MovieChat Forums > It Chapter Two (2019) Discussion > Sorry, but this has to be said! (About t...

Sorry, but this has to be said! (About the opening homophobic attack scene)

posted 4 years ago by CodyXBrenda (224)
26 replies | jump to latest

Okay, I don't buy it that people are doubting that the scene where the thugs who beat up Adrian and his boyfriend get arrested will be in the supercut version. First of all, we live a society where if you include "bullies getting away with beating up someone" you're gonna be nailed to the cross for it, unlike in the past, before social media was a big deal. I mean the original Jumanji had had similar opening scene, but that came out in 1995, not 2019! Times have changed and we live in a world where people are exposed for their bad deeds. This isn't the 20th century, anymore. Also, this was quoted from some article about what scenes need to be included in the supercut version.

"In the novel, Adrian Mellon’s attackers are arrested for their homophobic attack on Adrian and his boyfriend. In the movie, they simply disappear. Muschietti has teased that we’ll see what happened to them afterwards, but it’s incredibly important that we see them punished for their actions. Without that, the film’s opening scene of brutality comes across as a bit exploitative.

I’d much rather have spent two minutes seeing the men behind the attack arrested than, say, including the scene where Mrs. Kersh drags Beverly under the water when they’re in the sewers. That’s more vital to the plot than another scare, and it’s a shame that it was ultimately cut. They need to include a moment of justice in the director’s cut, even if the book frames the justice as only temporary and a sign of the deep hatred in human hearts."

See, I wasn't bullshitting you when I said they must have the attackers punished or else that'll make the director come off as a insensitive douche who hates anything involving LGBT. I mean it's almost 2020, for fuck sakes! That scene is very important to the film, it happened in the novel, so it should happen in the supercut as well. The reason why it wasn't included in the original theatrical version was because of time constraints. The move was already almost over 3 hours long.

Original source to the article: https://www.themarysue.com/andy-muschietti-it-supercut-please/

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

You're forgetting that Pennywise 100% controls Derry and the humans in it, including the law enforcement officials, and that he most likely enabled the homophobes to get away while making the police turn a blind eye, all so that he could feed on Adrian. Heck, he probably instilled in the homophobes' minds the decision to throw him off the bridge, so that he would be helpless and that Pennywise could have easy access to him. It's the same later on in the park when Pennywise confronts adult Richie, and the people in the park are under his spell, dancing to his tune (people seem to miss that, for some reason).

The thing is, in the book, this incident happens in the mid-80s, and Muschietti moved it forward almost 30 years, so it would look odder now. But homophobic attacks are certainly not a think of the past, and Pennywise's evil has infected the Derry citizens with hatred for gays and blacks and Jews, and Ben did say that the mortality rate in this town compared to all others is many times higher than the national average.

Basically, in Pennywise's Derry, there is NO justice.

[–] asom (6503) 4 years ago

Really? 2 minutes would have added too much to the length of the movie?

And guess what: the movie WAS released without that scene and no one roasted it for it.

[–] CodyXBrenda (224) 4 years ago

No one got mad because there's always the supercut and they didn't want to put that "police stuff" in the theatrical version because it would've padded on the running time and the scene would've been at least 5 minutes long, rather than 2 minutes; besides, they wanted to get to the adult Losers' lives a lot quicker and adding the police stuff would've tacked it on, even longer. The scene with Adrian Mellon and his boyfriend being harassed and later attacked by homophobes is already 10 minutes long and adding the police stuff would've made it a quarter of an hour, until they switched focus on the lives of the adult Losers and some people probably would've lost interest and thought they were watching some court room drama, instead of one about a shapeshifting demonic clown the kills children.

I still think the police stuff is coming in the supercut and Andy Muschietti did say that Adrian and Don would receive justice and the bullies would be punished for the beating the gave to the gay couple. In 2016, there would serious charges for a hate crime like that, unlike in 1984 (which is when the scene took place in the original novel) when none of that LGBT stuff existed.

[–] Strazdas (2328) 4 years ago

I dont think padding was an issue for them considering they put the arrest flashback scene for the other bully.

