• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Stephen King's IT |OT| He thrusts his fists and then he posts (Unmarked spoilers)

GhaleonEB

Member
Unless I missed it, we didn't get Bill yelling, "You killed my brother, you fucker!"

For some reason that line always stuck with me and I was hoping to hear it.
 
I thought it was really good, but for some reason I guess I thought both movies would be released fairly close together, but it seems like chapter 2 isn't even close to coming out.
 
I think the studio were hedging their bets to an extent with this one. I know it was talked about in the trade press as being a two-film adaptation during production, but I think the post-release talk about not having anything ready to go for Chapter II is telling.

As it is, for anyone who hasn't read the book, the film pretty much stands on its own and if it had flopped, I think the studio could have cut bait pretty simply.
 
did Batman and Lethal Weapon 2 really come out in the same summer? what a fire lineup.

this movie was alright. tbh I didn't come away that excited about Muschietti's chops as a horror director. I enjoyed this most when it just had the kids hanging around and during the humorous moments like whenever Stranger Things kid said something or the New Kids on the Block references (that final one with the poster was so good haha).

the Midnight Special kid was a good lead to anchor this on tho btw, and what little we do get of Skarsgard speaking as Pennywise is strong. I doubted him initially but he worked well.

hopefully the town has a stronger presence in the sequel, it didn't feel like a big looming character like it should have imo.

also Bryce Dallas Howard or Jessica Chastain for Bev? I imagine they gotta be under consideration.
 
It's such bull too, in the novel/mini series
Bev does not realize that Ben wrote that poem, she thinks Bill wrote it and has a thing for him. When they come back as adults that's when her and Ben reconnect and she realizes it was him, not Bill, that wrote it.

The movie completely messes up that entire point and how it set Ben and Bev up. By having her already know and STILL choosing Bill over Ben it is going to make it look like Ben loses his weight and Bev is like "Hey oh!"

Ben also had the
biggest cock
when they have sex. Maybe... something about that when they're adults? Lol
 

TrutaS

Member
I'm reading IT right now and I'm finding a lot of interest in the "origins" of the creature. I heard that you get more of it if you read the Dark Tower, but knowing how huge that thing is, does it really go deep into the whole lore of IT and the turtle? Or is it just a little hint, much like the hints in this book?
 
I'm reading IT right now and I'm finding a lot of interest in the "origins" of the creature. I heard that you get more of it if you read the Dark Tower, but knowing how huge that thing is, does it really go deep into the whole lore of IT and the turtle? Or is it just a little hint, much like the hints in this book?

Nah, just a little bit. Not worth it except the dark tower is a good read too.
 
did Batman and Lethal Weapon 2 really come out in the same summer? what a fire lineup. .

Yes, Summer of 89 was huge for films. You also had Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Ghostbusters 2, License to Kill and The Abyss. It was also very accurate in its use of Warner/New Line films on the Marquee during their correct release windows. Batman and Lethal Weapon 2 for June and July and Nightmare 5(with the original controversial poster) in August.
 
also Bryce Dallas Howard or Jessica Chastain for Bev? I imagine they gotta be under consideration.

Or maybe both, one as adult Bev and one as Audra.
They are supposed to "look" similar, which is why Bill was attracted to Audra in the first place. I kinda feel they were trying to keep true to that, somewhat, with having Annette and Olivia as adult Bev and Audra in the mini-series. They aren't close to looking like twins, but there close enough to understand Bill's taste.
 

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
I think the studio were hedging their bets to an extent with this one. I know it was talked about in the trade press as being a two-film adaptation during production, but I think the post-release talk about not having anything ready to go for Chapter II is telling.

As it is, for anyone who hasn't read the book, the film pretty much stands on its own and if it had flopped, I think the studio could have cut bait pretty simply.
Speaking of, a ton of people in my theater didn't realize there was going to be a part two. Lots of "wait what" when chapter 1 popped up.
 

Pilgrimzero

Member
What's funny is that if you don't realize there is a part 2, then the whole love poem thing with Ben looks completely pointless except as a total 100% fuck you fat boy the script writer put in for some reason.

