Composite characters have a place, but I think its worth asking if, well, are they worth doing? Its one thing to do it in a Fantasy series or something, its another to do so with History. It can also very easily have a negative impact on the actual events.
If I'm doing an adaptation of the Wizard of OZ series, I might not want to streamline Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion into one character even though it would be easy since they all have similar roles. I probably wouldn't want to since they're iconic to what I'm adapting, there are tons of fans who would be upset if their favorite character wasn't there, and it would change a number of plot events. Its also worth asking if it would be Wizard of OZ at that point too.
I also have reason to doubt that they streamlined the characters; Neither person's first or last name appears on the cast list. Now, it could be that they aren't named, but even that has its issues.
Yes, we're judging based off of a 120 second trailer. Yes, its just like a blurb on the back of a book. Here's the thing though; Trailers and those blurbs exist for us to judge. We watch them and read them to see if we think the product will be good and it'll be worth investing our ticket/book price in them. We are SUPPOSED to judge the trailer.
And, yes, trailers lie, but we can't simply call every awful trailer a liar and assume that the actual thing will be good anyway. That entirely defeats the function of a trailer. Sure, they're are going to be some books with REALLY awful covers and back blurbs (YA Novels are usually the worst) that maybe downplay a work's strengths in favor of more accessible and cliche elements (some of which could be outright lies), but we can't say that EVERY book with those awful covers/trailers are going to be secretly good.
It would be absurd for anyone to go into a book store, read a blurb for a book that doesn't really hook or interest them, and the expect them to buy the book just incase its actually of interest to them. Sure, maybe you'll get into it anyway, but its a risky investment and not worth it if you end up hating the book or being just as apathetic to it as you were the back blurb.
By saying 'accusing a member of our community', you sound almost as though being apart of the LGBTQ community makes someone less susceptible to being transphobic or racist or puts them on some kind of pillar? Unfortunately, A LOT of gay and lesbian people can be racist and transphobic. Hell, gay people can be homophobes; ever hear of a gay guy say that they need to be punished by god for what they are? Its heartbreaking but it happens. Emerich being gay does not make him any less likely to whitewash histroy. And, since Hollywood DOES have a VERY LONG trend of whitewashing and changing history, the absence has some Unfortunate Implications at the moment.
I don't entirely agree with the whole Boycott idea, as I mentioned earlier, but I don't think such a reaction is entirely unfounded and their concern is justified. The lack of anyone going 'Yo, they are in the film, they're played by so-and-so' and lack of direct address doesn't seem to be convincing to me. But, hey, the Marketing could very well pull through and release an AMAZING second trailer and get everything back on track.
If I were that marketing director, I would focus that entire next trailer on the Riot itself and the trans characters specifically. If they do that, they'll get the controversy off their back. Sure, it might create a new one because they're openly displaying trans characters (Oh moral guardians!), but that 'controversy' would probably happen when the movie comes out anyway.
So what you're saying is that it's okay for someone to be accused of being transphobia and racism based on 120 seconds? Sure, judge the movie based on what you see in the trailer. I guess. It's not a very SMART thing to do, but go right on ahead. But accuse a member of our community of being transphobic based on NOTHING? Yeah I'm gonna stand up for that person.
You, ink, keep extrapolating things that I have never said. Yes, gay people can be transphobic. I challenge you to find a place where I denied this. I don't have knee-jerk reactions to things, however, and prefer to wait till I see actual evidence of transphobia before I accuse somebody of it. The trans segment of the LGBT community apparently has no such compunctions.
I never said you did say that. It felt like, with your continuous repetition of 'accusing someone of our community' and the specific phrasing, it felt like it was implying to me that someone of the gay community is unlikely to be transphobic. The repetition of the phrase ('accuse a member of our community') made it sound like it was related to the argument and its not; I'm sure people would be accusing the director of this if they were straight or gay or black because their arguments are in regards to the trailer, not the director's actual character.
And, once again, a trailer exists PURELY FOR THE SAKE OF JUDGEMENT. That is why it exists. If the first trailer for Selma (a biopic about the Civil Rights Movement) had not even the slightest mention or acknowledgement of Martin Luther King or if they didn't have a single black person in the trailer, there would be concerns raised about the film. There probably would be accusations of racism.
Its kind of the point for people to judge the trailer. Like, that's why it exists. I don't know why I've had to explain this twice, but it would be considerably stupid for people to NOT judge it at all.
It isn't just the trailer people are upset about. The trailer started it all, but the director's statements that have been kind of vague and the lack of said people on the cast list (How do you 'honor' Marsha Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, and Ray Castro if they aren't portrayed in the film???) are compounding together. Its a worrying set of circumstances.
