Twitter gays triggered by It: Chapter Two

[Inferno 2,880]

29 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

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 effect 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.

Thank you, finally someone else in this thread that has actually read the novel.

[thatfoxyfeeling 13,009]

I just went to see it and even though the opening scene is horrific it's not homophobic at all, one of the loosers is gay. 

[Bizcochito 5,313]

sjws attacking 13RW teas 

[LibraOctober98 3,495]

38 minutes ago, Inferno said:

 

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.

I said, for the third time, that I was referring to the original movie. I want to know if the scene happened in the original movie. I read some of the book, like I been done had saidT. I'm not even an "offended Twitter gay," I haven't seen part II because part one BLEW, I'm just asking a question which is: did the scene occur in the first movie. Because if it didn't, then that would solidify the fact that they could have made a good movie without including the scene. I've seen it only once and I really don't remember that happening. So if anyone else quotes my first post saying "YOU DIdngne R eaD The BoOK" I'm suing

[Thraumatica 156]

To the people who saw the movie, Is it very gay? I was planning to go see it with my family but after reading all this  I’m afraid to go with them (they’re quite homophobic). The last thing I want is them having a talk about those ‘issues’ with me. 

[corvus albus 38,031]

From what I heard this osunds a lot like the: "Bury your Gays" trope. I haven't seen teh movie but from it's description it seems that from the main characters only that gay character get's killed and if that is the truth that trope applies.

The problematic thing here is that it shows that gay people aren't allowed a happy ending. Killing mainly gay characters, especially ones in love, while the straight ones survive is just a malicious act of vile homphobia.

Here's someone who uses way stronger words than I'm allowed on here:

 

[thatfoxyfeeling 13,009]

5 minutes ago, corvus albus said:

From what I heard this osunds a lot like the: "Bury your Gays" trope. I haven't seen teh movie but from it's description it seems that from the main characters only that gay character get's killed and if that is the truth that trope applies.

The problematic thing here is that it shows that gay people aren't allowed a happy ending. Killing mainly gay characters, especially ones in love, while the straight ones survive is just a malicious act of vile homphobia.

Here's someone who uses way stronger words than I'm allowed on here:

 

The main gay character doesn't get killed.

[corvus albus 38,031]

Just now, THATFoxyFeeling said:

The main gay character doesn't get killed.

But is it a main character? And if yes, is it the only main character to be killed?

[imnotyourbabe10 6,100]

1 hour ago, Ziggy said:

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.

Thank you for your post!!  King's work is deeply profound and horror is a reflection of societal pressure points (King's non-fiction work "Danse Macabre" is a stellar read for anyone interested in horror history as it relates to society).
And "IT" is such a great, lengthy read.  While I have not seen the film just yet, I am glad they included this part of the story (and hope for other Derry history such as the massacre at the bar, which even alluded to union organizers being murdered).
Looking forward to getting spooked by it in IMAX tomorrow

[Sepsami 18,843]

6 hours ago, Nightwing said:

I'm viewing them as homophobes. I didn't say that Pennywise would look at them and view them as homophobes or even care that they would be. I'm saying that I wish the directors/producers had made the decision for Pennywise to kill the homophobes; not because they're homophobic, but because he wanted to kill them.

Pennywise feeds on fear, obviously he prefers to devour the terrified person instead of the group of men that aren't scared at all 

[Hurem 17,800]

1 hour ago, corvus albus said:

But is it a main character? And if yes, is it the only main character to be killed?

It's not a main character. But there is a main character who's gay, but they didn't make it too obvious.

[Inferno 2,880]

1 hour ago, LibraOctober98 said:

I said, for the third time, that I was referring to the original movie. I want to know if the scene happened in the original movie. I read some of the book, like I been done had saidT. I'm not even an "offended Twitter gay," I haven't seen part II because part one BLEW, I'm just asking a question which is: did the scene occur in the first movie. Because if it didn't, then that would solidify the fact that they could have made a good movie without including the scene. I've seen it only once and I really don't remember that happening. So if anyone else quotes my first post saying "YOU DIdngne R eaD The BoOK" I'm suing

Whether or not it happened in the first film is entirely irrelevant because the first film re-interpreted the novel (in some ways for the worse). The intention of the current feature film iteration of It, is to stay closer to the novel. Thus why people apparently keep responding to you with facts about the novel. And how these gay characters related to the story.

[FentyGa 14,340]

2 hours ago, Hurem said:

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

but the thing is...it's not the murder that's an issue, it's not the gore, etc. it's the homophobia, which can be in any film of any rating. that's why a trigger warning is necessary. it wouldn't take much effort, and it would make the moviegoing experience better for so many people.

[Hurem 17,800]

4 minutes ago, FentyGa said:

but the thing is...it's not the murder that's an issue, it's not the gore, etc. it's the homophobia, which can be in any film of any rating. that's why a trigger warning is necessary. it wouldn't take much effort, and it would make the moviegoing experience better for so many people.

If homophobia messes with you that much, maybe you shouldn't go watch horror movies, where much worse stuff can happen.

*I'm not talking to you directly, but in general.

[Inferno 2,880]

5 minutes ago, FentyGa said:

but the thing is...it's not the murder that's an issue, it's not the gore, etc. it's the homophobia, which can be in any film of any rating. that's why a trigger warning is necessary. it wouldn't take much effort, and it would make the moviegoing experience better for so many people.

There is no homophobia present in this film or novel. Period.

Anyone thats trying to argue that is not knowledgeable about the book or intent of the author. And is riffing based off assumption.