Stonewall Bombs At The Box Office

After withering reviews and widespread criticism of the lead character, Stonewall bombed at the box office this weekend, earning a meager $871 per screen in a small opening at 129 theaters. The Los Angeles Times reports:

The low turnout for “Stonewall” does not come as a surprise to some. Backlash over the film, which dramatizes the 1969 gay-rights riots at the Stonewall Inn in New York, began when the trailer surfaced in August. Some complained that the film does not accurately portray the real heroes of history but rather paints a fictional, white male character — Danny Winters (played by Jeremy Irvine) — as the LGBT community’s hero. One commenter on the trailer wrote: “This ‘Danny’ is fictional. The first people to pick up a brick and riot were transwomen of colour and other queers of colour, not some small town corn fed white boy.” Fast forward a month and a half and the film’s Rotten Tomatoes score echoes the negative buzz. The drama has a 9% positive rating, with many critics lambasting its attempt to depict a pivotal moment in American history. Vanity Fair critic Richard Lawson called the film “terribly offensive, and offensively terrible.”

(Tipped by JMG reader TJ)

  • oikos

    Not only that but couldn’t they have at least picked a gay man for the lead role?

  • Michael Rush

    A bad gay themed movie is still a bad movie .

    • Cousin Bleh

      You could cite his entire oeuvre. Roland Emmerich hasn’t made a single good movie.

      • MattM

        Independence Day is adequate.

        • Cousin Bleh

          Really? I think that movie is awful.

          • Chucktech

            Really. Cool effects, utterly gossamer plot.

          • Octavio

            The Fresh Prince of Bel Air destroys invading aliens with a 16 bit encrypted Mac virus? Really? Yeah. That was deep. Whereas I recently saw the original 1950 The Day the Earth Stood Still and was amazed at how well written, photographed and acted that film is. A salute to my generation which wasn’t raised on video games and race car chases in space. Good film. Independence Day, not so much.

          • tcinsf

            I was always amazed to know that Alien flight systems were Apple compatible.

          • Octavio

            LOL!

          • Steve Weinstein

            THANK YOU!!!

          • Chucktech

            The Fresh Prince of Bel Air also just happened to have the right cable to go from a Mac to a… Alien computer?? Please…

          • Miji

            But that wasn’t the fresh Fresh Prince, that was Jeff Goldblum who pretty much always translates to movie brainiac, so that’s believable.

          • Joe knows who I am.

            A lot of the acting was just as thin as the plot..

          • CottonBlimp

            Words like “good”, “bad”, or “awful” really don’t describe anything in a movie beyond your subjective experience.

            To be more objective, independence day had an idiotic story that was told in a compelling way. It had a wide cast of characters, most of whom were written as flat and one-note, but were each given enough screen time to feel developed. It is a stupid, stupid movie, but it was done effectively, and it beats the pants off most modern blockbusters.

          • Cousin Bleh

            Oh, please. Utilizing words like “idiotic” that may be a bit more colorful than “awful” in no way makes your comment any less subjective.

          • CottonBlimp

            “Idiotic” is more specific. It refers to how much you are expected to analyze or question what the movie tells you. And I used it to refer to specific aspects of the movie.

            When people say a movie is “good”, I don’t know if they mean the cinematography, the acting, the script, the special effects, the casting… and chances are they don’t know either. I once had a guy tell me the 2005 Fantastic Four movie was “good” because, quote, “Megan Fox was hot”.

            Getting beyond words like “good” helps have an actual conversation about movies beyond “it was good!” “Nuh-uh!” It also acknowledges that a movie can be “good” in some ways and “bad” in others, which is a much fairer way of approaching criticism.

          • Cousin Bleh

            So it’s more specifically subjective. Got it.

          • CottonBlimp

            It’s not subjective, it’s relative. There’s a difference.

          • BobSF_94117

            It’s an awful film. It’s a pretty good movie.

        • Gerry Fisher

          It was fun nonsense. Yes.

          • Strepsi

            I am a gay sci-fi geek and I really enjoyed Independence Day! What Emmerich has done to Stonewall does seem egregious though.

            Klaatu Barada Nikto!

        • RemusL

          The first half was adequate. The second half, not so much.

        • Michael Rush

          The energy was well maintained , but you forget it as soon as you see it .

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    I just re-watched 1995’s Stonewall over the weekend, a much better pic by far.

    • Blake Jordan

      That 1995 version was not perfect, but it was a lot more “factually accurate” and “progressive” than this 2015 version, even though it was made 20 years ago.

      • Jean-Marc in Canada

        Agreed. It still has more truth in it than this new one. I had hoped the trailer was misleading, as is the case a lot of the time, but no. Disappointing to say the least.

  • Lee

    Probably did as well as it would have had they made it about the real players of the event. It’s not a topic people are rushing to the theaters to see.

    • Blake Jordan

      Oh bull, it could of been a successful film like Brokeback Mountain, Milk,… given the LGBT content, if it was was made by a better writer and director.

  • TommyTune

    The reviews I read of this film indicated that it’s just really bad art, never mind all the controversy regarding the lack of diversity in the casting. How unfortunate, given the theme.

  • Traxley Launderette

    I look at this mess as a factual retelling of an “historic” LGBT event in the same way I consider “Sommersby” to be an accurate representation of the Civil War. And about as convincing.

    • Gustav2

      Too soon? No matter what story was told there would be naysayers, “participants” are still alive. The US Revolution was re-written in the 1830’s and we are still clearing some of that away.

      • Traxley Launderette

        My point is that the film may as well be marketed as fantasy fiction. “Based on actual events” is a disclaimer that a lot of folks in the audience won’t get. If you’re going to make a movie about a pivotal event, then either have the plot follow the sequence of actions as closely as possible, or just don’t do it. So many things were factually inaccurate about “Stonewall” — so many people diminished or left out — that it should be an insult

        • Gustav2

          As all popular culture ‘histories’ diminishes real people and real events. It did in the mythologized 1830’s popular histories. I am just saying we should not be surprised, movies do that.

          • Traxley Launderette

            Agreed. You’re right.

            I’m willing to suspend my disbelief with some movies where there’s a little embellishment that detracts little from the storyline. I don’t mind if one supporting character is a representation of several background characters. It’s even okay, sometimes, to set the story in a different period.

            What’s totally wrong is to restructure the entire cast of main characters the way this film did.

            I’m just disappointed and angry that the story is there, the setting is there, the participants are there — but the film goes off on a tangent so far from the truth. It was a squandered opportunity the deserves to be ridiculed.

            Sorry for the rant. I’m being a bitch today.

          • Gustav2

            No worries, now go out and chop down a cherry tree and don’t lie about it!

  • The Larry Mac

    Matt Baume has some choice words for Emmerich

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5T9AZ_VukU

    • YAAAAS!

    • Todd20036

      Loved the blip of the cowardly lion as someone not “straight acting”.

      Honestly, I’ve seen masculine men try to act effeminate (think A-listers) and effeminate men try to act masculine.

      Neither works. At all.

      Be yourself, and let the cards fall where they may. It’s not hard.

      • Raybob

        Guy Pearce wasn’t bad in “Priscilla”

        • Gerry Fisher

          Guy Pearce is an excellent actor, IMO.

        • Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks

          Priscilla was so much better than that mediocre knock-off, To Wong Foo. If it wasn’t for Julie Newmar’s cameo I probably would’ve wanted my money back.

          • joeyj1220

            No doubt Priscilla was better, but I actually loved To Wong Foo as well and thought Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes and John Leguizamo were great

          • THEBEARCUB

            Too Wong Foo was excellent and made good money at the box office

          • MBear

            because ‘making lots of money’ is a good indicator of social value.

            See also: McDonald’s, Donald Trump, Saudi Arabia

          • THEBEARCUB

            I liked it and If you didn’t than that’s you!

        • Ginger Snap

          The actors in Priscilla were all spot on. I could put a real life friends name on each one of their characters.

      • Dan Robinson

        It seems hard until you do it. Then you wish you had done it sooner. Certainly worked that way for me anyway.

    • Jean-Marc in Canada

      YUP!

    • oikos

      Matt is spot on.

    • Gene

      Matt…..ever consider politics?
      I am not saying the Senate now..but, something local.

      I am not joking.
      we could use your wit and insight in leadership….though you certainly do a massive amount of good doing what you do.
      …give it a thought.

      • JDM

        He’s too flaming to get elected.

        • Todd20036

          Think House representative who’s district included NYC or Chicago or LA or SF.
          It could work

    • sw42

      Wow, I like Matt anyway, but this sealed it for me. Love this.

    • sw42

      This film is also an insult to *straight people* who don’t feel the need to have our straight fee-fees pandered to by putting a straight actor in the lead.

      • marti386

        Exactly. If this film REALLY wanted to reach straight audiences, it could have started by assuming straight people are intelligent enough to not need pandering. Just tell it to them like it was.

        • MBear

          after the battles we’re having for marriage (and continue to have, apparently), I would suggest that en masse: straight people are *not* intelligent

    • Reality Check

      Tell ’em, Matt.

    • Duh-David

      “Must be straight-acting!”

      Don Knotts and Dame Edna are both straight men, which one do you want me to act like?

      • Shy Guy

        Dame Edna all the way, possums.

      • JustDucky

        No no no, see, “straight acting” means that you eat pussy and fuck women. Unless you’re a woman, in which case it means that you don’t eat pussy or fuck women.

        I for one have never understood why dudes who are “straight acting” are on Grindr. Seems counterproductive to me.

    • Improvement

      Correction: “some small town corn-fed [straight-acting] white boy” . Now, fixed that for the commentators

    • Joseph Miceli

      I love this guy!!!!!!

    • Webslinger
      • Happy Dance

        LMAO!!! I have said this for years!

    • Oscarlating Wildely

      Extremely well presented argument. He skewers the rebuttals for all the right reasons. I fully suspect that the film was awful. I fully know that the director’s decisions and descriptions definitely are.

      PS: Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t the original Marlboro Man gay?

      • KCMC

        in all my wet dreams

    • slvrfx

      Straight acting it’s maybe a vague term (how straight does he look when he’s on his knees?), but may a little more polite than “no fats, no fems, no druggies”, but it’s also a little out of date now with a long list of phone apps that include pictures. Rejection is always a bitch, but honesty up front is always a good thing.

    • caphillprof

      I just LUV how allegedly gay people think they have the right to tell anyone, particularly other gay people, who they must have sex with. Sex is the one aspect of our lives which is not subject to political correctness, gay or otherwise. Sex is not a blind date. A man is entitled to seek sex with any particular type of person, whether or not Matt Baume approves.

      • kudos to your hilariously failed attempt to get cred with a straw-man argument! LOL!

        • Tigernan Quinn

          You’re doing a fair amount of attacking other people. Maybe you could dial it back.

          • but it was a straw man argument. he’s railing against Baum, based on something Baum didn’t say. that’s a straw man. i’m pointing it out. 😀

          • caphillprof

            Obviously you didn’t sit through Matt Baume’s video.

          • watched it twice. he didn’t say “whom you have to f**K”, he directly called out the cultures of racism and straight-worship that lead to many a broken gay man being part of truly pathetic “masc4masc, straight-acting, no fats fems asians or blacks” culture.

            you see it as matt telling you whom you HAVE to bone. you miss the point. he’s pointing out that society and culture have already coloured your preferences. gay males capable of self-interrogation can transcend it and broaden their tastes. insecure dunces will defend “it’s just a preference” til the end, to their own detriment.

            you’re welcome 😀

      • Thom Kulesa

        Um, where, exactly, do you see Matt trying to dictate who anyone can or should be sleeping with?

        Did you watch the same video as the rest of us, or do you perhaps have a pair of special glasses that let you see something different that only you can see?

        • caphillprof

          Look at it again and pay attention.

          • Thom Kulesa

            Follow your own advice.

    • 2karmanot

      Bingo!

    • aschops

      Matt Baume had a video completely rewriting Stonewall to the liking of the internet lynch mob as being a mark for Black Latina trans women, erasing gay men from the riots, ignoring all recorded history of the riots.

      • feel free to bring that up at your next White Men’s Rights Meetings, where you no doubt will also complain about awful feminists who have ruined your sense of manliness by being able to do things just as well, or better, than you 😀

        • aschops

          Derpity derpity derp. (2)

          Leaving aside the fact that White Men’s Rights Meetings would bar me from entry before they’d you, I don’t think such a group would care two shits about the demographics of the riots, unless it is to demonize whoever took part in them. But then again, neither do you.

          Not everything has to do with how much of a good ally you are, Kiwi. Not everything can be reduced to a good pandering, to backdoor bragging about how much better a white man you are than others. Recorded history is an example; history should always take precedence over childish political agendas – be it that of people who want to inflate their representation in historical events, or that of people like you who pander to the former to win your good-ally pats on the head.

          https://www.dropbox.com/s/volddduyi7oees0/carter.jpg?dl=0

          https://www.dropbox.com/s/i05qbn0lmbax86f/thousands.jpg?dl=0

          • my favourite thing about this post is that it still doesn’t point to the claim you’re making. 😀

            but i expect nothing less from an insecure wimp like you 😀 happy trolling!
            no transvestites in the photos eh? i can’t fathom why the first to get arrested wouldn’t be in more photographs, LOL

          • Tigernan Quinn

            Name calling. The biggest sign that you’ve lost the plot, mate.

          • Man_in_the_mists

            Tone trolling. The biggest sign that you never had anything to begin with.

      • THEBEARCUB

        We Black folk are so sorry if you feel that way.

    • Michael Abbett

      Matt said everything I feel about this atrocity.

    • Brycedavid

      Ah yes the myth of straight acting men who could hide. Didn’t Anita Bryant used that one during her Save the Children campaign?

      Liberace passed back in the day and throngs of screaming women went after him and yet he wasn’t straight acting at all. Never for a single moment was he believable as a straight man. In fact many have tried to go after him for being a homosexual. Liberace proves how faulty this argument is : that you can still hide and be effeminate.

    • Darien Taylor

      Matt Baume is an idiot.

      • Owen Dowell

        I wouldn’t go that far, but it does get tiresome to see him throw out unsupported assertions.

  • ElenorRigby

    The thing that sucks the most? This is our one and only “gay civil rights” movie made by a major studio. This was our one chance and the chance was blown. Yes, the makers of the film get virtually all of the credit for it, but the way the gay community has piled on and celebrated its failure almost feels like it’s coming from the Christian Right. I heard from one guy a couple days ago crying about how “this Hollywood crap being shoved down our throats.” It opened in 129 theaters and got virtually no promotional campaign at all. Nobody was forced to see this movie but the way that a lot of gay people have been over-hating on it on social media, you’d think people were given the full Clockwork Orange treatment with it.