And speaking of pointless, I kept waiting for that key around Bevs neck to play into something.
 

nachum00

Member
Watched it yesterday. While it was better than the made for tv movies the actual horror did nothing for me. I don't really see what the hypes about.
 
Haha. I had a few disapproving scoffs, even. Lady behind me went: "Ugh! What?!? Come on!"

Damn. That would make me go 'ugh this is just half of the book! no need to scoff!'


By the way, as a fan of the book and the miniseries (read and saw them in '94 I think, when I was 10 years old lol), I was pleased with the movie. Derry is better developed than in the miniseries, the kids more or less even developed to the miniseries, but Bowers takes a hit. I loved Pennywise up until the end, they took some of the mistery away imo, made him too weak, especially since he will return. I hope they up the ante with a pissed of pennywise when they're adults.

The painting woman and ESPECIALLY the leper did nothing for me though. I know that last one is from the book but I thought it was poorly realised.

I dont want to be too negative though, enjoyed myself a lot, enjoyed the coming of age story present, the acting of the kids (especially Beverly, Richie and Ben), the bizarre movements of Pennywise and the violence. This was my Jurassic World, reliving my childhood. Nothing will top Tim Curry's Pennywise for me though as he scared me so much that I still can barely look at a picture of OG pennywise without having to look away.
 
I'm reading IT right now and I'm finding a lot of interest in the "origins" of the creature. I heard that you get more of it if you read the Dark Tower, but knowing how huge that thing is, does it really go deep into the whole lore of IT and the turtle? Or is it just a little hint, much like the hints in this book?

The Turtle is one of several deity-like figures in The Dark Tower that are mentioned but never actually seen, with one exception. There's not much detail about it, just occasional references. IIRC there's no indication at all that
the Turtle is Dead
(IT book/movie 2 spoilers) from reading the Dark Tower alone.

IT is never mentioned at all from what I recall, although there is a character in the 7th book that some people think is related to Pennywise (i.e., the same species). And there's also a robot named Stuttering Bill. So it's mostly winks and nods rather than in-depth lore.

What's funny is that if you don't realize there is a part 2, then the whole love poem thing with Ben looks completely pointless except as a total 100% fuck you fat boy the script writer put in for some reason.

Well I guess the poem establishes his affection for Bev, which makes the kiss that wakes her up feel more significant than random.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
The Turtle is one of several deity-like figures in The Dark Tower that are mentioned but never actually seen, with one exception. There's not much detail about it, just occasional references. IIRC there's no indication at all that
the Turtle is Dead
(IT book/movie 2 spoilers) from reading the Dark Tower alone.
.

Shardik
or...?
 

Pilgrimzero

Member
The Turtle is one of several deity-like figures in The Dark Tower that are mentioned but never actually seen, with one exception. There's not much detail about it, just occasional references. IIRC there's no indication at all that
the Turtle is Dead
(IT book/movie 2 spoilers) from reading the Dark Tower alone.

IT is never mentioned at all from what I recall, although there is a character in the 7th book that some people think is related to Pennywise (i.e., the same species). And there's also a robot named Stuttering Bill. So it's mostly winks and nods rather than in-depth lore.



Well I guess the poem establishes his affection for Bev, which makes the kiss that wakes her up feel more significant than random.

Oh right, True Loves kiss. And then she still went for the hot guy instead.
 
After letting it sink in for a few days, I'd go with the initial storm drain encounter as my favorite scene overall.

The back and forth between hunter and prey essentially was really well done on Skarsgard's part, great performance.
 
I think the studio were hedging their bets to an extent with this one. I know it was talked about in the trade press as being a two-film adaptation during production, but I think the post-release talk about not having anything ready to go for Chapter II is telling.

As it is, for anyone who hasn't read the book, the film pretty much stands on its own and if it had flopped, I think the studio could have cut bait pretty simply.

Especially with how none of the marketing for the movie was IT Chapter 1. It's fine honestly, it does a great job of being a singular film. I just hope the second chapter is made with as much care.
 

