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

[LaughterLives]

She was also brave, scrappy and pretty damn funny despite her obviously miserable and troubled life.
I don't see how you can justify her character being one dimensional unless you really didn't pay attention to the movie.
Also what the hell were you like at 15?...A saint that didn't sexualize anything with ****? I'm very curious.

 

[lime]

She was also brave, scrappy and pretty damn funny despite her obviously miserable and troubled life.
I don't see how you can justify her character being one dimensional unless you really didn't pay attention to the movie.
Also what the hell were you like at 15?...A saint that didn't sexualize anything with ****? I'm very curious.

Great post. Great response!

 

[TCH]

Aside from the film being overly mediocre at best, was anyone else weirded out that the 15 year old girl was sexualized by every single character in the movie? (except for Pennywise, oddly enough.) I mean, other than the fact she's the female lead in the film and it'd be nice if women on screen could be represented responsibly. But, my god, she's 15 and her characterization isn't much beyond being sexually desired or sexually shamed by everyone and then being reduced to a one dimensional damsel in distress who is saved by a boy fulfilling his fantasy with her without consent...and we are supposed to accept this as being romantic or something?

I wasn't because

1 The boys are all awkard losers, having an attractive girl in their group would ofcourse cause them to be a bit in aw of her, it's all new to them.

2 The adults are all supposed to be creepy and be sexually attracted to her, like Mr Keene and her dad, they're adults who are influenced by Pennywise who influences the entire town, all the/ or most of the adults are supposed to be a bit off.

3 The girls in her School and Henry are all shown as awful awful people aswell, that's the point.

4 She actually had some of the strongest moments in the film, From Saving Bill and Richie and being the first to do major damage to Pennywise in Neibolt, to standing up to her dad and smashing his head in, to being the first to throw a rock at Henry.

5 She was first one to Legit show no fear of Pennywise, and thus completely throwing Pennywise off, and getting Pennywise annoyed and worried

I will agree the Kiss scene was cheesy, but it's still better than what happens in the book in the sewers..

 

[Kane52630]

 

[The Shape]

 

[Blitzkrieg]

 

[Samurai_Adam]

 

[Hunter Rider]

Don't circumvent the censor.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Aside from the film being overly mediocre at best, was anyone else weirded out that the 15 year old girl was sexualized by every single character in the movie? (except for Pennywise, oddly enough.) I mean, other than the fact she's the female lead in the film and it'd be nice if women on screen could be represented responsibly.

1. She's not a woman.

2. Isn't she actually supposed to be younger?

 

[Art Vandelay]

I wasn't because

1 The boys are all awkard losers, having an attractive girl in their group would ofcourse cause them to be a bit in aw of her, it's all new to them.

2 The adults are all supposed to be creepy and be sexually attracted to her, like Mr Keene and her dad, they're adults who are influenced by Pennywise who influences the entire town, all the/ or most of the adults are supposed to be a bit off.

3 The girls in her School and Henry are all shown as awful awful people aswell, that's the point.

4 She actually had some of the strongest moments in the film, From Saving Bill and Richie and being the first to do major damage to Pennywise in Neibolt, to standing up to her dad and smashing his head in, to being the first to throw a rock at Henry.

5 She was first one to Legit show no fear of Pennywise, and thus completely throwing Pennywise off, and getting Pennywise annoyed and worried

I will agree the Kiss scene was cheesy, but it's still better than what happens in the book in the sewers..

To be fair, Beverly wasn't as sexualized in the book. Mr Keene never leered at her, and her father was more physically abusive than sexually abusive.

 

[The Endless]

The chemist guy only leered at her because she was purposely distracting him for the boys.

I don't see how she was overly sexualised. And when she was, it made sense with the context of the story/characters. The boys are obviously going to be crushing on her. And her dad is obviously a possessive freak.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Yes, its so awful that I take issue with the objectification of women being normalized in our society. Thanks for the gif contribution though, it was delightfully dismissive of a real issue.

Don't circumvent the censor.

Perhaps we need a more reasonable censor.

1. She's not a woman.

2. Isn't she actually supposed to be younger?

1. Which makes it worse.
2. I'm not sure, maybe, the actress is 15. The character seemed around that age.

The chemist guy only leered at her because she was purposely distracting him for the boys.

I don't see how she was overly sexualised. And when she was, it made sense with the context of the story/characters. The boys are obviously going to be crushing on her. And her dad is obviously a possessive freak.

She flirted with the pharmacist because the male writers who wrote the scene don't know how to respires women on screen responsibly. And if you can't see how she wasn't over sexualized in the film, I mean, I dunno what to tell you. It was overtly portrayed and weaponized against her as a means of torment. The fact that that "makes sense" to you is troubling. The fact that the male writers contextualized her so it "makes sense" is problematic.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Oh wait, the Mods actually deleted my post taking issue with sexual objectification of a 15 year old girl in a Hollywood movie because I tricked the censor into using a word relevant to the issue? Meanwhile all the posts which accept and defend the sexualization of a 15 year old girl still remain. Holy crap. That's ****ed up. **** this place.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Perhaps we need a more reasonable censor.