    • oikos

      If it isn’t historically accurate, then it deserves all of the withering criticism it is receiving.

      • Marc

        All Hollywood movies are historically inaccurate, are you going to boycott all of them?

        • oikos

          If I feel like it.

          • Marc

            No doubt.

      • ElenorRigby

        I’m not saying it doesn’t deserve the criticism, like I said, virtually all of the fault lies with the horrible choices made it making this movie and the even more gag-worthy defenses like “straight audiences can relate to him because he’s straight-acting.” I just feel a bit sad to see gay audiences celebrating it’s failure and the over-exaggerate piling on.

        • oikos

          I don’t think anyone is celebrating it’s failure. I would love to see a well made movie about gay civil rights. Criticism is warranted when something is an abysmal failure.

          • ElenorRigby

            you don’t think anyone is celebrating it’s failure? Really?

          • oikos

            No. It’s a movie for fucks sake. Movies bomb when poorly made. We’re talking about why it failed. It doesn’t change my life in any significant way if it fails or succeeds. Making about movie about gay people for a straight audience is well, dumb.

          • ElenorRigby

            are you kidding? There are a LOT of gay movies made for straight audiences. But they have to either make us the laughing stock or have us miserable for the whole movie and then die at the end.

          • oikos

            This is about a historical event. My point is that most straight people even if supportive of our rights are not interested in how we got them from historical perspective. It is just not on their radar.

          • ElenorRigby

            Agreed. Straight Audiences were never going to see this movie. Which is why giving it a “cute white straight acting protagonist who gets the credit for all the accomplishments” was a stupid idea. So gay characters will now be sent back to the “funny gay BFF of the bride who bursts into song and is the emotional rock but is still good for a lot of vaguely homophobic sight gags.” We’ll also be the murder victim. Happy now?

          • oikos

            No I’m not happy about it at all. This director fucked up the chance to get it right. Am I supposed to be supportive of him so that other bad movies about gay stereotypes will somehow magically never be made? What exactly are you looking for from those of us who are critical of this poorly made, historically inaccurate film? Should I give it a glowing review?

          • Joe knows who I am.

            I respectfully disagree on this one, oikos.

            There are actually quite a few straight people whom I know that really want to see this piece of our history. And of the people close to me that are interested, many aren’t affluent or culturally aware. They just happen to care about someone who is gay. This could have opened eyes further and encouraged them to speak to others about our history in an honest, positive light. Instead, a fictional movie is encouraging us to review its outright fallacies on a blog to each other. To me, that makes for a pretty shitty film experience. I’m grateful it bombed. The last thing I should have to do is go to my peeps, family and friends, and fight the tide of inaccuracies to reeducate them. It’s the film equivalent of the Texas State Board of Education.

          • oikos

            I understand your disagreement. Most of the straight people I know are totally oblivious to gay history and we all deal with different demographics of people in our own lives. I wish those I knew were more interested.
            I think we both agree that this film does nothing to further understanding of the gay civil rights movement.

          • Joe knows who I am.

            You’re a hundred percent right on that! 🙂

      • Merv99

        Since when is historical accuracy expected of Hollywood films? They’re notorious for combining events, combining characters, changing facts, and making facts up if they think it helps the story.

        U-571 had a US submarine capturing the Enigma machine. It was actually a different, British submarine.

        The Butler had the main character’s mother raped and father murdered by their white farmer employers. Those events were added for “dramatic effect.”

        A Beautiful Mind had the main character working for the Defense Department instead of a corporation.

        All three of these films were well reviewed and attended, despite their inaccuracies. I *wish* Hollywood films took historical accuracy more seriously, but to suddenly require it of this particular film is a little ridiculous.

      • Jeff Chang

        Should Milk get criticism for not including Harveys relationship with a 16 year old?

        • oikos

          Not interested in your off topic BS , troll.

          • Jeff Chang

            You stated:
            Historical accuracy us important.
            LGBT films that do not depict this are worthy of criticism.

            Harvey Milk:
            Had sexual relations with a 16 year old boy.

            MILK did not depict this, therefore it’s a historically inaccurate LGBT film.

            thus you must criticize it.

          • oikos

            Sorry Troll I mustn’t do anything because you demand it. Get over yourself.

          • goofy_joe

            Two questions. Where is a link I can follow (to a reputable source) that proves your allegation of his sexual relations and two; do you know what year this happened, and at such time, what was the age of consent where he was living.

            Thanks.

          • Octavio

            Have you seen Milk? They were very up front about him taking in a homeless underage gayling.

          • 2karmanot

            Yawn

        • Octavio

          If Martin Luther King got away with it why not Milk?

          • Jeff Chang

            I am addressing those complaining about historical accuracy. Those LGBT persons should have held signs saying that Milk had sexual relations with a 16 year old otherwise they are not consistent in there cries for historical accuracy.

          • Octavio

            Oh, well then excuse me. I just assumed you were trolling as usual. 🙂

        • JCF

          Not including is not the same as falsifying.

          • Jeff Chang

            What was falsified?

    • Cousin Bleh

      Roadside Attractions is not a major studio.

      • stevenj

        It is a distributor.

        • Cousin Bleh

          Ok.

          Centropolis Entertainment is not a major studio.

          • Octavio

            You do know that I really love you, don’t you? I really do. (smooch) 🙂

      • Octavio

        You’re right. It’s a meteor crater off of I-40 in northern AZ. 🙂

        “See the two-headed donkey! Live snakes!”

    • we don’t want a badly made, insultingly-dismissive film that takes a legit moment in history and turns it into masturbation material for the type of sad white men who never got over wanting to suck off straight white teenagers.

      i saw the film at TIFF, it is an absolutely worthless, terribly made, badly acted, horribly written and OFFENSIVELY straight-washed (not to mention whitewashed) insult to everything the stonewall riots were about.

      you’re upset that we’re upset with a tarnishing of history? you need a perspective shift. if you’re content to feast on scraps that’s all you’ll ever get.

      • ElenorRigby

        I don’t think you understood what I said. I did blame the film makers for making such an absurdly bad movie that warped history into something straight people might be willing to watch, but I also said I’m a bit turned off by how happy gay people are by it’s failure and how they all suddenly became as righteous as the extreme right wing whining about how the movie was “shoved down our throats.”

        • i’m happy that badly made films that insult the people they’re *supposed* to be about fail. the message is not going to be read as “don’t make gay films, they don’t work” but rather “don’t insult the very people whose story you’re trying to tell. they’ll stay away in droves”

          • ElenorRigby

            I can tell you now that the message Hollywood just got was “don’t bother with gay movies, you get one thing wrong and they’ll organize boycotts, it’s a waste of money.” Then they’ll make another movie with a whacky gay brother who helps his loser sibling in need by dressing up in drag and bursting into song at a dinner party.”

          • Cousin Bleh

            People far smarter than you have realized that Emmerich got a lot more than “one thing wrong” in Stonewall.

          • ElenorRigby

            Ugh… you’re not paying attention to what I’m saying. YEs, this movie is flawed beyond redemption but the Hollywood bean counters don’t care about that. They just see “make a gay movie and unless it’s a comedy or a tragedy, nobody will show up.”

          • Joe knows who I am.

            As a cinephile, actor, and critic who is gay, I don’t want people to show up for a movie that is a lie! It’s a distortion of reality and does nothing but make life more difficult for LGBTQs of color and continues to present white people, of which I am one, as saviors. That’s not my role to have to play.

          • goofy_joe

            Do you work here?

          • ElenorRigby

            as in “Am I Joe?”

            No. He comments as himself.

            But yes… I’m posting this from work and yes, I know that’s very bad and I should be ashamed of myself.

          • Marc

            There was no insult, that’s the problem.

      • Steve Weinstein

        You seem to be a little stuck on the sexual attractiveness of the leads.

        • not on their attractiveness, but the reality that what makes them “attractive” to men like Emmerich is that they’re straight.

          • Steve Weinstein

            Thanks for the clarification. Not having seen the film, I won’t comment on casting choices, but in general i have absolutely no problem w/str8 men playing gay — any moer than I do gay playing str8. That’s why they call it “acting,” after all. But again, can’t comment on this one.

    • Duh-David

      I need the feature-length remake of Freeheld,next month, to successfully overshadow this.

    • Steve Weinstein

      There’s a big new movie coming out based on a true story of a woman in NJ trying to get survivor benefits, among several others on the pipeline, including an HBO doc about Prop 8 fight.

      Julienne Moore & Ellen Page- you can’t get more “major studio” than that.

      • ElenorRigby

        And HBO documentary isn’t a theatrical major studio. That’s a cable TV documentary. I didn’t say we wouldn’t see more of those. I’m sure we’ll see a lot.

        As far as a docudrama about two women fighting for survivor benefits, that does fall into my “straight people will see the movie if they get to either laugh at us or feel sorry for us, but one of us has to die for that” stipulation.

        I still wish we could get a gay hero at some point, but we’ll always be the “sad one with the dead friend” or the “sassy gay BFF.”

        • Steve Weinstein

          There’s one about two lez teens, upbeat. Eddie Redmayne playing pioneering Danish trans, upbeat. Carol — bbbiiiiig movie Cate Blanchett as highpowered ’50s gal falling hard for shopgirl Rooney Mara dir. Todd Haynes w/a happy ending – lovers reunited.

          • ElenorRigby

            ok so a few medium-budget lesbian stories, I don’t know what the “lez teens ” one you’re talking about. Again, we won’t get any gay men in hero roles. Just hysterical supportive BFFs and tragic gay corpses.

          • Steve Weinstein

            La cage, birdcage, august (christopher plummer oscar), capote, alexander, love! valour! compassion!,

            anyway wait for new star wars movie – there’s a gay hero

          • ElenorRigby

            The Birdcage? Really? That 20 year-old movie in which straight people got to laugh their heads off at the funny faggots who burst into tears when they “pieced the toast” and were unable to walk without high heels? Great. Alexander? The movie from 11 years ago that bombed and the director blamed audiences for being turned off by all the gay stuff so it was edited out for the DVD release? Perfect. Christopher Plummer doesn’t have a movie called August. And “Love Valour Compassion?” That movie was a micro-budget stink bomb, not a major release and you need to look “hero” up in the dictionary.

            And the gay character in Star Wars is only in the comic book. He won’t be in the movie, apparently.

          • ElenorRigby

            BTW… if the Christopher Plummer movie you’re talking about is Beginners… he DIES in that… like… not even half way through the movie. He Is the “tragic gay corpse.” A “Tragic Gay Corpse” we get to laugh at. And that movie isn’t even about him he’s a supporting role in a straight romantic comedy starring Ewan MeGreggor.

          • ElenorRigby

            oh and the “gay hero” in Star Wars… not a male. She’s a lesbian. I’m all for lesbians but it does go back to my “gay men are either tragic gay corpses or sassy BFFs.” Nothing else.

  • Blake Jordan

    Ha ha ha ha ha… ha ha!!!

    • Blake Jordan

      Too bad this shit film has also sabotaged a chance of Hollywood financing a significantly LGBT film any time soon.

      So fuck you very much RE, et. al.

      • Cousin Bleh

        I think that’s a tad extreme.

        I just read last week that someone is finally making “Dancer From the Dance,” though it’s a small arthouse studio.

        • Blake Jordan

          This NOT Stonewall movie was just released and is only bombing now, so of course it will not impact already green-lit films.
          Let us see how long it takes Hollywood to finance another >= $15 million dollar film again…

        • Gustav2

          I was there, and none of it happened that way.

          • Cousin Bleh

            Funny enough, I read Dancer from the Dance for the first time in the late 90s. And though it was set in the 70s, I felt like I had just lived through it.

          • Gustav2

            I’ll have to dig thru some boxes and see if we still have our paperback copy from the 70’s.

          • Chuck in NYC

            Well, there certainly was a man in the Pines nicknamed “Spare Parts.” That little bit was correct. 🙂

        • Octavio

          Ah, for the simple days when the rumor was there would be a movie made of Front Runner with “John Boy” as the Olympic runner and Paul Newman as his “daddy” coach. Sigh . . . life seemed so much more kinder then . . . /s

          • Cousin Bleh

            This is not a rumor. RT Features, who released “Love is Strange” and “Francis Ha,” is financing it. They’ve already hired screenwriters and a director, Alan Poul.

            PS: I suppose The Front Runner would make a decent movie. But that book is terrible.

          • Octavio

            you missed my fini of /s, which I assumed everyone knew meant “major snark”

            The Front Runner is most definitely a terrible book, as was Love Story and Johnathon Livingston Seagull, two orbital best sellers of that same era which were also turned into equally bad — yet popular — movies. The Front Runner also had the added distinction of being written by a straight woman author. Whereas Ruby Fruit Jungle hasn’t even caught the puerile imagination of the most jaded of straight directors or producers. Odd, that. 🙂

      • robirob

        Like they’d ever would. Brokeback Mountain was a pretty decent success and yet Hollywood didn’t jump on that particular bandwagon, but instead they jump on any mainstream bandwagon there is (including graphic novel adaptions).

        I think people should stop hoping for validation or proper LGBT community representation from Hollywood and just accept that Hollywood is a for profit entertainment fast food chain.

  • There IS a movie to be made here, but Roland Emmerich was not the man to make it. I would much rather people get Stonewall Uprising, which is available from Netflix. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZUZKtko4R0

  • Marc

    You people just made sure there will never be a big budget gay movie. Good job.

    • ElenorRigby

      straight people will only see a “gay” movie if they can either laugh at us (not with us) or watch us die… they’ll watch AIDS movies and things like Boys Don’t Cry where we get murdered… but a movie where we stand up for ourselves… not gonna happen.

      • Marc

        Exactly.

      • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

        I remember thinking exactly that when I was in central Pennsylvania watching “The Birdcage” with a theater full of straight people roaring with laughter as Nathan Lane squealed, “Ooooh, I’ve pierced the toast!”.

        • ElenorRigby

          Ugh.. my straight male friends back then all loved that movie and went on and on about how funny it was, often doing very faggy Nathan Lane impersonations.

          • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

            I cringed for most of the movie. Maybe Mike Nichols felt straight audiences would be laughing “with”, but they were definitely laughing “at”.

          • barracks9

            That movie had none of the heart and dignity of the original film with Ugo Tognazzi & Michel Serrault.

        • KP

          God I hated that movie.

