I honestly never thought of Buffalo Bill as being trans—I thought of him as a killer with a particular fetish. So as far as I’m concerned, trans people can relax...the movie’s diabolical plan to make me fear trans people did not work.

I dunno. I was a Generation X young person, and let me tell you, Millennials have nothing on us in terms of obnoxiousness. It all happens online now, though. That’s one thing that really has changed.

A protest was threatened and a small group of people turned up to protest at homosexual bashing in films. Transgender issues were never mentioned at the time.

You are speaking to Millennials - the most self-righteous generation since the original Puritans. There is no pleasing them. If they actually attain old age they will be the most insufferable seniors yet.

*sighs* What a dumb article. Buffalo Bill isn’t any kind of trans, in fact I’d be surprised if he had a sexuality or gender identity at all, as those terms conventionally are defined. He is a psychotic killer who happened to find a narrative. If he were religious he’d have picked a religious narrative. If he’d played…

I think part of the problem is that somewhere between the movie coming out and now, we all decided this was a kid-friendly property when it is not and kids and pre-teens may not be able to see just how much the characters are meant to be jerks and not cool.

Also it’s the rest of the gang asking, not Danny saying. And as other commenters have pointed out, the rest of the T-Birds are jackasses. A bunch of jackasses ASKING a character who is deep down a nice guy (ie the romantic lead) if he forced his girlfriend does not condone rape, it highlights that Danny is a nice guy…

Maybe it needs a warning?

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen the film but as I remember they’re not portrayed as anything but jackasses.

Uhhh... arent the dudes supposed to be scumbags? Like they are the “cool” guys but they are all pieces of shit and as mentioned its a 70's movie about pieces of shit in the 50's. Problematic guys doing problematic things does not make a movie problematic.

I’m finding it hard to really understand your position—though I am trying. Your argument seems similar to those who seem to think that only gay people should play gay characters. It is simplistic thinking that can have very bad consequences, because if they started casting roles in that way, then it follows that gay…

As opposed to your brand of insufferability.   The poster used it correctly, and was correct about it.   The reviewer KNOWS that Nick is called upon to talk in the story, yet brings this up to meet their PC quota.

So none of the people commenting on here read the book, apparently.

Do the witches all die at some point? I’d watch that episode over and over. They’re idiots.

Will this movie make sense to someone who hasn’t seen The Trial of the Chicago 1-6?

It always baffles me when someone responds to a single review with “I’m disappointed that it’s a bad movie” when, come on, it’s one review from someone who is routinely pretty harsh.

I don’t have any interest whatsoever after “watching” the first episode. Felt like there was literally nothing going on, and I love Jude Law so I wanted to give it a shot. My husband will continue watching it regardless though..

So would you say that Alexander brought the pain, Ms. McGowan?

Yes let’s limit who has freedom to speak and what people are allowed to say. That's always worked so well in the past.

Somewhat similarly, the term “slave” did not originally have racial implications, as it existed before the modern concept of race. It derived from the ethnonym “Slav” (the Indo-European people).