Straight people giving their opinions about Stonowall riots and using antiquated homophobic cliches. That's what we have all been waiting for.

The prominence of youths at the riots was not the invention of Emmerich's lust - it is a recorded historical fact. It's to "homeless youths" that historian David Carter gives credit for the riots, and other researchers of Stonewall, such as Bob Kohler, say rioters were overwhelmingly in their teens and early twenties, with some being as young as fourteen. Photos depicting the people clashing with the cops at the riots, show some very young faces (see below).

What that Mara is doing is pedo dog whistling against gay men. That straight woman is filling the gaps of her lack of knowledge on Stonewall with homophobia and defamation. Emmerich should sue her - if she was still somebody. Doing anything about her now would just give this has-been a bigger platform.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t...

I'm more concerned that the same man who gave us the horrendus 1998 Godzilla movie is being trusted with a movie about the most important event in LGBT rights history. I don't care if he's gay himself, he still sucks.

He is not trusted. He came up with the idea himself.

Well someone should take it away from him. All his movies are all formulaic, clichéd cac and this one will be no exception. Case in point: his highest rated movie on Rotten Tomatoes is 62%. Pathetic!

If the world was just that simple... "Mom! Make reality go away!"

I wish I could make Roland Emmerich's sh*tty movies go away.

Tough luck.

What are you even arguing about? I said I wish he'd stop making movies because he's a terrible director. Of course I know that's not going to happen, I'm just saying that in a hypothetical ideal world he would not be making movies. So why the bloody f*ck do you insist on making smug replies about how it's never going to happen? I know that and it's not even the slightest bit witty to use that as a comeback. Do you like Roland Emmerich's cinematic abortions? Is that why you're arguing?

Problem is we don't only have the trailer. We have a cast list. First the good news:

Marsha P. Johnson is a named character and is black.

Now the bad news:

Sylvia Riveira is not a named character

Of the 43 characters 8 are female. Only 3 of the female characters have names.

As far as I can tell from the photos on the IMDB only three of the actors are black, all the black actors are male.

Hardly the most diverse cast. Oh and Marsha P, Johnson's character 12th on the list.

I think the list (which obviously isn't complete) is ordered by some combination of how famous the actor is and simple randomness. Vladimir Alexis, black actor who plays the fictionalized drag queen character Cong, who is the one who throws the first brick, is listed way below Marsha. But we see him in every publicity photo and very prominently in the trailer. End even the supposed "white savior" Danny is listed fourth - below his sister (a marginal character) and the owner of the Stonewall.
As of gender identity of these black actors, we can only speclate about it. The fact that they don't wear wigs doesn't mean they aren't gender fluid, or something.

... You know IMBD is updated via social media right? Some actors pop in and update their profile's ASAP, others are by "user submission". It's updated by a combination of the industry and fans, and is decently reliable - but it's still social media. I know people who were extras with no speaking part who have "Role - un-credited" up on their IMBD because they wanted to pad out their resume.

The IMDB cast list is 'sorted by IMDb STARmeter', whatever that is.

Wouldn't you expect an actress to know better than to make a comment based on a trailer of a film that hasn't been released yet?

She stopped acting years ago. Her biggest hit is a film in which butch lesbianism is presented as the worst and the ugliest thing a woman can be.

Who cares what a straight white woman says?

She's right.

Signed,
a queer white trann.

So basically you're anti-trans as well as racist?

Color me shocked.

Where's my evidence? The testimony of people that disagree with him, along with the pattern of behavior of white men painting racial minorities out of history.

That's about the level commentary I expected from you.

I've about reached my quota for white racists today. Thanks.

Well, the whitewashing is a pretty good indication.

PS: What did the English language ever do to you for you to abuse it so badly?

More white supremacist nonsense from the ridiculous gay nazi.

And so were we, but a white supremacist is a white supremacist, no matter who he is screwing.

She's wrong, as you can read below.

I'm 100% sure you're going to come up with an excuse to ignore the evidence, probably with something involving the author's gender and race, but I don't care - I'm happy just shoving the evidence into the face of one of the angry mob.

Btw, source is David Carter's "Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution", p. 262.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v...

Yeah no. You can always find one quack to rewrite history. David Barton is one more example. That doesn't change the fact that one of main reasons police liked to raid Stonewall was the ordinance against cross dressing.