    • oikos

      It’s called the free market. There is no guaranteed mandate of success for any movie. Are you saying we’re not suppose to criticize a movie just because it’s about gay people?

      • ElenorRigby

        I don’t think anyone’s saying that.

        • oikos

          Marc appears to be saying just that.

      • Marc

        I’m saying you people are hypocrite.

        • MattM

          I don’t bother taking anything a faceless troll has to say to hear.

    • Dramphooey

      I’m sorry but there is no way if we basically circled back in to the theater for every showing that we could make this into a four star movie.

      • Marc

        The problem with the movie is not how bad it is, the worst movies do the best at the box office.

        • MattM

          So? What’s your point? Do you have a point? Or are you just going to lecture us about how we’re being to “demanding” and “uppity”?

          • Marc

            My point is the reason why people are boycotting this movie has nothing to with history, an the prove of that is the fact the almost all Hollywood movies are historically inaccurate and nobody is boycotting them.

    • you may be content to feast on scraps. the rest of us aren’t that starved.

      • Marc

        No, that’s not the point.

        • MattM

          What’s your point? Do you even have a point? Should we support movies that butcher our history simply because the director is gay and is supposedly about our shared history? Shouldn’t we be demanding more from our community?

          • Marc

            You don’t own history. It’s ridiculously to claim that people are boycotting this because it is not historically accurate when virtually all movies aren’t either.

          • MattM

            But virtually all movies AREN’T about the history of the LGBT movement. Stonewall is an event that is deeply important to this community. And when a director willfully engages in stereotyping and marginalizing the players involved in favor of a “white savior” plotline is lazy, (internally) homophobic and hypocritical.
            But you’re a troll. You don’t really care about the issues. It’s all about you.

          • Marc

            If you people only put a tenth of the energy you use against this movies to rise awareness about actual homophobic movie… But that’s the point, you don’t care about homophobia.

          • oikos

            I call bullshit. You accuse people of homophobia because we want a movie about one of the most important events in our civil rights movement to be accurate. Next.

          • Marc

            N, I accuse you of homophobia because you want to boycott this but do nothing about the many homophobic movies.

          • oikos

            What exactly am I supposed to do about them? The answer is I can do nothing anymore than I can eradicate world hunger. Get real.

          • Marc

            Bravo. That’s the true spirit of Stonewall.

          • oikos

            When you called people leftists you told us you were nothing more than a petty concern troll. Now crawl back under your bridge and let the adults talk.

          • Marc

            Oh yeah, lets talk about how gay people people should not fight homophobia.

          • oikos
          • Jeff Chang

            Where was it historically inaccurate?

          • oikos

            How about right here:

            “Saw the film.

            More a cheap soap opera that recast the true leaders of stonewall.”

            Not to mention the whitewashing of the main characters. Did you have some point troll?

          • Jeff Chang

            How exactly were the main character white washed and who was the white washing victim.

            I ask because the evidence is unclear on who threw the first brick.

            So please present your evidence.

          • oikos

            I just did.

          • Jeff Chang

            Where is your works cited page? The links to the sources that support you claim?

          • oikos

            Oh sweetie, I don’t answer to you. Your just a minor troll.

          • Jeff Chang

            How like a religion of you. Refuse to present evidence in support of your claims.

          • oikos

            Sorry I’m just not into libertarian trolls. I’m sure you’ll find someone someday.

          • MattM

            Faceless concern troll, are you really trying to lecture US about insincerity? Sorry we uppity, “lefty” faggots don’t want to suck Roland Emmerich’s cinematic dick after he willfully disregarded LGBT history to make a buck.

            And lets be clear: Roland Emmerich DID take creative license with this event because he wanted it to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. And you only do that when you want to make sure you get a return on your investment.

          • Marc

            Still you do nothing for the real homophobic movies… Why is that?

          • MattM

            Which ones would those be? Please give me some instances where I supported outright homophobic films. Because if you’re going to make a statement like that, you better have facts to back it up.
            Or you just look like an idiot.

          • Marc

            Whiplash, Ted, almost all black comedies…

          • Joe knows who I am.

            And yet, you argue that Hollywood has a right to own our history. You don’t argue well at all.

          • Marc

            I never said that.

          • Jeff Chang

            What history was that? Are you saying that you have clear and convincing evidence that a white kid did not throw the first brick?

          • Joe knows who I am.

            I wasn’t addressing you, white boy so please remain censored. I’ve had enough of your shenanigans for a lifetime.

          • Jeff Chang

            If you are so caught up on history then did you protest MILK for not including that Harvey had sexual relations with a 16 year old?

          • MattM

            Yes, actually, I did.

    • Michael Rush

      Are they un-making Brokeback Mountain ?

      • Marc

        It wasn’t a big budget movie.

        • Michael Rush

          most big budget movies are just garbage , do you want Tranformers sequel with an all gay cast ?

          • ElenorRigby

            hell yes, that would rock. I’d also love a gay Avenger and a gay Navi in the next Avatar movie. Why do we always have to just be either comedy or tragedy? Why can’t we be heroes?

          • motordog

            I’d be happy for a gay character…ANY gay character…in ANY official Star Trek franchise or film. I know this is an old, well-discussed topic, but for an enlightened future, the world of Star Trek is actually a reparative gay therapist’s dream; apparently ‘the gay’ has been cured in that world!

          • Marc

            Yes, I do. It’s called equality.

          • Michael Rush

            Would the Transformers undergo some sort of conversion therapy ?

          • Marc

            Is that supposed to be funny?

          • MattM

            Are you supposed to be insightful? Because you keep complaining this movie bombed because of us rather than because of itself. A bad, borderline offensive movie isn’t entitled to LGBT money simply because it supposedly supports our community.

          • Marc

            Maybe it would bomb anyway, still many people are hypocrites and just lefty version of the homocons.

          • MattM

            “lefty”

            Now I KNOW you’re just a concern troll. You’re not actually concerned about…well…anything. You’re just yearning for attention.
            If you really cared about this movie, you should see it as often as possible. It’s your duty. You better spend thousands of $$$ on this movie or else you just look like a troll.

          • oikos

            Thank you. Sick of sanctimonious trolls.

          • barracks9

            When a troll opens with “You people”, we know we’re in for a shitshow.

          • Joe knows who I am.

            Are we talking now about Marc or Roland?

          • Joe knows who I am.

            Says,…?

          • Michael Rush

            Your argument is as convincing as Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty telling folks to go see Kirk Cameron’s ” Saving Christmas ”

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I7BWEo8CiY

          • Marc

            I’m ok with people don’t liking this movie, what I don’t like is hypocrites.

          • oikos

            Chrissy Doyle can play the villain.

          • Joe knows who I am.

            Electroshock actually.

      • ElenorRigby

        back to what I said above.. straight audiences will go to the movies to laugh at the funny fags and they’ll go to cry for us as we die or get murdered. They’ll go see movies where gay people are miserable for the whole thing so they can feel sorry for us. They will NEVER support a movie where we stand up for ourselves.

        • Blake Jordan

          Sure they were not box office smashes*, but Milk and Pride made more than their money back, and they were about LGBT people standing up for themselves.

          *but then how often are character driven (non- visual effects spectaculars) movies box office smashes anyway?

          • ElenorRigby

            exactly. Straight people will go see gay movies as long as we’re either really funny or miserable for the whole movie and then die at the end.

          • ElenorRigby

            And BTW… Pride opened even lower than this did. $100,000. It made all its money overseas.

          • ElenorRigby

            as far a character driven/non-effects pictures goes, Straight Outta Compton this year was huge. And The Intern is pretty successful. Selma made a fortune, and that was also filled with historical inaccuracies.

    • clay

      Is $20,000,000 big enough of a budget for you?

      • Marc

        It is not.

        • MattM

          Glad you aren’t the authority on that sort of thing. Or anything for that matter.

          Faceless concern/condemnation troll.

    • Joe knows who I am.

      Yay!

  • Phil B.

    Studos of course will naturally assume that it’s because no one want to see a “gay” movie.

    • Gustav2

      No, I think the reviews say it all. If it had been well made, mainstream gays would have looooooooved it!

      • robirob

        Mainstream gays? That’s so borderline offensive I want to wear it on a T-shirt!

        • Gustav2

          You know who you are!

    • Blake Jordan

      That’s what they will latch on to, instead of taking responsibility for making a horrible movie.

  • Dramphooey

    I saw it. I kind of liked it but if I were to give it a review it would be no more than two stars. The parts I liked actually weren’t the riot which I don’t think was well done and I winced when Danny threw the brick.

  • Dramphooey
  • Michael Rush

    I could easily relate to the characters in THE ADVENTURES OF PRISCILLA , QUEEN OF THE DESERT although they are nothing like me , just better story telling .

    • Justin

      Indeed. The characters in that movie were sympathetic, and I know straight men that thought it was a great movie.

    • Gerry Fisher

      Loved that movie. Tolerated “To Wong Foo….”

      • barracks9

        To Wong Foo is a challenge for me. I love Stockard Channing, and the rest of the support cast is brilliant, but I can’t get past the notion that 3 drag queens travel cross-country in a convertible in full makeup and costume. It would be a different if any of them were presented as transgender, but they weren’t. And, girl, makeup ain’t cheap!

        • joeyj1220

          Agreed… and the town they ended up in was like a left-over set piece from some bad Western. I kept thinking “People today don’t live in towns like that”… Still, there was something so sweet and funny in that film, plus I loved John Leguizamo’s Chi Chi so much, that the movie is one I can watch again

        • Steve Weinstein

          You’ve obviously never been on the road with Lady Bunny.

  • it is, without question, the worst film i have ever seen about the LGBT experience.

    the TIFF screening was ……well…. barely anyone applauded, except for the cast and crew. people just shook their heads in anger and shame, when they weren’t stifling laughter at the jaw-droopingly awful dialogue and storytelling.

    it truly is an abomination of a film. STONEWALL by way of Corbin Fisher. two straight white guys acting straight and falling for each other, while dismissing the brown-y trans-y people who litter the sidelines, literally turning a story of queer liberation into a wet dream for the type of guys who yearn to one day fill their pool chairs with the straight white boys they’ve spent a lifetime wanting to bone.

    it’s terrible. irredeemably terrible. but, for all the blame emmerich deserves, it really is the film’s screenwriter who deserves the most shame.

    • Dramphooey

      I had to like that for “Stonewall by way of Corbin Fisher.”

      • MattM

        Judging by the cast, I’m sure Roland Emmerich was hoping the casting couch would be exactly this.

        • Blake Jordan

          He probably picked most of the cast from one of his infamous pool parties, co-hosted by Bryan Singer…

          • MattM

            Probably. The movie celebrates the twinkish, white, teenage male. That’s pretty much Bryan Singer’s main “dating” pool.
            And remember, Bryan Singer’s alleged victim made it clear BS wasn’t the only one in Hollywood engaging in that kind of behavior. I think we found another “client.”

      • HanyBaal

        Funny, after I looked it up. GTK.

    • Cousin Bleh

      I still want to see it for myself, but you’ve never steered me wrong, Kiwi.

      • SelectFromWhere

        I would recommend seeing it–it’s not as bad as they say and the non-“straight-acting” characters do get plenty of screen time especially in the beginning. It’s unfortunate that the director chose to give the “corn-fed white farm boy” the brick-throwing moment AND that that is what is being shown in the trailers, because the actual movie shows more of the whole story of who the real heroes were. I think it had a lot of historical value in showing the setting, décor, and voiding a lot of the archaic and homophobic attitudes and laws of the time; unfortunately the last act, the riots themselves, became more and more unlike what we know of from history. Never mind the weird scene of him going all the way home to Kansas (or wherever) on a bus and spending literally less than one hour there before going back to NY??

        For your folks who don’t really know that much about Stonewall, it’s educational in the same way “Titanic” was: fictional characters have their own fictional story but the backdrop really happened, but unfortunately the fictional parts overshadow the real parts.

    • Marc

      May I ask which film was the best?

      • The Times of Harvey Milk. Milk. The Boys in the Band. Stonewall Uprising. Pride. Yossi & Jagger. My Beautiful Laundrette. Edward II. And the Band Played On. The Normal Heart. C.R.A.Z.Y. Tom a La Ferme. Happy Together. Paris is Burning. Prayers for Bobby. Torch Song Trilogy. Law of Desire. Maurice.

        i can’t personally decide.
        you can take your pick. any of those is infinitely better than Stonewall.

        • Marc

          I wish I had the time to try explain to you why almost all those movies are awful.

          • oikos

            If you wrote this comment you have time.

          • He’s confusing a mike-drop with running off stage.

          • oikos

            He’s a very poor troll.

          • Cousin Bleh

            Just be honest, you haven’t seen any of these movies.

          • Marc

            I’ve seen all of them. I actually saw almost all gay movies.

          • Cousin Bleh

            I believe you. Really.

          • RIGHT? lol

          • MichaelJ

            So, we’re waiting. Pick one or two of those films and say something, anything, about **why** you think they are awful. I think most of us who see a lot of movies would respect a thoughtful or insightful comment which back up a negative even if we disagree with it. Just asserting that something is “awful” without stating why makes you sound like Trump.

          • Marc

            “Just asserting that something is “awful” without stating why makes you sound like Trump.”

            Do you realize that’s exactly what everyone ha done with Stonewall here?

          • Cousin Bleh

            That’s simply not true. Numerous people here, including Little Kiwi above, have given clear and cogent reasons why they think Stonewall is awful.

          • ElenorRigby

            but most of the people whining about the movie haven’t even seen it.

          • SelectFromWhere

            Just like the Right-wingers who try to shut down our TV shows and gay-positive movies/books without seeing/reading them, as well.

          • Marc

            No. Some said it is awful because is historically inaccurate. Most films are though, and they have no problem with it.
            Some other said the movie is just bad form a cinematic point of view, they never explained it why. They only said “it sucks”.

          • Cousin Bleh

            Wrong again. Kiwi, for instance, also cited the movie’s awful dialogue.

          • Marc

            Look, if you don’t like the movies because of the dialog I’m cool with it. There are a lot of movies with bad dialog though, are you that angry for them too?
            I hope you never see the phantom menace or would riot in the streets…

          • Cousin Bleh

            Dude, I’m not angry that Stonewall sucks. Just disappointed.

          • Marc

            Actually, some of your comments where pretty angry.
            A lot of people are very angry about this movie.
            Can I ask you a question? Do you agree there are recent movies that are homophobic?

          • Cousin Bleh

            I think you mean “were.”

