Stephen King's "IT" remake has found a writer - Part 4

[Mad Ones]

Didn't you hear? "Not all boys that age gawk at girls", according to someone a few pages ago

I'm the person you're mocking here. I stand by this since I was one of them. I doubt the boys in this movie would even care about Bev if they weren't attracted to her.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm the person you're mocking here. I stand by this since I was one of them. I doubt the boys in this movie would even care about Bev if they weren't attracted to her.

Come on now. That rather obvious hyperbole, which allows for the mocking of any nuanced look.

 

[Dyson]

Corey Stoll as Bill is a great choice. Stoll is one of my favorite actors working and I think he'd bring a lot to the role.

Agreed 100%. I really would love to see Stoll play the adult version of Bill.

 

[Mad Ones]

Come on now. That rather obvious hyperbole, which allows for the mocking of any nuanced look.

Sure, but I was interested in this conversation. I really do think there's an insidious link between the gender dynamics that create an all boys group that allow girl into their social circle because they like looking at her and the way her father (and other men in the town) act similarly entitled to her. It's a connection I'm not sure if the movie knows its making. But the response on here has been a lot of "boys will be boys" which dismisses quite a bit, like how that behaviour is disrespectful to girls and women and movies like this can normalize that kind of gaze. And this is a group of boys that are bullied for being outcasts and supposedly non-normative, so "boys will be boys" doesn't really fly. For a group of kids that are called homophobic slurs, the movie cant even entertain the possibility that one of the boys isn't sexually attractive to Bev. I guess that would ruin the gag?

 

[redhawk23]

From Clair Johnson on tumblr.

 

[The Endless]

Sure, but I was interested in this conversation. I really do think there's an insidious link between the gender dynamics that create an all boys group that allow girl into their social circle because they like looking at her and the way her father (and other men in the town) act similarly entitled to her. It's a connection I'm not sure if the movie knows its making. But the response on here has been a lot of "boys will be boys" which dismisses quite a bit, like how that behaviour is disrespectful to girls and women and movies like this can normalize that kind of gaze. And this is a group of boys that are bullied for being outcasts and supposedly non-normative, so "boys will be boys" doesn't really fly. For a group of kids that are called homophobic slurs, the movie cant even entertain the possibility that one of the boys isn't sexually attractive to Bev. I guess that would ruin the gag?

Eddie and Richie and Mike don't explicitly show attraction to her actually.

Seems people wilfully ignore things like Bev being the first to jump into the quarry whilst the boys are scared. Or Bev being the first one to actually attack Pennywise. Or being the first one to throw the rock at Bowers. Or when she stood up to her creep of a father and sparked him out.

But I guess none of that fits in with the one dimensional eye candy damsel in distress agenda...

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sure, but I was interested in this conversation. I really do think there's an insidious link between the gender dynamics that create an all boys group that allow girl into their social circle because they like looking at her and the way her father (and other men in the town) act similarly entitled to her. It's a connection I'm not sure if the movie knows its making. But the response on here has been a lot of "boys will be boys" which dismisses quite a bit, like how that behaviour is disrespectful to girls and women and movies like this can normalize that kind of gaze. And this is a group of boys that are bullied for being outcasts and supposedly non-normative, so "boys will be boys" doesn't really fly. For a group of kids that are called homophobic slurs, the movie cant even entertain the possibility that one of the boys isn't sexually attractive to Bev. I guess that would ruin the gag?

You think the Losers feel entitled, really? Is that why they help Ben and Mike? Entitlement?

Here is what I find the big difference between the other attention Bev gets in the movie, and the one she gets from the other members of the Losers. She is comfortable around them. She is the one who decides to join them, half naked. She is the one who sun baths in front of them. If I remember correctly, she even notices them looking. Her openness and their acceptance moves their relationship beyond the fact that they all find her attractive. It's rather great imo. There is nothing wrong with them being attracted to her. There would be a problem if that as as far as their relationship went, but that is clearly not the case.

Also, maybe I missed it, but when did they show Mike being attracted to Bev?

 

[Schlosser85]

This entire argument is rather disingenuous.

 

[The Endless]

Course it is. It's fake outrage and patronizing.

It reminds me of the white people complaining about Johansson being cast as as The Major even though actual Japanese people were perfectly fine with it.

 

[FunkMiller]

Course it is. It's fake outrage and patronizing.

It reminds me of the white people complaining about Johansson being cast as as The Major even though actual Japanese people were perfectly fine with it.

We live in a time when taking offence has become a hobby.

 

[Flint Marko]

I'm the person you're mocking here. I stand by this since I was one of them.

You were one of what? Heterosexual teenaged boys who didn't gawk at girls? Because, to be clear, that's what we are talking about given the characters in question.

I doubt the boys in this movie would even care about Bev if they weren't attracted to her.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Did you look into a crystall ball at an alternate reality where the fictional character Bev was portrayed by a less attractive actress, so the fictional boys ignored her entirely? Like Darth said, why did they help Ben and Mike then? This argument is ridiculous.

They clearly cared about her as a person, and were also seemingly attracted to her. There's nothing insidious or offensive about that. "Recreational outrage", indeed.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Sure, but I was interested in this conversation. I really do think there's an insidious link between the gender dynamics that create an all boys group that allow girl into their social circle because they like looking at her and the way her father (and other men in the town) act similarly entitled to her. It's a connection I'm not sure if the movie knows its making. But the response on here has been a lot of "boys will be boys" which dismisses quite a bit, like how that behaviour is disrespectful to girls and women and movies like this can normalize that kind of gaze. And this is a group of boys that are bullied for being outcasts and supposedly non-normative, so "boys will be boys" doesn't really fly. For a group of kids that are called homophobic slurs, the movie cant even entertain the possibility that one of the boys isn't sexually attractive to Bev. I guess that would ruin the gag?