And, now you're putting on a blanket statement. "The trans segment of the LGBT community apparently has no such compunctions". And that's just simply not accurate.
I already said I do not agree with calling him transphobic. I don't agree with boycotting the film. I have already stated several times that the next trailer could paint an entirely different picture of what the film will be like; that isn't uncommon at all.
However, I think the community has a right to be concerned with the film. I don't agree with boycotting and throwing things like transphobic just yet. I have already said this in previous posts. But the community has every right to be very concerned with this film since A) Hollywood has a long history of awful portrayals of trans and gay people, B) has a history of erasing and changing history, and C) this film WILL define how a very large group of people will see the Stonewall riots from now on and, if that's not a correct portrayal, it will create issues. I see and understand their concerns. I don't agree with how they've reacted and do think those that are doing things like boycotting the film after one trailer are jumping the gun a bit, but I think their concern and motivation is perfectly reasonable and understandable.
EDIT: I kind of feel like we're just repeating ourselves at this point. We're on the same page on some things though.
edited 22nd Aug '15 10:19:33 PM by InkDagger
"Are these people still alive?"
Yes. I live in NYC, and know quite a few people from the Stonewall Riots. Unlike certain people trying to rewrite history, there were many many gay white men in the riots.
It is hard to imagine Sylvia Rivera, for example, objecting to being called a "bitch". She used the term about herself if I recall correctly.
And then how does one place a figures like Randy Wicker and Craig Rodwell? However one looks at Stonewall, what led to it, what went on on during the riots, and how the energy afterwards was channelled, both men were important, but hardly fit into any hagiographical approach. There is no question that Wicker was an important radicalising figure for many years before Stonewall, directly attacking the more conservative tactics of the Mattachine Society. Still Wicker did not support the actual riots. In later years, however (before turning his attention to cloning!) he was important in documenting the early post Stonewall movement and in the Gay Activists Alliance. (GAA itself does not exactly fit the hagiography either: on the one hand some saw it as a betrayal of the pan-radicalism of GLF. On the other hand its street theatre and zap tactics were consciously taken up and used by ACT UP and Queer Nation, It also had some staying power - still staging demos in 1977 for example). Wicker was also a major supporter (and employer?) of Marsha P. Johnson (I think it was he who organised her funeral). Even in the 1990s Wicker was fairly effective - he managed to use Queer Nation to cause the demise of the back-slapping and money-slurpping clique that had grabbed control of the street fair that took place after Pride.
So, was Wicker a radical saint, a conservative demon, a successful activist, Marsha's best friend - or a right pain in the ass who self-mythologised as he went along? What if he was all those things?
The problem is with some of these people is they weren't even born in 1990, much less 1980 or 1970. They have no idea what was going on in that period.
For example, none of them know about Christopher St. Liberation
in 1970. Less famous but no less important. Do they even know what ACT-UP was? Queer Nation? GMHC? Probably not.
The problem is that some people don't know how to admit "I don't know" and actually read a book or watch a documentary. They invent scenarios in their head, such as "there were no cis gay white males in Greenwich Village in 1969."
Do they even know why the gay community was on edge that day? Judy Garland died and they were mourning.
Oh, in case you're wondering who Bob Kohler was.
http://bobsqueers.blogspot.com/
edited 23rd Aug '15 10:02:36 AM by AnotherGuy
So, here's what I discovered today.
Marsha P. Johnson is in the fucking film. So there goes that. Played by Otoja Abit. We can have the discussion about cis people playing trans people later, the fact stands, MARSHA IS IN THE FILM.
Sylvia wasn't even fucking there, she was off doing dope and falling asleep on park benches.
A bunch of people decided to get their panties in a wad over a 120-second trailer, under false pretenses, and has decided to crucify a member of our own community for something that simply isn't true. There are people of color in the trailer. There are trans people in the trailer. These people of color and trans people are represented in the movie.
What I see here, is the post-1990 generation has gotten so goddamn used to being reactionary with the instant-dissemination of information that we have in our current culture that they have (surprise, suprise) decided to protest something based on incomplete information. This would be called "shooting ourselves in the foot".
I hate to say I told you so, but...
edited 24th Aug '15 11:13:19 AM by sarcastibot
"Crucified a member of our own commmunity"?
I woudnt take it that far. On a related note, it wouldnt be the first time Emmerich made a bad film
Overlording the Underworld
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
At least they do have Marsha in the film. So it won't be as bad as some people thought. As long as they don't butcher her character, at least.
Overlording the Underworld
How much creative control does Emerich exert over these things he produces and charitably calls "movies?" This was certainly a horrible case, but before I specifically call HIM a hack I'd rather know how much of this is him and how much is from everyone else he seems to connect with for these projects.