            And really, I don’t think your questions are sincere because you’re clearly trolling this forum. So don’t expect a sincere answer.

          • Marc

            I’m sorry for my English.

            You probably wont believe this, but this whole argument wasn’t fun to me. Quite hurtful and discouraging, actually.

          • Cousin Bleh

            You finally got something right. I don’t believe you.

          • Marc

            I suppose that’s easier.

          • Midnight Express is “historically inaccurate” – and yet as a *film*, it works. really really well. because it was well made. well written. sensationally directed. well acted. and hits effective emotional notes. Stonewall does none of those things. at all.
            it’s a mess from the first frame to the last, and literally seems to have been cobbled together by stunted gay men who never got over their crushes on some white straight boy from high school.

          • Dramphooey

            Kiwi definitely saw the movie. I thought the same thing.

          • Marc

            If people to get so angry about Stonewall because is bad, why nobody is rioting in the streets about Transformers?
            I’m pretty sure there are a lot of bad gay movies, are you angry for those too?

          • well, transformers is based on a kids toy line form the 1980s. Stonewall is supposed to be about, and is at least titled after, one of the most galvanizing events in LGBT history.

            as for my anger at other gay films that suck, enjoy:

            http://littlekiwilovesbauhaus.blogspot.com/2008/09/shortbus-and-state-of-queer-cinema.html

          • Marc

            Come on. Don’t make me write a list of historical movies that are ridiculously inaccurate.
            You don’t seem THAT angry in that post. You don’t even name the movie you don’t like.

          • Elizabeth: The Golden Age is riddled with inaccuracies. it’s also nowhere near as good as the original. as i stated, Midnight Express deviates from the truth a lot, but as a *film*, it works brilliantly.
            Stonewall is not a film that’s being torn apart for its accuracies, perceived or otherwise, but because it’s a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE film on top of everything else.
            Stonewall, the movie, ends up denigrating and missing the entire point of the movement for gay, and queer, liberation – and doesn’t even succeed as an *entertainment*.
            now get trolling somebody else, you’re boring.

          • Marc

            This still does not explain why with so many bad and historically inaccurate movies this is the ONLY people hate so much.

          • this isn’t the only film people hate so much. it’s what’s being talked about this week. you’re so dense i’m pretty sure light bends around you.

          • Marc

            Can you show any link to any post on this otherwise excellent blog?
            Again, why so angry for THIS and not for Ted, Whiplash, Top Five etc.?

          • ted was funny. whiplash was awesome. top five made me laugh and had some pretty spot-on observations.
            your questions have been answered. either you’re a bored troll, or your parents were siblings and you struggle with words. either way, you’re not interesting enough to continue this with. buh bye.

          • Marc

            “ted was funny. whiplash was awesome. top five made me laugh and had some pretty spot-on observations.”
            Maybe they were all those things but they were also disgustingly homophobic. You’re pathetic and I pity you.

          • Cousin Bleh

            Logic fail. No one is rioting in the streets about Stonewall.

          • Marc

            If you’re angry about this movie you have to be super angry about movies that are so much worse.

          • Steve Weinstein

            Lots of people savaged Transformers. Look at the reviews on RT.

          • Marc

            But they weren’t angry about that.

          • MattM

            COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

            PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media….
            Sound familiar, Marc? At least Sarah uses correct grammar (I saw almost all gay movies). Seriously, you’re the laziest, least intelligent troll I’ve ever encountered.

          • Marc

            This was funny, but I talked about the movies I liked and the ones I don’t in other comments.

          • MattM

            The movies, of which you’ve seen all. All of them. No specifics. Just like Sarah. And your comments carry the same intellectual weight.
            Wait….sorry. Let me dumb that down so you can understand it: your opinions are dumb and you’re dumb. You’re a troll of the laziest order.

          • Marc

            Right. Now go to see a movie full of homophobia with your straight friends and parents, laugh at its homophobic jokes and ask them how a good uncle tom you are for boycotting a gay movie.

          • MattM

            So by supporting the LGBT community by protesting the misrepresentation of the L, the B and the T, I’m homophobic and laughing at the expense of the G. You’re a gay supremacist troll. The other letters don’t matter. Equality for gay men and fuck the rest, right?

          • Marc

            1988: N.W.A., Eazy-E Gay-Bash Their Way Straight Outta Compton

            Eazy-E released his solo album Eazy-Duz-It about a month after N.W.A. dropped Straight Outta Compton; both exemplify the vicious homophobia that ruled hip-hop in the late ’80s and early ’90s. The track “Gangsta Gangsta,” from Straight Outta Compton, features the line “but she keep cryin’ ‘I got a boyfriend’ / Bitch, stop lyin’ / Dumb-ass hooker ain’t nothin’ but a dyke.” Eazy’s album features “Nobody Move,” a drawn-out tale of a bank robbery. During the second verse, Eazy is about to rape a woman when she’s revealed to be a transsexual, at which point he raps, “Put the gat to his legs, all the way up his skirt / because this is one faggot that I had to hurt.”

            http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/music/2012/07/18/timeline-hip-hop-homophobia

          • MattM

            What about Transphobia? What about misogyny against Lesbians? What about the marginalization of POC’s contribution to the fight for LGBT equality? Because Stonewall seemed only to value the white, heteronormitve gay men. Every other gay movie brought to your attention is insufficient because it doesn’t pander to the white, straight-acting gay male crowd you seem so devoted to. You’re a troll who doesn’t actually have a stake in the fight for LGBT equality. If you did, you’d actually give a damn about the people Stonewall DIDN’T represent fairly.
            But keep deflecting to the “racism of all black people” narrative that you seem to be pushing. Because it’s not enough that you hate the LBT’s, but also the blacks.

          • Marc

            You’re just a pathetic uncle tom who would trow all LGBT under bus to score a few points with his homophobic friends. Go listen to Eazy-e about how much hi likes bashing faggots.

          • MattM

            Um, since you blatantly disregard the plight of 3/4 of the LGBT community, it’s safe to say YOU’RE the Uncle Tom here. I’m championing equal representation for our entire community, while you’d rather they just fuck off so we could get back to fawning over white, butch gay guys who contribute nothing but scorn and internalized homophobia to this movement.

            I’m sorry you hate Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender people. I’m sorry you think their struggles interfere with getting equal rights for just the selfish gay men. I’m sorry you think all black people are homophobic.

            But mostly, I’m sorry you’re a troll. Because what a waste of your life.

          • Marc

            Yeah I’m the transphobic one, not the guy in the movie you so like who raps about bashing trans women.
            You are an uncle tom who just happens to be left wing, if you were right wing instead of bitching about Stonewall for all the wrong reasons you would chastise those evil homos who wants to put that clerk in jail to get the applause of your homophobic friends.

          • MattM

            Well you can both be transphobic (and you are!).
            But I’m not right wing. I’m left wing. I support the entirety of my community, not just the special straight-acting snowflakes who feel entitled to equality before the rest of their community because they’re “normal” and can pass amongst the heterosexuals. Sorry, Auntie Tom, your kind isn’t special. And this movie bombed because of it.
            It’s sad that you want to rewrite our collective history to suit your transphobic, racist, misogynistic ideals.
            We can’t hate black people, women, and faggots like you do.

          • Marc

            Nothing of what you say is true and I know you know, maybe you fell a little ashamed, that’s why you say all this lies.
            Now go to see the very transpphobic moves Compton and ted again and give them more money to show how much you support transgender people.
            You are no better than gays who support that clerk. Disgusting.

          • MattM

            “fell a little ashamed” “say all this lies” “Now go to see”
            I’m guessing English is your (distant) second language. Maybe that’s why you don’t seem to understand the very easy concepts/ideas I presented to you. Or perhaps you’re just stupid. I wouldn’t rule either out at this point.
            How would supporting transphobic movies support transgender people? When did I advocate for transphobic movies? If you actually read what I wrote (which you didn’t, because a troll like you probably isn’t worried about facts), I called you out for not caring about the marginalization of Trans people. The movie Stonewall relegated Trans and POC from the Stonewall riots as helpless figures who needed a white, straight-acting, “normal” savior, which you seem to have no issue with. Probably because you hate Trans people and POC. You keep proving just how much of a racist and a misogynist you are.
            Which gays are supporting Kim Davis? None. Even the one gay guy who supposedly called her a friend has gone on record as saying they are no longer friends after what she has done.
            But you have no facts. You have no point. You just deflect deflect deflect, as a real troll does, because you just want attention.
            You sad, racist, misogynistic, transphobic loser.

          • Marc

            OK, for the very last time.

            ” I called you out for not caring about the marginalization of Trans people.”
            I’m the one who cares, boycotting transphobic movies like Compton and Ted. Movies that a lot of people here seem to like. If you like those transphobic movies boycotting stonewall for being transphobic is just a pathetic excuse. And I agree Stonewall is problematic.

            “Which gays are supporting Kim Davis?”
            Many, actually. They are just a right wing version of you.

            You just an homophobe who attack other gay people to please his straight friends.

          • MattM

            “For the very last time” – FINALLY!!!!! Arguing in circles around your feeble mind is exhausting.

            When did I say I liked SOC or Ted? Oh yeah: never. When did I defend them? Never. But I asked you for proof for how the movie SOC was homophobic, and you couldn’t provide me examples. You demonstrated that the actual rappers were, but you didn’t demonstrate how the movie promoted homophobia. You can’t make accusations and expect them to stick if you don’t have proof. Gut feelings aren’t proof.
            Which gays are supporting Kim Davis? I want examples. I want PROOF. You can say “many,” but again, without proof, you’re just an idiot with opinions. I want EVIDENCE. But trolls like you never have it. You’re not interested in truth, just promoting a bigoted agenda.
            I attack homosexual men who think they’re the only part of the LGBT community that deserves representation in the media and equal rights. Sorry if you only do good things to please people. I do it because all people in my community deserve equality. But a troll like you probably doesn’t understand the concept of friendship.
            Is it hard for you to meet people when you spend your day locked in your mom’s basement?

          • Towa Tei

            I appreciate the points you’ve made, Marc, nuanced and faceted. Unfortunately, it’s hard for a pit bull to see anything but the jugular once it’s in attack mode …and it will attack even at its own demise.

          • Marc

            Thank you very much. I really appreciate your support.

          • that you think they’re awful and yet seem to be defending Stonewall tells me all i need to know about your taste in film and your conceptual awareness of the LGBT experience. good day, Blanche.

          • motordog

            Certainly there is room for personal choice as well, eh? I mean, some folks LOVE seafood, and I find most seafood awful (just my personal preference). I don’t feel the need to convince others that their choices are wrong or bad because they don’t always jibe with mine. I enjoyed some of the movies Kiwi listed, some very much…but some were (IMO) not enjoyable (The Boys in the Band), and some were a mixed bag (Torch Song Trilogy) for example.

        • Todd20036

          You forgot “Parting Glances”

        • MichaelJ

          I liked most of the films you and ebadeeeebadeethatsallfolks (below) have mentioned. Others I really liked not mentioned by others (as far as I can tell; at this point too many comments to read) are: Before Stone (1984, documentary);
          Alkali, Iowa (1995, US short narrative, part of the Boys Life 2
          collection); Nighthawks (1978, British narrative); Celluloid Closet, (1996, documentary); Love and Death on Long Island (1997, US narrative); and Yossi (2012, Israeli narrative).

          • great films. and there are more! Gods and Monsters! Get Real! Shortbus!

          • Dagoril

            Shortbus was amazeballs 😉

          • my MUM loved short bus!

          • TomF.

            My Own Private Idaho.

          • Steve Weinstein

            The sequel to “Yossi” is surprisingly good as well.

        • Strepsi

          Mine:
          1. The Rocky Horror Picture Show
          2. Parting Glances
          3. Paris is Burning
          4. Brokeback Mountain
          5. The Naked Civil Servant
          6. Jeffrey
          7. La Mala Educacion
          8. Poison
          9. The Birdcage
          10. Y Tu Mama Tambien

        • Steve Weinstein

          Best movies about gay men:
          Wizard of Oz
          The Women
          All About Eve
          Mommie Dearest
          Now., Voyager
          Johnny Guitar
          Steel Magnolias

      • Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks

        I would put ‘The Wedding Banquet’, ‘Brokeback Mountain’, ‘Bad Education’, ‘All About My Mother’, ‘Wild Reeds’, ‘The Opposite of Sex’, ‘Beautiful Thing’, ‘Before Night Falls’, ‘The Celluloid Closet’ and ‘Jeffrey’ as my top ten.

        • Octavio

          All About Sex was surprisingly good.

          • Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks

            I’m going to have to rent that. Fortunately I still have my VCR around here somewhere.

          • Octavio

            Christina Ricci nails it in that film. The final ending (there are at least two) is sort of schmaltzy, but the film as a whole is very intelligent, funny and worth watching.

          • Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks

            I think you mean ‘The Opposite of Sex’, and yes, Christina Ricci was fabulous in it. Maybe her best performance ever.

          • Octavio

            Whoops! You are right, sir! I have the two confused. I have never seen All About Sex. How could my addled old brain be so wrong?! Thanks 🙂

          • ElenorRigby

            I hated that movie. The underlying message was “gay guys are only gay because the right girl hasn’t come along.” The brother was a useless, spineless doormat with an even more useless faghag who sat around angry that he didn’t want her. Christina Ricci played a sociopathic con artist. I never understood why anyone liked that movie.

          • Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks

            It’s a similar humor to Absolutely Fabulous.

            Lisa Kudrow: “What are you doing? You can’t be drinking!! What about the baby?”
            Christina Ricci: “Please! This baby owes its existence to Long Island Ice Teas, if you know what I mean “

          • ElenorRigby

            except Absolutely Fabulous is an intentionally farcical show. This movie was about pathetic assholes treating each other like shit. Even the final moments of the movie where everyone says “Oh isn’t that sweet… she’s going back to him” and my reaction was “oh… she has nowhere to go so she’ll go back and grift him some more and since he’s such a doormat, he’ll take it because gay people only exist in movies for straight people to use.”

          • because she was a sad broken person. that’s why. the underlying message was that some broken people lash out, and seek companionship for the wrong reasons.

          • ElenorRigby

            no, I get that. Still… she changed the gay boyfriend straight by laying around in a bikini. And there was no real change to anyone. At the end of the movie she was still a manipulative grifter, the brother was still a spineless doormat, Lisa Kudrow was still a pathetic faghag with no life.