They invite her to join them prior to seeing her in her underwear. You're also injecting a lot of your own issues onto these characters.

You keep using the words "sexually attracted". Again, that's your interpretation.

Also, I'm sorry, boys gazing at girls is normal. The problem is, you can't understand this.

 

[The Endless]

Yea I mean, the part where Ben kisses Bev to wake her up. His motivation was clearly love. He's a big softy who writes poetry and probably was inspired by the whole "true loves kiss" thing.

He's not some predator taking advantage of an unconscious girl. If that's what some people took away from that scene... then theyve clearly got some issues they need to work out. It's not the films problem.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Yea I mean, the part where Ben kisses Bev to wake her up. His motivation was clearly love. He's a big softy who writes poetry and probably was inspired by the whole "true loves kiss" thing.

He's not some predator taking advantage of an unconscious girl. If that's what some people took away from that scene... then theyve clearly got some issues they need to work out. It's not the films problem.

 

[BH/HHH]

Yea I mean, the part where Ben kisses Bev to wake her up. His motivation was clearly love. He's a big softy who writes poetry and probably was inspired by the whole "true loves kiss" thing.

He's not some predator taking advantage of an unconscious girl. If that's what some people took away from that scene... then theyve clearly got some issues they need to work out. It's not the films problem.

Wel F'N said

 

[DACrowe]

Agreed 100%. I really would love to see Stoll play the adult version of Bill.

Yes, especially if they go for the bald version. Because since he's bald he's totally not an avatar for Stephen King. Right, Steve? [Wink]

 

[DACrowe]

This entire argument is rather disingenuous.

I think trying to read gender intersectional politics, specifically in regard to how the boys in the group all have a crush on Beverly (with Ben arguably being in a genuine form of puppy love) and wishing to condemn them/It as insensitive or regressive, is an attempt to find a subtext where there is none. Now if someone wants to take it up with Stephen King and having presented all the boys as straight (which is actually highly probable but not technically inclusive), fine. But the positive and human, biological reactions they have to Bev, and all it is treated as an aspect of growing up and healthy as opposed to the sick, vile, and abusive relationship she has with her father, is thoughtfully handled and fairly well presented.

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. And that ancient rule of pop psychology I think can now be applied to the often haphazard placement of such identity readings on all forms of art in the modern social media world.

 

[Donner]

Sure, but I was interested in this conversation. I really do think there's an insidious link between the gender dynamics that create an all boys group that allow girl into their social circle because they like looking at her and the way her father (and other men in the town) act similarly entitled to her. It's a connection I'm not sure if the movie knows its making. But the response on here has been a lot of "boys will be boys" which dismisses quite a bit, like how that behaviour is disrespectful to girls and women and movies like this can normalize that kind of gaze. And this is a group of boys that are bullied for being outcasts and supposedly non-normative, so "boys will be boys" doesn't really fly. For a group of kids that are called homophobic slurs, the movie cant even entertain the possibility that one of the boys isn't sexually attractive to Bev. I guess that would ruin the gag?

A lot of the guys commenting here would be the first ones to point out if a movie oversexualized girls and women. But IT hasn't.

I think you're just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill because...boredom? It's the hip thing to do? You enjoy being offended on behalf of others?

 

[Mad Ones]

I'm just explaining reasons why I, and a number of people I talked to, didn't like it. I guess I should know better than to come to a fan space with a minority opinion. Sure, Bev is included in the group. It's also a boys space that thrives on period jokes, which is something Bev has massive anxiety about. Sure Bev might smile and nod and approve, but again that doesn't make things ok, it just means the filmmakers think it's ok.

What I actually think is that the dynamic of an all boys group that includes one girl that draws their attention and attraction is really lazy and unoriginal and does create problems considering how much this group dynamic gets reproduced. So many people keep saying "it's normal it's normal" but these losers aren't supposed to be normal (or are they?) and this is something straight out of the 60s. The film reads to me as something misogynist geeks would make after they grew up (vindicated for their bullying, loved for their humour, a pretty girl smiles at them and approves their behaviour).

 

[Matt Mortem]

The problem with outrage is once you jump into that hole it's hard to get out, especially when the outrage is forced.

 

[Mad Ones]

The problem with outrage is once you jump into that hole it's hard to get out, especially when the outrage is forced.

How is it forced? I actually disliked the movie for this reason. I don't need to get out of it. It's not the movie for me, I've listed my reasons, and a lot of those reasons are things that bother me in real life that I see reproduced in this movie. So what? Why you outraged over my "outrage"?

 

[Matt Mortem]

How is it forced? I actually disliked the movie for this reason. I don't need to get out of it. It's not the movie for me, I've listed my reasons, and a lot of those reasons are things that bother me in real life that I see reproduced in this movie. So what? Why you outraged over my "outrage"?

I'm not outraged. I'm confused. Seeing problems where there aren't any confuses me.

 

[Kane52630]

This entire argument is rather disingenuous.

It just goes on and on.

 

[The Guard]

Honestly, the only thing that rang false to me about that sequence was everyone being in their underwear instead of swimming outfits.

I know skinnydipping is a thing, but didn't kids use swimsuits in the 80's? Especially if they planned on going swimming?

 

[Mad Ones]

I get it. "It" is having a big cultural moment right now, which means there's nothing wrong with it lol