Considering Emmerich himself has referred to it as a 'Labor of Love', weather or not he actually had much control at all, he's painted himself out to have had such with a big old target on his forehead.
Okay...
a black character hands the white character the first brick to throw.
... WOW.
I was wrong. That's bad. That's REALLY bad.
This is a title.
There's no transgendered characters! Bad movie!
Oh wait, there are. But there's no black people! Bad movie!
Oh wait, there are black people, but they didn't start the riot! Bad movie!
Those goal posts are too close, move them further back! Bad movie!
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!
I'm gonna take a big guess and say Emmerich wants to avoid causing Unfortunate Implications of the racial type.
If you look at my previous contribution to the thread, you'll notice I was highly critical of the backlash, as it seemed overblown and hasty. Looking at some of the points that the reviewers bring up does seem to make the story just plain tone-deaf. I wouldn't go so far as to call it willfully harmful, anything but. Just one hack director doing hacky things in hacky ways that are plain tone-deaf.
Based on an interview with Emmerich ( http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-Roland-Emmerich-Still-Felt-It-Was-Necessary-Change-Facts-Stonewall-84177.html ) Danny TAKES the brick from a Black Guy, it wasn't given.
Oy vey...
I want to start a meme.
"GET YOUR OWN FUCKING BRICK DANNY!"
Another really negative interview...
“You have to understand one thing: I didn’t make this movie only for gay people, I made it also for straight people. “I kind of found out, in the testing process, that actually, for straight people, [Danny] is a very easy in. “Danny’s very straight-acting. He gets mistreated because of that. [Straight audiences] can feel for him.”
He goes on to all but state that Danny is his Author Avatar...
edited 23rd Sep '15 5:12:44 PM by InkDagger
Overlording the Underworld
"There's no transgendered characters! Bad movie! Oh wait, there are. But there's no black people! Bad movie! Oh wait, there are black people, but they didn't start the riot! Bad movie! Those goal posts are too close, move them further back! Bad movie!"
That's not bloody accurate at all. This isn't soccer, it's closer to football. Those weren't the fucking goalposts, they were the FIRST DOWNS. The goalposts for a movie about Stonewall is a fucking movie about Stonewall. That means prevalent, fairly sympathetic minority characters who are SHOWN getting pushed to the edge and striking back with a riot. Not some pretty white boy being the very center of everything and taking over a minority character's role. And the assholes who made this movie made it to the touchdown line, turned around and threw the ball backward before flipping the bird at the people in the stadium.
edited 24th Sep '15 4:46:48 AM by Journeyman
Journeyman,
Roland Emmerich is a hack. He's a gay guy who feels like he was important, so he inserted a Mary Sue version of himself into the events of the Stonewall Riots. It doesn't mean that he was actively trying to harm anyone, and I'm sure he gave a portrayal of the events that he intended to include everyone in the community in it.
But, because he's a hack, he did the most hack version of the events possible. I don't even know why I had my hopes up for this. *rolls eyes*
Harm born from ignorance and innocence is still harm.
Look, inserting a fictional character isn't a problem: I get why they do it. They can do massive Exposition Dumps very quickly set establish the setting. Titanic did the same thing with Jack being 3rd Class and Rose being 1st Class and her narrating half the movie. I get it.
The difference between Titanic and Stonewall and why Titanic works is because Jack and Rose's story was just as much about the ship sinking as it is their love story AND their love story doesn't overwrite the historical events. With Stonewall, Danny can exist and do his own thing and that's fine... But then he tries to take on all the other roles. Jack and Rose knew their places and didn't try to be the Ship Captain or the Architect or the Musicians.
I think I may repost this from Brows Held High about Roland inserting himself in his movies. Relevant part at 19:19.
edited 24th Sep '15 3:37:56 PM by Tuckerscreator
Overlording the Underworld
It's not a problem that he inserted Danny into it. That could have been a very good move, even. He could have been our stand in and learned about the lead-up to the riots and really helped us learn about everything. Think Nick Calloway (I think that's his last name) from the Great Gatsby. He's not the center of anything. He's the narrator observing events and playing a helping hand without getting in the way. That's the PERFECT way to do an audience stand-in.
It should have been him handing the brick over not the other way around.
The early reviews on this are overwhelmingly negative: 8% on Rotten Tomatoes currently.
Exactly. Its just Emerich wanting to be a self-inset fanfiction hero with his 'straight acting' romance.
"Try saying that kind of thing, that they're being "hysterically" or "ridiculously" overwrought" for standing up for themselves about women, or people from ethnic minorities, or the disabled, in public, and see how long you last before you get torn to shreds."
Tear me to shreds! Tear away! I'll continue to regard all this kvetching over a Roland Emmerich film that hasn't even been released yet as hysterical and overwrought.