          • she didn’t make him straight. he ran back into the arms of a gay boy at the end. know what he got? what many insecure gay men want at some point – the possibility of a “normal” life.
            at the end, as she said in the beginning, she won’t change. she’s sad and broken, and if you know any about human nature you’ll know that her awful exterior is due to massive sadness. and in the end, kudrow falls in love with lyle lovett, who’s loved her for years.

          • ElenorRigby

            We saw the end of that movie differently. I saw Lisa Kudrow settling for the guy who wants her instead of the one she wants. But anyway, I thought it was a really annoying movie about annoying people and if THAT is what you think is a “good gay movie,” we’ll always be the gay BFF and comedy relief of murder victim and that’s that.

          • i think your lack of understanding of the human condition has stymied your ability to see films, and their characters, with any meaningful clarity.
            ivan serge’s character didn’t become straight. he ended up back in the arms of his high school boyfriend. lisa kudrow had a child with lyle lovett, weaning herself off her dead brother’s lover, her last connection to her brother, coming from a family of sisters who ignored her and treated her like shit.
            yes. it’s what i think a great film, of any kind, should contain – layered, flawed characters that don’t necessarily make 180 degree turns toward success by the film’s conclusion. you know, like in real life.

          • ElenorRigby

            you have a lot of cats, don’t you?

          • #pitbull

          • ElenorRigby

            That would have been my other guess.

          • check out the film “happy endings”, also by Don Roos. kudrow is in it as well, and she’s sensational in it.

          • Steve Weinstein

            Annoying people can be very funny. In a movie.

          • Steve Weinstein

            I’m a card-carrying gay man, but if Ricci was coming on to me in a bikini, I can’t account for my actions.

          • Steve Weinstein

            It’s hilarious. Favorite line: “I feel your pain.” “Here, let me help you.”

          • agreed. but BOTH of those wee endings hit me 😀

        • Marc

          All about pathetic characters who dies, turn straight or are just funny stereotypes.

          • barracks9

            How do Wedding Banquet and Beautiful Thing fit any of your categories? Does it hurt when you pull this much shit out of your ass, or is there no sensation left whatsoever?

          • Marc

            So you saved only two of those, uh?
            Are those 2 movies really that batter than Stonewall?

          • motordog

            Just wondering…what gay-themed movies DO you like? Not trying to hate here, as I’m legitimately curious. Do you think ANY of them are good?

          • Marc

            Noordzee, texas, Les Chansons D’amour, Milk.

            They are mostly small budget so they are not that good in that sense.

          • Gerry Fisher

            They’re both very well reviewed movies, Marc. I understand how you can disagree with reviewers, but you can’t disagree with the fact that those two movies were well received by mainstream critics as well as by the LGBT community.

          • barracks9

            Not the point. I asked you a specific question about how these two films that you offhandedly dismissed fit into your narrow categories. You haven’t given any reasons WHY you dislike so many of the films mentioned in this thread. You’ve only offered broad sweeping generalizations.

          • Marc

            I’m sorry. I’m not a film critic. Some of them are silly comedies some portrays offensive stereotype. I don’t like them. That’s not the point here though.

          • barracks9

            Have you even seen those two movies? Sweet, endearing stories told well. How again is that offensive stereotypes?

          • Marc

            I haven’t see those in years, I remember liking Beautiful Thing, but is low budget movie. Maybe Stonewall is awful but Beautiful Thing is not great cinema either.

            I never liked the wedding banquet, silly comedy where (of course) the gay guy has a straight affair. No thanks.

          • barracks9

            The gay guy has a straight wedding and then it’s all undone in the final act. Geez, it’s as though you’ve read a cover blurb of every movie you’ve dismissed here today. “Parting Glances”…”I have a bad feeling about that movie”…

            Bullshit.

          • Marc

            Didn’t he get her pregnant?
            I don’t like MOST movies.

          • MattM

            I think I figured out who you are, Marc.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSgrmsI7a2A

          • Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks

            You would probably enjoy watching Saturday morning cartoons. All the main characters are heroic and good-looking, all the villains can be spotted instantaneously from a mile away, and all conflicts are resolved in 30 minutes.

          • Marc

            Most movies are like that, some should have gay characters in it.

          • Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks

            Yes, most movies ARE like that, and that makes them bad, awful, terrible movies.

          • Marc

            That’s the same argument people use against marriage equality: “I think marriage is bad so it’s ok if gay people are excluded from it.”

          • Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks

            WTF?! That isn’t even in the same hemisphere as what I wrote.

          • The whole Marvel thing is just my Saturday morning as a child funded to the tune of a trillion dollars.

          • motordog

            Speaking of cartoons…did you know we’ve had some pretty positive representation? Two I can mention; Avatar: The Legend of Korra (the main female protagonist ends up with the girl…and this is from Nickelodeon!) and Steven Universe (most of the characters are female-identified…it’s complicated…and they definitely have feelings for each other). SU even has transgender inclusion. Both shows are so incredibly well-written and produced. True, female/female stories have always seemed more palatable to the masses though. I’d like to see some male/male relationships featured in mainstream cartoons (well, other than Batman and Robin, of course).

            Edit: If you don’t know about Steven Universe, here’s a fan-made trailer (semi-spoilery) that lets you see how amazing it is…

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2TlJpmx_7M

        • motordog

          I suppose I’m in the minority concerning Brokeback Mountain. Sure, it was a very beautiful film, with good acting, and it did bring gay films to the mainstream…but (spoilers, duh) another sad tale of gay men yet again unable to have a happy ending. I mean, I love a good tragedy as much as the next filmgoer…but I’m a bit board with the oh-so-frequent downer ending for gay love stories.

          • Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks

            I don’t see it that way. We all die sooner or later, and every love story eventually ends in a death or a break-up. They could’ve cut the story before Jack’s death, but it would have lost many of its most beautiful moments. The scene at the end where Ennis smells Jack’s shirt makes me cry every time. In fact, I’m crying right now just remembering it. But just because it’s sad doesn’t mean it isn’t incredibly beautiful.

          • motordog

            Oh, I agree that it’s a well-made, beautiful film…I never said otherwise. Nor am I suggesting they should have tampered with the story. I’m just wondering if they can even make a similarly well-made, beautiful, emotional, tear-jerking story that doesn’t end in tragedy for our kind. I suppose Priscilla Queen of the Desert comes close…I’m just overdosed on gay-sad.

          • tcinsf

            Well, it did come from an Annie Proulx short story … and she’s not known for happy endings.

          • motordog

            Oh, I know…I read the story as well. Again, I think it is a well-told story; I’m just craving a DIFFERENT type of story…one where boy-meets-boy, drama ensues, boys-get-happy ending. Oh, and a well-written, acted and filmed story too. 🙂

          • Cousin Bleh

            I won’t try to convince you because Brokeback Mountain is not for everyone, but there’s really no way Ennis could have had a happy ending because of his upbringing. His father convinced him to fear and hate who he was, so he’d never be able to love another man. That is the unfortunate reality of the time and setting of Brokeback Mountain.

          • motordog

            I know…again, I’m not faulting the story as it was told (perhaps I’m not making myself clear, so this could all be my fault). I think I need an analogy. Okay…imagine having a delicious steak every night; perfectly cooked, seasoned and presented. Well, I’m a bit tired of steak, and would like some other main ingredient for dinner, but want it just as perfectly cooked, seasoned and presented. So, it’s not that I didn’t like Brokeback as a film…I just found it (admittedly a beautiful) repeat of a theme I’m overly familiar with.

          • Cousin Bleh

            I hear ya. It does get tiring watching so many tragedies.

          • tcinsf

            That’s why I liked Beautiful Thing – good movie and a fairy tale happy ending for all involved. Honestly, though, Brokeback Mountain seemed brutally honest to me, especially for the time.

          • Steve Weinstein

            There are plenty of those, starting with Launderette & Parting Glances, through Weekend. Brokeback was a movie about how society & circumstances & ingrained attitudes of its time doomed a romance. Like, you know, Romeo and Juliett. Or West Side Story.

          • it’s one of those “gay films for straight people” – and while they have their worth, there’s something to be said about a gay film that doesn’t care whether or not straight people see it or find it “palatable”. one of the things i loved most about Shortbus was its air of joyful defiance. it wasn’t made for the easily-shocked. thank GOD.

        • tcinsf

          I’m glad someone mentioned Beautiful Thing. Always liked that movie and its sweet ending.

          • metrored

            I knew for sure that I was gay after I watched that movie… in my parents basement with the volume turned down low so no one would hear it and ask me why I was watching a movie about gay people.

        • wild reeds! OH how that film got me through age 15…LOL

      • Gerry Fisher

        My all-time favorite is “Parting Glances.” “The Times of Harvey Milk” is way up there.

        • Marc

          I never saw Parting Glances, i don’t have a good feeling about it though.

          • oikos

            ‘I never saw Parting Glances, i don’t have a good feeling about it though.”
            Total troll statement. Then why did you comment on it?

          • Marc

            It was answer to me.

          • MattM

            Speak English you? Are you pretending not to know how to speak the language now that everyone has thrashed you for being a troll?

          • Marc

            That’s low.

          • MattM

            Your entire point of view is low. Your grasp of reality is low.

          • Steve Weinstein

            (shakes head sadly)

    • Jeff Chang

      It did not ignore the people of color just moved them to a secondary role.

      • MattM

        So it marginalized them. That’s even worse!

      • THEBEARCUB

        Something you approve of obviously

    • metrored

      Stonewall was written by the same guy who wrote the US adaptation of ‘The Slap,’ a garbage program about garbage people that made me embarrassed to live in new york.

      • The book was a loathsome piece of shit too. was it meant to be a satire or were we meant to feel something for these horrible people and their disgusting children?

        • metrored

          OMG there was book? Of course there was a book! Something that pretentious doesn’t arrive on TV fully formed.
          I mean I hated the Australian version before I hate-watched the American one but I would say that the American version was worse. They way this man wrote the New York characters was ridiculous.

    • rusty57

      Do I know this Mr. Fisher?

      • maybe not. he’s well known to gay men who like their boys white and mostly-straight. you know, gay porn without those awful GAYS in it to ruin it 😉

        • rusty57

          Oh.
          My porn education started with Old Reliable and AMG (tatted up rough trade) and ended with Colt and Buckshot (Hirsute muscle stud daddies).
          Mr. Fisher will probably remain a cipher to me.

    • Todd20036

      Thanks for taking one for the team

    • lvgfx

      How do you know Jonny Beauchamp is a “straight white guy”? How do you know he’s straight? How do you know he’s white? How do you know he’s a “guy” even? You don’t.

      • what on earth are you on about? jonny is not straight nor is he the lead. he plays a gender-nonconformist non-white guy, which is why the lead character rejects him. duh.

        • slvgtfx

          About 500 posts up there, you said “two straight white guys acting straight and falling for each other, while dismissing the brown-y trans-y people who litter the sidelines”. the actor who plays Danny is said to be a straight white guy, but the actor who plays Ray/Ramona is probably straight and certainly is not white.

          • you haven’t seen the film then? Danny falls for Jonathan Rhys-Myers’ character.

          • Roy Biv

            Hahaha, good on you to put the troll in place. Lol.

            Nice slap down.

          • *elegant curtsy*

    • aschops

      “…dismissing the brown-y trans-y people who litter the sidelines”

      Oh so the dear precious brown-y trans-y people were in the movie, contrary to whining on Tumblr that they were not, and if they were “littering” the sidelines, they were actually overrepresented.

      • are you one of those insecure wimps who complains that as a white man you’re being oppressed? LOL!

        • aschops

          Derpity derpity derp.

    • Steve Weinstein

      “STONEWALL by way of Corbin Fisher” – if only. THAT film I’d watch.

  • Kevin Perez

    “Ishtar on Christopher Street”

    • Gene

      damn,.,,,THAT bad?

    • Joseph Miceli

      Wow.

    • Todd20036

      NICE!!!!!

    • Steve Weinstein

      Wrong. They spent money on Ishtar.

  • ben

    Standing by for all the usual wingnut groups to claim victory.

    • Blake Jordan

      I am surprised none of them called for a boycott before hand, it was clear this movie was going to fail… if would of been an easy “win” for them.

      • Reality.Bites

        This was never a mainstream movie that was going to play the mall multiplex so no point

  • oikos

    The initial market for this is gay audiences, who are offended by its lack of authenticity and will not support it. After that it is a direct to video market. Most straight people are wholly uninterested in our history even if they support our rights. The producers and directors of this were fools to think that by appealing to straight people with the characters, the film would somehow achieve success.

    • ‘Milk’ did well because it featured a skilled and well-known actor (I do not believe all gay men should played by gay actors,) performing well outside his comfort zone, directed by a skilled gay director from an intelligent, interesting script from a skilled gay scriptwriter.

      Skills.

      • oikos

        I didn’t say all, but people outside of gay culture knew who Milk was. The people who participated in the Stonewall uprising are virtually unknown outside of gay culture, so yes in this case they could have at least chosen someone gay for the main role.

        • Why? That goes against the whole principle that acting is based on. The flip side of that argument is that gay actors would never be allowed to play straight people because they are incapable.

          Hey presto: no more actors.

          • oikos

            Disagree. The majority of gay roles are played by straight actors and gay actors have most often been forced to play straight people historically due to fear about tanking their careers. Emmerich could have made a movie that was both historically accurate and utilized gay actors. He did neither which is why he is being subjected to criticism and rightly so.

          • jomicur

            I think there’s some justice to what you say. But I have to observe that that same rationale was used to excuse blackface and yellowface.

    • Hue-Man

      How to explain Pride? Rotten Tomatoes – 92%.

      “Critics Consensus:
      Earnest without being didactic and uplifting without stooping to
      sentimentality, Pride is a joyous crowd-pleaser that genuinely works.”

      http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pride_2014/

      • Marc

        Pride is about gay people giving up the fight for gay rights to fight for what straight people think is important. Of course straight moviegoers like it.

        • Cousin Bleh

          Jeezus H. Christ. You completely missed the point of Pride. You really are a special kind of stupid.

          • Marc

            That’s literally the synopsis of the film.

        • no. it’s about solidarity and standing together as oppressed people. take off your insecurity goggles and you’ll see it in a new light.

          • Marc

            Oh really? An How would have you liked a movie about gay people giving up the fight for gay rights to join an anti-choice group? Basically the same story.

          • they didn’t give up the fight for gay rights. they were a group of LGBT people (and allies) who joined the miner’s in solidarity. and it’s a true story.
            are you that dense? you seem realllllly stupid.