Naturally, you racist, misogynist creeps want to erase the contributions of brave people like Storme DeLarverie, Marsha Johnson, and the many others involved who were not cis white gay men of a certain class - yet another in a long tradition of whitewashing history, but you don't have the institutional power you once did to suppress the truth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

This is a Sylvia Rivera quote ""The Stonewall wasn't a bar for drag queens. Everybody keeps saying it was. ... If you were a drag queen, you could get into the Stonewall if they knew you. And only a certain number of drag queens were allowed into the Stonewall at that time." - Making History, Eric Marcus

Just because a man and woman are dating doesn't mean they are straight. Just because someone is butch or femme doesn't mean you can tell their gender identity. And ethnic background - never make assumptions on ethnic background based on looks.

So when this story came up I read a few articles, researched the movie history, read a book, am reading a second book... and so far the movie seems to be *very* true to the real story.

Prejudiced is pre-judging without knowing the facts.

Lol, I knew it. I've had this same debate so many times the past 48 H, I can just copy and paste what I posted elsewhere.

David Carter is a published author with an established name on gay studies in general, and the matter of Stonewall in particular. On Wikipedia's main entry on the riots, Carter is, by far, the author most cited. The book mentioned above was the object of intense interest from the gay press, earning him a glowing review from The Advocate as well as the general academic press. As you can check for yourself, his book is currently on the top 10 books on Amazon's Gay and Lesbian History, and Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights categories. Apart from the fact that his take on the revolts offends some queer revisionists' sensitivities, there's nothing to characterize him as fringe or a quack.

Carter didn’t write his account of Stonewall sitting his butt at home and letting his imagination fly away – he spoke with many dozens of people who were present at the riots and early gay rights activists, more than you ever will, and submitted his conclusions to the appraisal of fellow historians, editors and the public. He’s an established reference on the subject of Stonewall, cited even by people with a PC take on the revolt, likes yours.

Your little source (Huffington Post!) is embarassingly lightweight in comparison — a 2,000 character text in a non-specialized, glorified (if that) blog aggregator, published with no specialist oversight and critique, no deep research on the subject of Stonewall, and no impact on scholarly debate compared to the hundreds of pages Carter published on the subject.

And by the way, stop crying transphobia/racism/misogyny every time somebody refuses to bend over to your agenda of distorting history into some tool of therapeutic self-validation.

For all the faddish whining about racism/transphobia, there’s been more effort to erase white gay men from the riots than anybody else, and you’re proof of that, along with that homophobic straight girl.

That's right, funny thing about institutionalized oppression is that it tends to be self supporting, so yeah, you have white institutions supporting other white institutions to make themselves seem like an authority just like straight institutions reinforced each others smearing of homosexuality as a mental illness for decades.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

1) Cry oppression, 2) pull out some cliché about how the Oppressors - as opposed to people in general, I guess - are not easily swayed into giving up on their opinions (especially when no reason to so has been offered), 3) finally, feel righteous and justified not discussing any of the debater's points - is that what you always do when you face resistance that you can't overcome on an academic subject?

The likes of you and Mara are clearly trying to erase gay men from history - recorded history, as I proved just above.

You see, I can cry oppression, too. The difference is that history gives me support when I do it.

Not a cliche, but a fact that anyone who has taken even a week of sociology would tell you as well.

Nobody is erasing gay white men. That's silly.

There used to be a movement among some African-American professors - I don't know if the movement is anymore - which claimed that a lot of historical Western culture was based on outright theft from the intellectual tradition of ancient African civilizations. For example, one of their claims was that Plato and Aristotle stole their philosophies from Africa. The supposed theft and erasure from the historical record of original Black thinkers was justified by white supremacy, according to their scheme. These professors had an answer to everything - a very Righteous Answer. Whatever resistance they met to the 'reclaiming' of 'their' history (and denounciations of Plato as a racist thug), they exposed as a manifestation of the self-preservation logic of racism - a lot like you do know on the subject of Stonewall.

Honest question: How are these nuts' thought process any different from yours?

Do you think crying Racism/Transphobia/Misogyny establishes anything on matters of recorded history?

Just found an information buried deep inside the Stonewall Veterans Association website. Actually, there was a private screening of the film recently as part of the annual reunion. They liked it and they seem to be very supportive.
http://www.stonewallvets.or...
I recommend everyone to visit their website, film or no film.

Homophobia wah wah wah racism wah wah wah......will all the actors be attractive? Were there any UGLY people at Stonewall? Wah wah wah......

Mara is really pretty as an adult. She doesn't really look any different as she did as a child.

She's awful. I think she's angry she won't get to play one of the trans roles.

No. He is playing a fictional version of this guy: http://www.stonewallvets.or...
He is known as The Face of Stonewall among Stonewall veterans.
But you couldn't care less about that, could you?

I'd like to recommend the book Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revollution by David Carter. He spent 10 years interviewing those that were there, filtering through truth and legend, and wrote a book that is considered the definitive historical account of the night.