Stephen Stills:
 |
| https://bit.ly/2OFjc7p |
 |
| https://bit.ly/2MuDRs6 |
From the comic and the movie, we see
two different faces of Stephen Stills. In the movie, we see a guy trying to
make money and run a band successfully. In the comic, he’s about the same, but
with one very specific difference: He comes out as gay in the comic. During the
time period in which this comic was being produced (early 2000s-2010) this
would have been fairly catastrophic to see for many viewers. Viewers were
already used to the openly flamboyant gay character in the comic, Wallace
Wells, so seeing a more rugged, secretive gay character in Stephen Stills might
have been a bit of a shocker to see. Perhaps this is why they cut that part out
of the movie entirely. After all, gay marriage was just beginning to be legal,
so many people might have been apprehensive about seeing two gay “main
characters” (quotations mainly because they aren’t really fleshed out too much
in the movie) in a film. Though, this simply prompts questions: If their
situations were reversed (Stephen Stills being in the closet while Wallace
Wells was simply openly straight), which one would have been more believable? I
feel that a closeted gay character would have been much more believable,
especially at the time. It would have made a much better message about the
struggles of being gay during the time, rather than the ability to be openly
flamboyant about it.
 |
| https://bit.ly/31ZGXuv |
Power of Understanding vs. Power of
Self-Respect:
 |
| https://bit.ly/35ekr34 |
Another one of the bigger changes
from movie to film has to be the finale. This is probably the biggest change they made, and the most impactful one. Within
the finale, Scott is about to have the hardest fight in his life, a conflict
that has been mounting through the entire story. As he’s about to face his
biggest enemy, however, we find out most important change. Throughout the book, Scott has been,
for lack of better words, a complete douche. He dated a girl in highschool
while he’s in his 20s, cheated on her with another girl (basically cheating on
both of them), beat up a bunch of people to try and stay with this newer girl,
lost both of them, and is still
trying to fight for the newer girl. He’s proved himself to be the biggest
asshole to girls in history. In the comic, however, we see that his biggest
enemy treats girls the same way, as object for himself. As Scott understands
this, he realizes how much of a jerk he’s been, and strives for change. Thus,
Scott earns himself “The Power of Understanding,” a weapon to help him in this
final fight. This is because of his new resolve and new lease on life. However,
in the movie, this is incredibly different. He goes through the same sorts of
things and proves himself to be an asshole still. However, upon coming up to
the final fight, he doesn’t say that he’s learned to be better. He doesn’t
mention it until after the initial “first phase” of the boss (spoilers I
guess). Instead, he says that he wants to fight the boss “For himself.” And
thus, Scott earns himself “The Power of Self-Respect,” which is basically the
biggest ego booster to ever exist. Which begs the question: Why
did they change this impactful scene in the movie and make it so dulled down?
Perhaps because the understanding part was to be expected of men. Gender norms
and gender roles have been implemented in our society for years on end. They
are what we conform ourselves to, and to be different from that would be seen
as weird and strange. In the situation Scott is in, it is expected of him to
learn that he’s a dick, that he should be better. However, he decides to do
something unexpected of him, and to instead still be a complete douche-bag. It’s
these two different sides, the expected side of understanding and the
unexpected side of self-respect, that cause such divides. Maybe this is all
because of the time frame in which the movie came out? Since gay marriage became
legalized in 2010, men and women all over were breaking the gender norms in
ways of expressing their love to people of the same sex. While it might have
been controversial to allow too many gay characters in the movie, the director
still thought that men should break out of these gender norms in their own
unique way of hardheadedness.
 |
| https://bit.ly/30XNowE |
I like the points you made and I think you're probably right about why they left out Scott's sexuality in the movie. You could expand on this by finding some data about feelings towards gay people in the early 2010's. Also your mentioning of if Scott and Wallace's role were reversed how would the story be different. Why is Wallace an acceptable gay character and Scott isn't and how would the movie might have done if Scott were gay? Was is for monetary reasons as well?
ReplyDeleteYou make a really good point when analyzing the key difference between the movie and the comic. The fact that the main character is depicted as gay in the comic. Additionally, you make an important point about how the struggles of being gay at the time would have been a better alternative to having a "flamboyant" character.
ReplyDelete