          • Marc

            So what if it’s areal story? (by the way, it is full of historical inaccuracies, but surprise surprise no boycott!)
            They could choose many between a million stories to make a movie, they chose that one where gay people don’t fight for gay rights.

          • you ARE that dense! LOL
            are you one of those trolling wimps that says shit like this online because nobody in the real world ever wants to talk to you? 😉
            PRIDE – that you can’t see that by joining the miners they effectively raised the standing of LGBT people in wales, and indeed moved gay rights forward (and massively, on a grassroots level) shows that you’re one of the ButtHurt Boy Trolls. kudos ya dunce! LOL

          • oikos

            He’s a total troll. One of his posts says we are leftists that are just like homocons.

          • i suspect his parents might have been siblings……

          • Marc

            “s they effectively raised the standing of LGBT people in wales”
            There, you see? That’s historical inaccuracy. Now go boycott the movie.

          • how about you list your favourite gay films ? 😀 i’m sure your parents let you watch at LEAST one 😉

          • Marc

            I could tell you but they are all small budget European movies.

          • right. because it’s impossible to type the names of small budget european films on the internet. did you have a brain tumour for breakfast?

          • Marc

            Noordzee, texas, Les Chansons D’amour, Milk.

          • oikos

            Milk is an American movie, not European. FAIL

          • Marc

            Stop trolling me.

          • oikos

            Troll says what?

          • Reality.Bites

            You’re an idiot

          • Marc

            And you are an hypocrite.

  • I always knew the worst thing about this movie would be Roland Emmerich. He is just terrible.

  • Marc

    It is really sad that people complain so much about this movie but do nothing at all about all the big budget movies full of homophobia.

    • Joe knows who I am.

      That’s a really poor comparison if you actually examine your statement.

    • MattM

      It’s really sad that this troll only came into existence to complain that we uppity homos are solely responsible for this movie about a white, straight-acting savior that disregarded history completely to flop.

      Look at his comment history. The only stories “he” has ever commented on is this one, or the same story on PinkNews.

      Something tells me “Marc” is actually just a bitter Roland Emmerich trying to put us poor, unimportant faggots in our place.

      Why are you so deeply invested in this movie? That’s literally the only reason you created this disqus profile.

      • Marc

        Why are YOU so deeply invested in this movie?

        • MattM

          You’re the one who created a disqus profile SOLELY to complain to us that we uppity gays aren’t doing right by this movie. That’s literally the only reason you’re here. Why are YOU so deeply invested in this movie?
          Like typical troll, you’re deflecting.

          • Marc

            I’m not. It hurts me to see gay people attacking this movie for all the wrong reason while no one cares about all the homophobic movies.

          • MattM

            We also care about homophobic movies. We can care about more than two types of movies at the same time. We’re not simple trolls. This Marc alias you created, however, seems pretty….simple.
            And again, if you weren’t deeply invested in this movie, why did you create this profile simply to defend this movie on multiple gay blogs?

          • Marc

            In the other topic several people told me there are NO homophobic movies in recent history.

            You might think I’m silly, but this whole debate hurt me. So today I decided I wold talk about it.

          • that’s because you’re not that bright. this film is utterly homophobic.

          • Marc

            Yep, keep attacking other gay people and make excuses for homophobia, it’s so much easier. Really the true spirit of the Stonewall riots.

          • homophobia – a director casting a straight male in the lead role in a film about the stonewall riots, because he wanted the character to be “straight-acting”, which isn’t even a thing. it’s an idea get in their minds from viewing straight people play gay without Playing Gay. if you’re concerned about homophobia in film, be concerned about Stonewall. it’s a homophobic film, make no mistake.

          • Marc

            I may even agree with on that on some level, but your defense pf those movies? That’s just disgusting. maybe you like being called a faggot, make fun and diminished for your sexual orientation like your not a human being but just a joke or something disgusting and even physically attacked. That’s the only reason you might light those movies.

          • i’m also aware of characters being portrayed as flawed and homophobic. so that’s something.

          • Marc

            The funny thing you think you are some queer warrior, you’re just a gay uncle tom.

          • move along, Blanche.

  • Jeff Chang

    Saw the film.

    More a cheap soap opera that recast the true leaders of stonewall.

  • If the film is a documentary based on what happened, then they should absolutely have kept the type of characters as they were…. If it’s not a documentary… Keep in mind that many movies and many TV shows have been made that are “based on” what happened in the past… And in order to make it palatable to viewing audience is certain things are changed to make it more viewable. I haven’t seen this movie yet, but I’m still going to see it. I wasn’t around back then for the riots, but I know my gay history well. As long as the film Depicts The events that happened, then the actual characters really don’t matter that much… Because it would be telling the story – the general story..

    So for me, I would not get my panties in a knickers because it shows some white guy as the hero versus a transgendered of color person. I think it would be nice if they made someone similar to the real person the hero… But if they are targeting To mainstream America versus just gay people, then I see why they would do the switch because America is having a harder time swallowing transgender/transsexual versus gay and lesbian

    Unless a film is an out right documentary, I never expected to show the full 100% facts and the characters as they actually were an actual history. To expect that, is just plain folly and ignorance – because Hollywood does not work that way – unfortunately

    • Let’s put it this way: at least there is a movie out there that tries to depict how the gay and lesbian rights movement started… until recently, no such movie would’ve ever been funded and been allowed to have been made… So it may have been made badly, it may have not picked up the correct heroes, but it leaves told a story that somewhat accurate to what actually happened. It’s a movie that was designed to garner sympathy for the gay and lesbian cause

      And I don’t think gay and lesbian people should rip it apart because of that… Were all pretty fucking lucky a film like that could be made in today’s day and age

      The only reason why Priscilla and to Wong foo Got made is because they used straight, well known, actors and both movies were portrade as a comedy – nothing serious ( except for a few small bits in each )

      • JDH

        I think what you’re saying is mostly true and also the core problem. A film about queer liberation was made to assimilate into a heteronormative culture. The production undermines its own message.

        It would be like making a movie about Ferguson starring a rich white cop who fights an uphill battle to inspire a bunch of lazy black criminals to take a break from smoking pot to protest police brutality. At that point, the unspoken message of an iconic event IS the message.

        • I ageen with you…I was simply playing devils advocate. It would’ve been nice to have the film made as close to as possible as to what exactly happened… But part of the problem is a lot of the people who were there can’t even recall who through the first stone and can’t even recall who did what and what order.

          Personally I think that should’ve been done as a documentary and actually interviewed the people that were there – providing they are still alive today and didn’t succumb to either old age, accidental death, or death by complications due to HIV

          Unfortunately, documentaries don’t usually go over very well with the mainstream public as a movie

          So I understand why Hollywood get what they had to do to make this movie. And the goal was to get more support from mainstream Americans for gay rights… And even if they got some of the story wrong, the message is pretty much the same. The only people who are upset is the GL BT community… Close the film wasn’t exactly made very well anyway. I finally saw that and it’s not the best film on the market but it’s enough to change the minds of some Americans… And if that movie changes the mind of even half a percent of America – then it was totally worth it

    • Todd Allis

      Sounds like this movie wasn’t “based on” a true story, but “inspired by” a true story. Besides, I doubt many people who have a hard time with anything LGBT (including trans vs. LGB) went to see it.

      • Yes I agree with that correction it should say inspired by versus based on… But the goal is to garner sympathy from mainstream America – not from the gay community. I don’t see that film as being made for us. I see that film as being made for America do you get more people on our side… And it even 0.5% of Americans change their minds about this – for the good – because of this film – then was worth it

  • Silver Badger

    Yes there are many gay people of color and yes their contributions should not and have not been ignored. The members, especially the leaders of the early gay rights movement were predominately white. I was there. Rewriting history won’t change that.

    • I absolutely agree, but the film is not attempting to rewrite history as it’s not a documentary. The film is simply trying to tell a story ” based on” the beginnings of the gay rights movement. As we all know, Hollywood takes books, and other non-fictional stories, and changes many things about Them to make them palatable for the main screen

  • Mister Don

    At least “Cruising” is no longer the worst film about anything gay

    • Octavio

      It’s actually achieved “respectable” status since it was first shown. I’d like to see the new directors cut with more leather and fisting included. They had to tone that stuff down as if it didn’t really exist. Compared to the 1970s, the stuff I see at gay venues in 2015 is rather vanilla and tepid. Must be that evangelical influence on all things nasty and fun. 🙂

      • jomicur

        Hollywood’s “target demographic” is 13 year od suburban white boys. That has led to every movie being formulaic and predictable. Even most indie films have gone that route.

      • Chuck in NYC

        Oh, gee — you are so right. My understanding is that even The Eagle in New York has, since Labor Day for some reason, discontinued its Wednesday Jock Strap Night and is suddenly discouraging open displays of affection (disclaimer: I haven’t been there since mid August). Compared with what I first encountered at Alex in Wonderland and the Mineshaft in the early 1980s, it’s a totally different universe now.

        • Octavio

          In 1974 my lover and I spent an evening in the basement at The Anvil where we sat and watched various “amateur” sexual theatrics. The hit of the evening was two leather daddies pouring candle wax into the butt of a submissive bottom then fetch it out. I believe Frank Rich used the word “riveting” in his review the following Sunday in the Times. Seriously though, that’s the sort of stuff that was standard fare in many leather/BDSM clubs and it was a common, pedestrian thing. Not so much anymore. 🙂

    • Steve Weinstein

      I saw it again a few years ago. It’s taken on the patina of a time capsule & in that context is quite good.

  • Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks

    I was there. I was only 8 years old and lived in Ohio, but I distinctly remember Ethel Merman throwing the first brick, like it was yesterday.

    Seriously, I have no intention of seeing the movie mostly because there hasn’t been a movie worth paying to see in the theater since I can’t remember when. I used to be an avid filmgoer in the 70s and 80s, but the only thing I can remember seeing in a theater in the last 15 years was the horrendous ‘Apollo 13’ because my co-workers practically dragged me to it. And then they apologized after seeing it.

    • motordog

      Oh, there are some fine films since the 80’s, but you really do need to be discerning, of course. I find Rotten Tomatoes a pretty accurate assessment of a film’s virtues and flaws, but YMMV. I generally don’t go to the theater because A) way to fucking expensive, and B) having to put up with my fellow filmgoers (which is a real chore sometimes). Much better to watch in the comfort of my own home, at a fraction of the price.

    • Steve Weinstein

      If everyone who claims to have been at Stonewall had been at Stonewall, it would have been more like the Bastille.

  • I have no desire to love or hate this film – in general, I’m ambivalent. However, it does annoy me when people try to rewrite historical facts to serve some sense of political authority – eg. “The first people to pick up a brick and riot were transwomen of colour and other queers of colour” – this simply is not true. We don’t know who threw the first brick or stone – as if it matters. Accounts from that night vary a great deal, and Marsha Johnson, herself, has said she doesn’t know who started it. In my mind, this is no different then those who try to rewrite American history to prop up their ideology that we were, and should be, a Christian theocracy.

    • Polterguest

      And it’s been shown that Sylvia Rivera (whose story has changed numerous times) couldn’t have been there because she was in jail already. But that’s not doing to stop the rewrite.

      • It’s unclear – Johnson says Rivera wasn’t there – Rivera and others say he was there at some point. Rivera is a fascinating figure who has been recast a trans woman – but who rejected that label and mostly identified as a drag queen or ‘third gender’ person. In many ways, Rivera epitomizes the the goals of the early liberation actions – a desire to explore a radical sexual and gender identities and simply be left alone. It wasn’t about assimilating gays into straight society, but opposite.

    • jomicur

      We DO know the kind of bar the Stonewall was and the kind of people who habitually hung there. And they were most definitely not squeaky clean proto-yuppie little ultra-white boys with perfect hair and even, perfect teeth. The problem isn’t that the story has been somewhat fictionalized; that’s probably unavoidable. The problem is the WAY it was fictionalized. If the main character had been a fictional composite of the kinds of people who really hung out at the Stonewall, no one would have a problem with it.

      • According to Rivera and others, Stonewall was not a hangout for drag queens or people of colour – but occasionally welcomed both. This comports with what I’ve been told by people who went to the Stonewall around this time. Stonewall was frequented by street kids and hustlers mostly, which makes sense given the draw of Christopher St. in the late 60’s, early 70’s.

        Again, I’m ambivalent the movie. No film will ever be historically accurate and all films are made with a bias for earning revenues. What irritates me is the political weight and perpetuation of blatant lies that have developed around the film. Overall, the discussion is far more important then the film, which will be forgotten in the short term.

        • jomicur

          I’ve heard similar things. Even so, I doubt many of the street kids/hustlers were immaculately coiffed white bread yuppie kids. I’m really not interested in wrangling about who was at Stonewall and who wasn’t, but I remain to be convinced that the patrons of the bar were the kind of people who support HRC today (the organization not the candidate).

          • Agreed. Most of the folks at Stonewall – like at the Blackcat riots – simply wanted to be left alone to meet, hookup, and live without the police or authorities harassing them. There was no real immediate desire to be assimilated into straight society – something with HRC has fetishized.

          • Chuck in NYC

            I’ll tell you what they’d have to either cast carefully for — or spend some money accomplishing with makeup and prosthetics: accurate looking teeth. Watch beauty pageants on YouTube of that 60s era and notice how many of the girls have nothing near the perfectly aligned teeth on so many people today. It was a generation that hadn’t grown up wearing braces in their youth — and that would especially have been true of kids who’d wound up hustling.

          • leo77

            Just a nit. I know people who have done sex work and people who have done volunteer work with street hustlers. And in fact a great many young gay male sex workers cultivate a “white bread”, prep school look because that’s what tends to be in demand. Hustlers do not necessarily want to look too “street”. It also keeps the cops at bay.

            If you where selling yourself in the late 60’s the look you would be striving for would be more Beach Boys and less The Grateful Dead.

      • uhhuhh

        It wasn’t a drag bar either.

    • JDH

      The best way around this cinematically is to have various different characters act as initiators simultaneously according to every known account of what happened. Every account could be equally true, but every account is true in the memories of those who were there. It doesn’t have to be 100% historically accurate (since it can’t be), but it should pay heavy homage to the lore of the event.

      • I’m not sure I understand. You would like a film which is as inaccurate, but which comports with a version of history which politically sits well with some?

        Yes, some Rashomon like version of a Stonewall film would be fascinating to see. It would speak to how we try to center historical events around our contemporary politics and the impermanence of memory affects our identities. Somehow I doubt many people, outside of myself and perhaps you, would want to see such a film, though.