Well that's the one deemed reasonable by the owner of the site, please don't circumvent it again, you've been here nearly 15 years so I know you know the rules, I skipped infractions despite how deliberately you dismissed the rules because you don't think it's right, so lets not make it a bigger issue than it needs to be.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Oh wait, the Mods actually deleted my post taking issue with sexual objectification of a 15 year old girl in a Hollywood movie because I tricked the censor into using a word relevant to the issue? Meanwhile all the posts which accept and defend the sexualization of a 15 year old girl still remain. Holy crap. That's ****ed up. **** this place.

No, I deleted the post because you deliberately circumvented the censor over and over again because you don't think the rules should apply to you, if you want to make the post minus all the censor dodging then feel free. Also try to remember that just because you think you have a point, doesn't actually mean you do or that everyone else has to agree with you.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Well that's the one deemed reasonable by the owner of the site, please don't circumvent it again, you've been here nearly 15 years so I know you know the rules, I skipped infractions despite how deliberately you dismissed the rules because you don't think it's right, so lets not make it a bigger issue than it needs to be.

Yes I did deliberately circumvent it because it was being implemented unreasonably. I understand the term can be used as a derogative against someone, just like many other words which aren't censored by this site, but that wasn't the context in which I was using it, which makes its implementation ridiculous, and that fact that I circumvented it entirely reasonable. Just because it is in place by the owner of the site does not make it beyond criticism. Yet, instead of using your mod powers to edit the post with the censor, you instead deleted the whole post entirely from a very relevant discussion about the portrayal of a 15 year old girl in the movie which this thread is dedicated to. So, you know...thats cool.

No, I deleted the post because you deliberately circumvented the censor over and over again because you don't think the rules should apply to you, if you want to make the post minus all the censor dodging then feel free. Also try to remember that just because you think you have a point, doesn't actually mean you do or that everyone else has to agree with you.

My opinion isn't based on who will and won't agree with me on the forums of Superherherohype.com. Are we only allowed to post agreeable opinions here? Is that another rule from the owner of the site?

 

[Schlosser85]

Frankly your whole SJW shtick is coming off quite affected.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Frankly your whole SJW shtick is coming off quite affected.

First off, my opinions are not a "schtick", thanks for the insult though. Maybe we can censor that word too since y'all's are so sensitive around here (yet I'm the *triggered* one). My issue with the representation of women in media is very real and sincere. Secondly, I didn't know there were rules for which opinions are allowed around here without being deemed "affected" by a moderator.

 

[danoyse]

Yes I did deliberately circumvent it because it was being implemented unreasonably. I understand the term can be used as a derogative against someone, just like many other words which aren't censored by this site, but that wasn't the context in which I was using it, which makes its implementation ridiculous, and that fact that I circumvented it entirely reasonable. Just because it is in place by the owner of the site does not make it beyond criticism. Yet, instead of using your mod powers to edit the post with the censor, you instead deleted the whole post entirely from a very relevant discussion about the portrayal of a 15 year old girl in the movie which this thread is dedicated to. So, you know...thats cool.

Or you could have found another word...

 

[terry78]

Every thread on this board has literally turned into this type of thing as of late. So weird.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Or you could have found another word...

Except "**** shaming" is the term used to represent this issue. Here's the wikipedia article on it, if you needed it.

Oh wait, that's right, I can't even link to the wikipedia for it because the site censors the term in it's url address.

 

[danoyse]

My opinion isn't based on who will and won't agree with me on the forums of Superherherohype.com. Are we only allowed to post agreeable opinions here? Is that another rule from the owner of the site?

FIND A BETTER WORD THAT WON'T TRIGGER THE CENSOR.

It's really not that difficult.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Oh wait, the Mods actually deleted my post taking issue with sexual objectification of a 15 year old girl in a Hollywood movie because I tricked the censor into using a word relevant to the issue? Meanwhile all the posts which accept and defend the sexualization of a 15 year old girl still remain. Holy crap. That's ****ed up. **** this place.

This site has stupidly strict rules when it comes to this stuff. I once posted some panels from the Walking Dead that featured swearing (at the time, I was unaware of the swearing policy), and they were taken down. Meanwhile, someone posts a panel of a character making out with his dead daughter, and that was apparently okay.

 

[Motown Marvel]

FIND A BETTER WORD THAT WON'T TRIGGER THE CENSOR.

It's really not that difficult.

Oh, like what, skank shaming? Girl who has too much sex and therefore deserves to be ridiculed for it shaming? Are you serious? The word is used for a reason. The idea that your censor system is perfect and beyond criticism simply because you aren't interested in making the effort to make it better is ridiculous. I've posted about this issue respectfully without insult to anyone, meanwhile mods from this site are looking to insult me with "SJW" and accusations of being "affected"? What sense does that make?

 

[danoyse]

Except "**** shaming" is the term used to represent this issue. Here's the wikipedia article on it, if you needed it.

Oh wait, that's right, I can't even link to the wikipedia for it because the site censors the term in it's url address.

I know what it is. I knew what you were trying to say too. I didn't even realize that word was censored. But...it is. Our *mod powers* have no control over that.

But if someone, good intentions or not, tries to get around the censor, we need to delete it. It had nothing to do with your opinion, and don't take it so personally.