes literally describing the bulge of one of the carnival workers lol I would not say it comes across homophobic at all in type...at least what I remember from reading it myself I never interpreted the homoeroticism as offensive so much as gratuitous at times in the same way some other horror authors/directors utilize sexuality in general to pair with the violence in this intoxicating way.

I guess i'd be willing to argue/agree that they could have done a better job integrating that specific story into the film (im sure a lot was left on the cutting room floor), but considering its literally how the novel kicks off they felt it necessary to include it.

[Hurem 17,800]

7 minutes ago, FentyGa said:

there needs to be trigger warnings for things like this

The movie is rated R. No need to put additional trigger warnings. If you're easily triggered, don't go see the movie.

[MJHolland 12,725]

14 hours ago, Jose P said:

You would think gay people would appreciate the fact that a book written in the 80s portrayed a homophobic attack as something horrifying and inhumane. But no, they had to turn it into something bad.

I just hate this modern attitude of trying to censor art. Films aren’t made to pander to your feelings. This sense of entitlement is so effing stupid. The scene never once supported this behavior, that it didn’t add to the whole story doesn’t make it something offensive or insensitive. 

You would think that six (6) Tweets from randos with like a handful of followers wouldn't constitute as 'all gay people' or  the "modern attitude" of censorship. 

You seem to be just as "triggered" as the rest of them. Complaining about the mere fact that someone has a different opinion than you makes you just as guilty of censorship and snowflaking. 

[Ziggy 11,795]

19 minutes ago, FentyGa said:

there needs to be trigger warnings for things like this

I go back and forth on this. On the one hand, I agree, but on the other it is a horror film. Being potentially horrified is in the genre, ya know? And we know the material the movie is pulling from since it's an adaptation so we can't be *too surprised. Idk I can see arguments both ways on it.