        • motordog

          Holy crap…a Rashomon/Stonewall mashup directed by Kurosawa! Ah…worlds we can only imagine! Now THAT I’d go see!

        • JDH

          Not really, no. I’m saying that since we don’t know exactly what happened, there’s no exact way to be historically accurate. Even so, they can avoid being blatantly inaccurate by incorporating all the versions recorded by survivors. This is very easy to do via montage, flashback, or visual narration of some of the disparate news stories after the riots.

    • Chuck in NYC

      Thanks for adding what I’ve heard several times about the myth-making surrounding this event over the years.

      In fact, a decent film about this incident could merely show a brick (or other object) being thrown without identifying an individual who threw it. And surely it’s not impossible to make cast members look like the people in the now well-known pictures of those several nights of protests.

      Having said that, I haven’t seen “Stonewall” yet and will probably get around to it whenever it’s on cable.

      • ChitownKev

        Thank you.
        I wouldn’t have a problem if the gay white male character in here were simply a roving eye observing everything around him; I actually have no problem with that kind of character being “a central figure” if you know how to work a narrative.

  • Sean Taylor

    Miss Parker was right. “This wasn’t just plain terrible, it was fancy terrible. It was terrible with raisins in it!”

  • I saw the flick in South Florida, it happened to be playing at the theater closest to my house.Only three other people were in the theater- it is clear that this movie will be pulled after the first week. The worst thing about it in my mind was the fact that every single LGBT person, except for the star — Jeremy Irvine (who really is beautiful and has the most perfect hair in every scene), was either a freak, criminal, pedophile, or complete loser. I wanted to accept the logic of casting Jeremy Irvine as the star of the flick since he is (according to reports) the top draw in Hollywood with 5 major flicks coming out simply because it would get more people into the audience, but I could not– the complaining about the riots being triggered by a cisgendered (a word that I never heard before) white boy who is straight acting (I hate that term) are correct. I have to admit though that tears came to my eyes when the riots started and Jeremy yelled out “Gay Power” as the first brick was thrown (of course by him!). The portrayal of this was liberating and emotional (as well as flawed of course). I am afraid though that this will be the first and last flick made about gay liberation made for a non-art house audience – no investor or distributor will want to touch the subject matter since it will be seen as so toxic since they will think that someone is the LGBT (or related) communities is bound to be offended and call for a boycott – and cause them to lose money in the process. One more thing — if we insist that only LGBT people star as gay characters can the alternative argument be made that only heterosexuals star as heterosexual characters?

    • https://www.nextmagazine.com/content/straight-stonewall

      to answer your last question, which utterly misses the nuanced reality of what faces openly gay actors.

      the film died because we gay people have too much integrity to swallow a piece of badly-made crap that insults the legacy to which it claimed to pay tribute.

      the problem was not ‘gays boycotted a gay film and now there will be no more!”, so calm your panties. it’s “those of us who saw it warned everyone that it was an offensively made sack of CRAP” – the message: stop making crap, we gays aren’t so hard-up for stories that we’ll take a badly made one, thankyouverymuch.

      • I do not think any gay liberation flick will be made for non-art house movies for non-gay audiences as a result of the reactions to this flick. I am not backtracking on my assumption here. The subject matter will be seen as too toxic by investors.

        • the subject matter is not what’s toxic. the execution is.

          • Agreed. I did not like the execution and I agree with what you are saying. But I still think that this subject matter will now be seen as toxic — simply because investors will not want to take risks — outside of the art house/documentary fare what we have had to date. Do you really think that a second more correct Stonewall movie — with goals of major distribution — can be made now? I don’t and I am not a bigot for thinking so.

          • yes. i think it can be made. do you know why people stayed away? because word got out, FAST, about what a gallingly awful film it is. and it IS a gallingly awful film. the lesson is this – stop making gallingly awful films, gay audiences won’t just show up “because it’s gay”, and that’s a GOOD thing.

            it may not be next year, it may not be two years from now, but i don’t doubt that we’ll see a more properly made Stonewall film. and i’ll wager my left nut that if it’s a well-made film, it will succeed critically and financially, even in the modest art-house circuit.
            but it’s preposterous to lay any blame about this on AUDIENCES – if you want to blame anyone for the idea that “now gay films will be seen as toxic” you can lay blame squarely where it belongs – the filmmakers responsible for the debacle known as “Stonewall”. again – don’t be mad at the gays who hated it, and those who panned it, and those who took those reviews to heart and boycotted it. blame Emmerich for shitting on an historic milestone, and sullying gay cinema with his chicken-hawk duncery.

          • JDH

            You’re 100% right. If this had been made by Stephen Daldry instead of Roland Emmerich, it would be sweeping the awards circuit. And eventually this is what will happen.
            Also upvote for “chicken-hawk duncery.”

          • Circ09

            It is likely to happen this year with Todd Haynes’ “Carol”.

            An iconic lesbian novel beautifully done as a film. As opposed to the insulting “Freeheld” that is terribly made and manages to make the lesbian’s straight male cop partner the “hero” of the entire film. You gay boys are not the only ones with these problems.

          • Don’t get me wrong — I agree with what you are saying and are not blaming anyone for boycotting the movie other than the people who made this movie. But I think it is real tragedy that this movie bombed and was so poorly made. I hope I am wrong btw and that an accurate movie about Stonewall can be made that will get mass distribution in major chains. I do not see it happening anytime soon.

  • Javier Smith

    I still watch the 1995 Stonewall movie every few years. I use it as a teaching tool for my youth group and plan to for years to come. This one I will work into my lecture on bad movie remakes/ideas.

  • Paul

    lol, Freddy Got Fingered made more than that opening weekend.

    • That isn’t a gay porn flick is it? If it is I want to to see it. (I’m joking here).

      • Paul

        Unless you have fantasies about sex with Tom Green back in the early 2000s…

        • Its the “fingers” part that got me excited a bit.

  • Paul

    I wonder what this could have been had Ryan Murphy or Larry Kramer made this.

    • Strepsi

      Ryan Murphy is a fantastic show creator, and a terrible, terrible film director. “Running With Scissors” is one of the most misguided adaptations from gay novel to film that I have ever seen.

      • Paul

        Larry Kramer might have been able to pull this off. I LOVED The Normal Heart, and I thought it was an abomination that it wasn’t “allowed” to be released to theaters. He depicted the AIDS crisis pretty well (at least from my limited understanding of it, as I was born in 1989). I’m sure he could have done the same with Stonewall.

        • jomicur

          If you want to see another fantastic gay-themed film by Kramer, check out the Oscar-winning (for Glenda Jackson) Women in Love. Don’t be fooled by the title; it’s quite definitely a gay male film (as Kramer himself says on the commentary track). If nothing else, the nude wrestling scene between Oliver Reed and Alan Bates with stay with you forever. 🙂

        • Strepsi

          The Normal Heart was very good!
          The play on Broadway had me messy crying and ugly sobbing out into the street.

        • Cousin Bleh

          Larry Kramer is not a film director.

          And for the record, he has defended Stonewall.

  • JDH

    The movie is bad. As in not even enjoyable or interesting. It looks like people here are split into two camps:

    1) I’m happy the movie failed. Now Hollywood will get the message that bad movies don’t sell, and tone-deaf versions of history aren’t acceptable. The next movie will be better!

    2) I’m not happy the movie failed. Hollywood will get the message that gay audiences can’t be pleased, and there’s no market for LGBT-themed stories or gay leading characters. The next movie will not be made!

    Both camps have a point, but group #1 is more accurate because of a few factors. First, there are a lot of gay people working in Hollywood with stories they want to tell. Second, 100 years of near censorship of all things gay in film means there are lots of great, essential LGBT stories yet to be told. Third, LGBT themes are deeply personal, and films will be made as labors of love and for the sake of art, regardless of commercial appeal. Fourth, Hollywood is in a place right now where filmmakers aren’t afraid of rehashing, rebooting, or one-upping similar movies in recent release. Some franchises like Batman and Spider-man are for obviously commercial reasons. Others, like the slew of Steve Jobs biopics and 9/11 and war dramas are a mix of personal inspiration and potential commercial appeal. Still others are purely driven by the personal investment of the filmmakers, like the recent glut of faith-based films and the Jesus movie that gets made once or twice a decade.

    Group #2’s logic only really applies to films that are purely commercial. A bad, unsupported commercial film often puts the story, character, or franchise in the grave or in a decade-long stasis. This is how I felt after both the Elektra and Catwoman films. Since I was a kid I dreamed of an adaptation of Elektra: Assassin directed by David Lynch or David Fincher, inspired by the art of Bill Sienkiewicz. The tripe that made it to the screen was like a personal insult. I was so inspired in my art and writing by Elektra: Assassin, and it was such an iconic moment in comic book history that it was hard not to feel that way.
    We’ll never see another Elektra, Catwoman, Golden Compass, Jonah Hex, etc. They fucked it up, and it’s over. Fortunately, this isn’t the case with Stonewall. LGBT history is just now becoming part of the fabric of mainstream history. It’s just now being incorporated into the larger public consciousness. The audience is growing, not shrinking.
    And beyond that, TV has replaced film as the pinnacle of visual story-telling. The best of the best are working in a new golden age of television, so it doesn’t even really matter whether a gay film does well. Film isn’t the cultural landmark that it used to be, and it’s frankly not a form of validation that LGBT people should be all that concerned about anymore. In other words, would you rather see a 90 minute Stonewall film in theatres or see a masterpiece 352 minute Angels in America on HBO?

    • Paul

      There *is* a demand for gay-themed movies in mainstream cinema. If I’m correct, Milk did pretty well a few years ago.

      • JDH

        Milk did ok. It had a $20M budget and made around $31M gross. It was also distributed by Focus Features, which does indy and prestige films. Brokeback Mountain was a legit hit and grossed around 600% of its production budget.

        • Paul

          That’s why I said *fairly* well, lol.

          And I’m glad you brought up Brokeback Mountain. That movie was a hit in *2005.* During that time, voters were passing gay marriage bans at the ballot left and right! Yet that movie turned out to be a hit.

          Perhaps “Stonewall” was just badly written, badly directed, badly cast, badly acted, just badly *made* period. I haven’t seen it yet, and based on the fact that it can’t even make as much as Freddy Got Fingered shows it’s not worth it to see it.

          • JDH

            Well, Stonewall is in limited release. It’s playing on 129 screens, so you can’t compare it fairly to a studio comedy that opened on 2300 screens. Still the per-screen average is just abysmal.
            Stonewall is bad in every way as you suspect. Its crime is that it’s regressive, not just bad. It’s a step backward and feels like it could have been made in the 80s for all its insulting negative stereotyping and uncomfortable, palpable femme-phobia. This is coming at a time when Empire, an all-black tv show about a hip-hop mogul, can star a gay man playing a gay lead character who is directly challenged on his own internalized homophobia….and be a massive ratings smash on network primetime. Stonewall’s core problem is that it’s about liberation without understanding the first thing about liberation.

    • Steve Weinstein

      “Now Hollywood will get the message that bad movies don’t sell,”

      Hollywood has gotten that message many times but it never sinks in – Ishtar, Lone Ranger, John Carver, Battlestar Galactica, Fantastic Four …

  • jomicur

    Move over, Kirk Cameron.

  • Bj Lincoln

    I don’t understand why someone can’t make a movie that tells it like it is. I can see a need to make the story flow, but everyone who is interested in this film KNEW more about it than the movie makers. I want to know the wonderful Queens who were there and threw the first brick. I want see the horror of the raids that caused the rebellion. We also KNOW Stonewall was not the beginning but the physical fight that made the news and made the country aware of us and the indignity we suffered.

  • TheManicMechanic

    So bad that adding Jar-Jar Binks would’ve been an improvement.

  • Happy Dance

    I simply won’t watch it because of the fact that they had to “straighten” it up to attract straight dudes, who probably were not going to go to start with.

  • EqualityForAll

    ‘Milk’ was a success because the film featured a cast that was comprised of masculine, white males. I have no idea how accurate its depiction was, but it did endear us to the characters. Had ‘Stonewall’ featured characters that more closely resembled those who participated in the Riots (from what I understand, the group was made up mostly of lisping minorities and/or transgendered men of color,) it would have been perceived as a comical spoof poking fun at those minorities. Really, I don’t see how a film about Stonewall could be commercially produced for the general public such that it would command respect from everyone who saw it. It would have been best just to let sleeping dogs lie.

    • Strepsi

      I really disagree — something like Glee has gotten a whole generation under 25 into a variety of queer and trans characters, and a huge sympathy for them as underdogs. I think it could have been done well.

  • Jack M.

    There’s a little bit of One Million Moms in this post. “The movie flopped because of the backlash!” The backlash was some whining on Tumblr and a petition which got fewer than 25K signatures, and it only got that many because of a campaign to get people to sign multiple times. Folks on Tumblr were boasting about signing 100 times. More likely, the movie bombed because it is not subject matter that has broad appeal, it has no major stars, and it got fairly negative reviews abased on dialogue, plot development, etc.

    Whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of the movie, the post above is a good indication of how not to figure out historical events. It is a post from JMG which quotes an entertainment reporter from the LAT who in turn quotes a commenter on a Youtube video. And that commenter asserts, with as much confidence as he lacks evidence, that “the first people to pick up a brick and riot were transwomen of colour.” He knows that is true not because he actually read any historical accounts of the riot, but because he read 20 other Youtube comments and 10 Tumblr or blog posts saying the same thing. If Matt Staver wants to claim that 100,000 people were praying for Kim Davis, maybe all he needs to do is keep posting that over and over again and it will become true.

  • slvrfx

    I’ve thought about this for a couple of days and now I’m
    ready to write about it.

    We saw Stonewall
    Saturday night. We went to the 7:00 show
    at the Tivoli. There were 12 people in
    the entire house. Of those 12, 10 were
    people who were old enough to actually remember 1969.

    Obviously, the film bombed this weekend, at least in part
    because of the negative publicity and the calls for boycott.

    It is my opinion that the film would have failed on its own
    without the hue and cry against it because the script is terrible. This was surprising because the screenwriter,
    Jon Robin Baitz, is a fairly well known playwright and author of several
    screenplays. But the script is filled
    with clichés, bad dialogue and poorly drawn characters. The director, Roland Emmerich, is known for big budget special effects ridden
    films that play well with such writing (See Independence
    Day or The Day After Tomorrow),
    But Stonewall is an intimate film
    that needs good writing to survive.