Frankly i think the opening scene was completely unnecessary to begin with. The movie could have started with Mike calling everyone up instead and then maybe include more dialogue to convince them killings are actually happening.

[–] MasterCrumble (2) 4 years ago

I'm just starting this movie up, and that beating bewilders me. It's based on this attack that happened in the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Charlie_Howard

Yet in this movie, this recreation of the attack is in 2016, and in America? I find it slightly hard to believe a beating like that would happen. What a strange move to pull. Why not just show it in an 80s flashback and link it to something story-wise?

Oh well, on with my movie I go.

[–] Scape (504) 4 years ago

The reason the beating happened is exactly what the previous person said, the whole town of Derry is affected by IT. In the book King explains how IT, being located under Derry, influences the whole town. People begin doing irrational things. Horrible things. Things they wouldn’t normally do. Because IT brings hate & anger out of the towns people from them being so close to It.

[–] MasterCrumble (2) 4 years ago

Maybe I missed a thing here, but the movie doesn't convey that? And we don't really see any other HATE or mindcontrolling after that (besides some crazy visions that involves people). I just feel it's a scene that is put in without much care. As I said, they could have done it as an 80s flashback, where America was more homophobic.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

You probably missed child Ben telling his friends about how every 27 years, when Pennywise is active, there is usually some massively traumatic event for Derry that Pennywise somehow causes that desensitises the people of Derry to horror and bad behaviour, treating it as the norm. Ben explained it all in the first movie.

[–] Retromogul (1082) 4 years ago

Personally I felt the aspect of IT being feed by the hate, fear and division if a small town was lacking in the two films - hence the confusion here. The films should have focused more on that than the CGI.

[–] ATG6 (3000) 4 years ago

yeah, it seemed more like a plague of locusts, It just shows up on time.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Geez, people can't take unpunished violence in a horror movie nowadays?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Not if its homophobic.

There was a time when I was punched and spat at because people thought I was gay (I'm not) and that was as recently as the late 1990s. Now all of a sudden, being gay is accepted? Why couldn't it have been accepted back when I was being victimised?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I condemn any violence or oppression against anyone. But in fiction there should be no discriminatory restraints. Equality is the goal here, not exception.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

"I condone any violence or oppression against anyone."
You ACCEPT behaviour like that? Is that what you're saying?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Typo, corrected, thanks. But what do you think of the statement?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Yes, in horror movies, there's usually no justice for the victims, especially if the killer keeps returning. But this is a special case in which King himself wrote that the attackers of Adrian were brought to trial.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

I don't know if it was cut or not, but usually there is some kind of justice even if poetic justice in movies. I think a homosexual beating to death that wasn't punished was in Brokeback Mountain. Thus, I'm not sure if the movie code still makes it that way.

ETA: I looked it up and the scene is okay to leave in as in because of the R-rating. Progress.

[–] CodyXBrenda (224) 4 years ago

Unpunished violence is the reason why we have some much wrong with our world!

[–] reichen4eva (251) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CodyXBrenda (224) 4 years ago

Gee, you don't have to be a dick about it! Being rude won't get you very far in life, my friend!

[–] ATG6 (3000) 4 years ago

the scene seemed out of place in the modern day though. no one gets too bent out of shape over gay couples any more. it was like something from the 80s.

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 7 months ago

I thought the same thing. Not to mention, a crowd of people would have helped them.

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

"See, I wasn't bullshitting you when I said they must have the attackers punished or else that'll make the director come off as a insensitive douche who hates anything involving LGBT. I mean it's almost 2020, for fuck sakes!"

What is wrong with you? The director doesn't hate LGBT folk because fictional characters weren't punished. What a psycho thing to say. You seem detached from reality.

[–] CodyXBrenda (224) 3 years ago

I didn't say that the director is an insensitive douche, it made him look like he came off as one. Learn to clean your damn ears, do they have that much wax in them?

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

"I didn't say that the director is an insensitive douche, it made him look like he came off as one."

Really?

[–] CodyXBrenda (224) 3 years ago

Yeah, because having homophobes not being punished for physical assault against gay men is the most moralistic thing to do in 2016.