    Many of the reviewers seem to have forgotten that this is a
    work of fiction with a true event as background. The story here is not the incident at the Stonewall bar, but the relationship between Danny, an innocent from a small
    town in the Midwest, and Ray, a young person who has been on the street since
    the age of twelve. The story tries to
    show their struggles to be friends and to find a real family connection to help
    them survive. It is not a love
    story. At the same time, the character
    of Danny, since he is perceived as an innocent, is rather uninteresting. The best part of this film is
    Ray/Ramona. Jonny Beauchamp gives a
    stellar performance in this role.
    Beauchamp is almost enough to make the film worth watching, and the
    reason that the boycott may have been a bad idea. I sincerely hope that the boycott and bad
    reviews do not destroy this young actor’s career.

    One of the major complaints about the film is that the
    character of Marsha P. Johnson is played by a heterosexual male actor. At the same time, Eddie Redmayne, a
    self-professed heterosexual man, is playing a trans* character without any
    complaint that I have heard, and Elle Fanning, a heterosexual female, is
    playing a trans* character in another film.
    Yet it is this film that has caused almost unbelievable antipathy with
    some parts of this great community attacking other parts when the true battle
    is, was, and always will be, outside the group. (See Matt Baum’s over-the-top
    breakdown over Emmerich’s use of the words “straight acting” in describing the
    film’s main character.)

    My point here is that
    Stonewall is not about Marsha P. Johnson, it is a work of fiction about two
    characters named Danny and Ray. Ray is
    often called Ramona and has long hair and wears dresses and has an obvious feminine
    side to his personality. Ray/Ramona, as
    played by Jonny Beauchamp is the most fully developed character in the film and
    the most sympathetic. And we know little
    about Beauchamp. Beauchamp mentions in a
    recent interview, hanging out with the ballroom kids in New York. That might tell you something. At the very least, it ought to tell you not
    to judge an actor’s sexuality until the actor decides to tell you about it.

    Left alone, Stonewall
    would have quickly faded into Hollywood oblivion, just like the 1995 film with
    the same name, and all that energy and anger that was spent attacking it could
    have been put to far better use. And it
    will no doubt be a long time before Hollywood considers another film with any kind
    of positive view of either gay street kids or the trans* community.

    It will be interesting to see what happens with The Danish Girl. About
    Ray has already been pulled from release.

    • uhhuhh

      It is not sufficient to slap the word “fictional” on it and say the historical event is a mere backdrop when the movie inserts characters into the event, depicts the event inaccurately, and takes the event as its name.

      This isn’t “Tales of the City,” where the era is merely a backdrop.

    • Halloween_Jack

      Many of the reviewers seem to have forgotten that this is awork of fiction with a true event as background.

      Yeah, it’s as if someone would go to a movie titled 9/11 not expecting it to be a romance or something.

      Eddie Redmayne, a self-professed heterosexual man, is playing a trans* character without any complaint that I have heard

      O RLY?

  • DirtyPierre

    I have not seen this movie and don’t plan on seeing it either. The filmmaker had an opportunity to dramatize a history making event, but decided against the truth. It was the “queens” that stood up for all of us, and it would not have been difficult to depict the hate all gays suffered and make those queens sympathetic, because they were real! I suspect he was looking to make a “Springtime For Hitler” tax shelter movie, well he got that and also acquired a bad name for himself. Or he was just stupid.

    • Jeff Chang

      So you want to judge something you have not seen?

      I take it you ignored the part where a queen was brutally beaten by cops.

      • DirtyPierre

        I have seen drag queens get harassed and beaten in real life. I lived through the hate of the time and feared for my life when I was nearly bashed by haters for being gay. The real truth needs to be told and if you like a sugar coated movie to tell you about history so be it. Its not accurate.

        • Jeff Chang

          But the fraq queens and gays were beaten and harassed in the film. Perhaps not to the fancies of a bdsm gays, but it was depicted. I ask what parts of the film were not accurate?

          Did you want a gay passion of the Christ?

          • DirtyPierre

            The real heroes are the queens. They do not need an all american boy type driving the story and representing them. The film basically takes the honor away from them and hands it to a character that would have been shivering in the closet rather than be a hero.

      • DirtyPierre

        Hey clueless troll, re-read the message you replied to.

  • foereel

    Sorry to hear that. Hollywood’s a tough gig, for sure.

  • Baron Ochs

    Methinks any producer will definitely shy away from any project that even remotely has to do with the gay community from here on out. We have become monolithic and hyper-vigilant against any and all narratives that do not fit into out view of what gay men should be. If anyone dares veer away from the standard speech patterns and mannerisms, one if now labeled a “threat”.

    • Martin

      Oh stop your hysterics. There are countless movies being filmed and produced right now that are about gay people. Hart to Hart is about to rebooted on ABC with two leads who are gay.
      This film stunk. Case closed. What are we all just supposed to like every corny bit that gets made about us? It’s really not that big of a deal.

    • Eebadee-eebadee-thatsallfolks

      Ahhhh!!! There’s the crux of the problem: “ou[r] view of what gay men should be”. Who exactly is the “we” implied in “our”?

    • Roy Biv

      Lol. A bad movie is a bad movie.

      Your comment makes it seems that Milk didn’t gain Oscar gold. Or that just last year, Jared Leto didn’t win an Oscar for playing a queer character in another commercially and critically acclaimed movie.

      Oh yeah, and nearly every Emmy and commercially successful NETWORK television show like Empire or How To Get Away with Murder doesn’t have gay storylines. (and some of the story lines aren’t even about coming out!)

    • Halloween_Jack

      Yeah, you’re right. There definitely haven’t been enough movies showing the white cis male gay experience in America. Just The Boys in the Band and Longtime Companion and Brokeback Mountain and Jeffrey and Milk and Philadelphia and… hey, wait a minute.

      (Also, of course, the real issue here is that Stonewall is referencing an actual historical event, and its criticism is precisely on how it distorts that event. But don’t let that harsh your butthurt.)

    • It is not just the producers, but the chains themselves that need to be sold on a film before they agree to show it. They exist on thin profit margins – and revenue per screen is everything. This is why I think this movie is such a tragedy — the entire field of gay rights films will now be tainted as not being able to make money outside of an arthouse environment. If the movie was better, and did not end up being protested, it would have been a huge victory for LGBT Rights in terms of letting people know what Stonewall was all about.

  • JDM

    I don’t understand the fetishization for historical accuracy in a film, especially one that doesn’t claim to be a documentary. Carl Dreyer’s “The Passion of Joan of Arc” is FAR from historically accurate (in fact, it takes great poetic liberties in places), yet it’s still considered one of the greatest films to ever be made. What gives?

    • BobSF_94117

      Was Joan played by a man?

      • JDM

        No. Renee Falconetti played Joan.

    • GarySFBCN

      I plan on seen Stonewall if it lasts until next week. But a lot of the criticism I’ve read has nothing to do with ‘historical accuracy’ in the film. No, the critics are complaining that it is a lousy execution, more of a love story with Stonewall as the vehicle.

      • JDM

        Bad acting and a bad script may well be the reason why it flopped. But read some of the replies I’m getting on this thread … there seem to be a fair number of people who think that every film should have rigorous standards for historical accuracy – for some bizarre reason.

    • SorryNotSorry

      Why is it necessary to white wash history?

      • Jeff Chang

        How was it white washed exactly?

      • JDM

        It’s not “necessary.” Tell me why it’s ‘necessary” to have everything be historically accurate in a film, as I said, that makes no such claims and is NOT a documentary. Why is it necessary there?

      • Because Emmerich wanted to make money with this flick by appealing to straight audiences who like hot masculine white boys. He pretty much said as much. Its screwed up isn’t it? Quote Emmerich “You have to understand one thing: I didn’t make this movie only for gay people, I made it also for straight people,” he said. “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.”

    • JCF

      You can’t see the difference from significant falsifying from <50 years ago, to perhaps embroidering from 500+ years ago?

      • JDM

        Uh, it’s not only films whose main events occurred so long ago that I was referring to. It happens with all kinds of movies that have historical topics.

        • Selma generated quite a bit of controversy last year due to perceived historical inaccuracy. Some say this cost them a best picture nomination.

          • JDM

            Thank you, and there are many other examples. Argo? The Hurt Locker? 12 Years A Slave? Lincoln? I could go on and on.

  • BobSF_94117

    The only problem I see with this whole thing is that so much of the opposition to the film was based on the trailer. It’s not fair to judge, let alone protest, a movie based on the trailer.

    We all know trailers are distortions of most films. Let the movie hit the theaters. If anything, the reaction to a bad movie would be more intense that way.

  • Clungeflaps

    This movie has the potential to be the Showgirls of the 2010s.

    • But, there was no fountain sex. Just bad sex.

  • Ken M

    It’s sad that a fictional movie 10 years ago about 2 “gay cowboys” drew more positive attention from the LGBT community than a film at least trying to show some of our history to a broader community who knows little if anything about it. I’m surprised the ones whining didn’t complain the hankie code may have been incorrect.

    • Martin

      But Stonewall sucked. It got ravaged by critics. Brokeback became an academy nominee. I’m confused why poor filmaking should be applauded.

      • Because someone needs feel justification for liking a bad movie.

  • 2karmanot

    So wearisome I couldn’t even bother to open my fan. pppppffffttt

  • Circ09

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/09/24/stonewall_roland_emmerich_s_controversial_movie_about_the_lgbt_riots_of.html
    J. Bryan Lowder wrote a piece for Slate that sums up my thoughts well on why gay people are so polarized over “Stonewall”.

  • Gil

    I’ve read alot of voices clamouring for some sort of “ownership rights” to Stonewall, yet from what I can gather there is no agreed “history” upon which to base any “ownership rights”, so perhaps Emmerich’s tone-deaf entry isn’t really the problem here, but rather lack of consensus around the perceived historical record of the event.

  • catherinecc

    The reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are… amusingly brutal.

  • Queequeg

    Even if it were historically accurate, I still would not have been interested in seeing the movie. We’ve all read about the the Stonewall riots, and probably seen documentaries along the line.

  • Fred

    Why would anyone want to watch a movie about a bunch of fags?

    • Jean-Marc in Canada

      Because we’re an amazing people, we create art, beauty and light; while your filthy kind just wallow in jealous envy of what you can never be.

    • Well, we would ask you for your opinion, but it it’s hard for you to type with one hand, so don’t go to any trouble.

    • Because it would help people like yourself finally admit to yourselves that you are gay or bisexual or transgendered — and can start living the life you are missing now! Why else would you read Joe My God- and bother interacting with us here? Fred, I can picture you now — and being a closet case is simply not the right thing to do. We all know Fred. We all know. Give me a thumbs up if you want Fred to come out of the closet.

  • Michael

    So during the days of rioting at Stonewall, there were no White people and we shouldn’t show what happened to any that may have been involved?

  • Ginger Snap

    I’ll watch it at some point to see what’s what. It’s not like LGBT movies over the past 50 years have ever been truthful or even good for that matter.

  • American Patriot ™

    I’ve added it to my Netflix queue. There may be some justification to the criticism, but I’ll make up my own mind. A good deal of the criticism sounds like political correctness on steroids.

  • Chrissy

    the budget was 20 million

  • Bill Harnsberger

    I remember when that first trailer came out and Emmerich was all like, “Oh, no, you don’t understand—just wait ’til you see it, it’s a masterpiece you’ll see!” Clearly forgetting that the LGBT community has some of the best bullshit detectors on the planet.

  • S B

    “Stonewall Uprising,” the American Experience documentary, 2010. Interviewed people who were there. I thought it was very well done, very moving. Watch that one instead.

    • This is the one that was on PBS right? I want to see it. Is there any way to see this other than paying 16 dollars for a dvd on Amazon Prime? I don’t feel comfortable using one of those bit torrent services. Does anyone know?

      • S B

        Yes, I saw it on PBS. I wonder if you can borrow the DVDs from a public library? It’s worth tracking down for all the insights into what occurred. For instance, immediately following the Stonewall uprising, the account of [what turned out to be] the first Gay Pride March in NYC was memorable. The handful of marchers expected to get beaten up while they walked. Turns out hundreds of people off the streets joined them spontaneously. I get choked up just recounting it.

        • Thanks I will check the Palm Beach County public library — appreciated. I read that Netflix has it but I am not a member.

  • JCF

    Might catch it sometime.

    On basic cable.

  • Ogre Magi

    Any love for the 1995 Stonewall movie

  • stanhope

    LOL the first time ever I was in a theatre all by myself. Once the film got underway and I saw UT (Alan Helms’ term universal type) white boy as the vehicle for the story, I got that same feeling I get on a plane when fasten seat belt sign is on too long and you hear those chimes which tell the cabin attendants to remain in their seats…the oh shit turbulence is ahead. The fasten seat belt sign was on for the entire movie.

  • Michael Abbett

    GOOD.

  • Brycedavid

    Is Matt a Trans Man?

  • Someone on Twitter had posted if your Grindr profile says “no fats, no fems, no blacks, no Asians, straight acting only” then this is your movie.”

  • Steve Weinstein

    This is a small indie that should have platformed at festivals, then NY/LA before slow rollout. Because Emmerich was attached, it got a “wide” release (relative term), so not surprising it bombed.

    • Also Jeremy Irvine — he reportedly is the number 1 draw right now in films, especially with the younger crowd, and has 5 other flicks in the works. His starring in the movie generated publicity for it.

  • Halloween_Jack
  • patrick

    It’s a flawed film with a somewhat misguided premise – however, it’s one of the most “mainstream” LGBT-films since MILK. I went to see it last night and immediately felt it lacked authentic, NYC-flavor. Which was no surprise once I saw the credits and the movie appears to have been a Canadian-production?

    Furthermore, the film’s promotion fails to trumpet marketable-facts such as “from the Director of INDEPENDENCE DAY”, while featuring a cast almost completely absent of any major movie-stars which might attract contemporary audiences. Having obviouisly been produced on the cheap, the lack of recognizable talent certainly isn’t helping this motion picture draw the crowds which it might have if some famous-faces had appeared in it – and who’d make the routine press-tours to popularize the movie.

    Despite lacking strong historical-roots, I believe it’s important for those of us who are so inclined to support this film at the BOX OFFICE. Should it fail, we’ll once again see a dearth of movies about our lives – and whenever gay-characters are portrayed, their sex-lives will be downgraded in the plot in order not to “turn-off” viewers.

    For young LGBT-kids, I did feel there was enough there to help enlighten them about what life was like for our Community back in the 60’s. And which, unfortunately, for LGBT-youth and trangendered-persons, often remains an ugly reality – even today in the 21st Century (as the film makes clear).