Mau5

Member
Watched it last night really enjoyed it. The first scene with Georgie really put me in the zone I was already getting creeped out. But holy fuck tell me why right before IT bites Georgie a family of what seemed like 8 people decided to disturb the whole theater because they couldn't find their seats. They all turned on the flashlights on their phones trying to find the seat numbers like ffs people it's really not that hard! atleast have the decency to whisper as well. Mind you they're literally standing in front of our whole row arguing with one another. My friend and I missed the actual bite all we saw was Georgie missing his arm. No apology either from anyone of them.

The father also screamed "What is that 24 feet? Can anyone tell?" when Beverly is measuring the sink like WTF is wrong with people just STFU! Sorry for the rant but those people really ruined our immersion.
 

Pilgrimzero

Member
I think what amazes me about it is, where did the time go?

I mean look at the old film. So much characterization.

We see the group come together, have fun as kids, as individuals, 2-3 together, and as a whole group and form that glue. We see them have their run ins with IT and Bowers. And finally stand tall and take on IT.

This film lacks most of that togetherness and individual moments it's like scary moment scary moment ending.

You can't tell me any of the kids aside from Bev and Bill got the same amount of characterization as the kids in the old film. Especially Ben and Mike. Even Richy, which IMO is tragic.
 
I think what amazes me about it is, where did the time go?

I mean look at the old film. So much characterization.

We see the group come together, have fun as kids, as individuals, 2-3 together, and as a whole group and form that glue. We see them have their run ins with IT and Bowers. And finally stand tall and take on IT.

This film lacks most of that togetherness and individual moments it's like scary moment scary moment ending.

You can't tell me any of the kids aside from Bev and Bill got the same amount of characterization as the kids in the old film. Especially Ben and Mike. Even Richy, which IMO is tragic.

This bugged me massively throughout my viewing actually. There was no sense of a time frame. It felt like the main encounters to the final confrontation all could've happened within 2 to 3 days if I hadn't known better because of the book. It didn't feel like a looming, ominous thing that hangs over the town and its inhabitants' lives.
 
Was anyone else surprised by the level of violence shown in that first scene with the 7-year old kid? It really shocked me. Usually, movies are reluctant to show graphic violence against children. It's always either subdued or off-screen. But that little kid had his fuckin' arm ripped off and we saw all of it. Fuck.
 
I got to say, while I told my brother I'd give it a 9/10 after we left the theater, my impressions have diminished since then. Such is the fate of the book reader when watching film adaptations. As a movie, I think it's overall pretty effective, but as an adaptation, it nails Pennywise and Bev IMO, but other aspects, critical aspects that make IT the beloved story that it is, are so lacking to the point of not even existing in the film. And it's hard not to think of the movie from the context of the book

It's like World War Z; as a movie, I found that to be a pretty decent zombie movie, but it is also one of the worse adaptations ever and I dislike it as much as I enjoy it.
 
Was anyone else surprised by the level of violence shown in that first scene with the 7-year old kid? It really shocked me. Usually, movies are reluctant to show graphic violence against children. It's always either subdued or off-screen. But that little kid had his fuckin' arm ripped off and we saw all of it. Fuck.

I thought Georgie
being popped in the head with that kettle pistol thing
was really startling and brutal.

EDIT: I guess they got away with that because it wasn't actually him?
 

-NeoTB1-

Member
I got to say, while I told my brother I'd give it a 9/10 after we left the theater, my impressions have diminished since then. Such is the fate of the book reader when watching film adaptations. As a movie, I think it's overall pretty effective, but as an adaptation, it nails Pennywise and Bev IMO, but other aspects, critical aspects that make IT the beloved story that it is, are so lacking to the point of not even existing in the film. And it's hard not to think of the movie from the context of the book

It's like World War Z; as a movie, I found that to be a pretty decent zombie movie, but it is also one of the worse adaptations ever and I dislike it as much as I enjoy it.

This is a problem I have, too. If I've read a book and plan to see the film adaptation, I try to seriously lower my expectations so that I don't leave disappointed. It doesn't always work that way, though, because deep down you really want the film to leave the same lasting impression on you.
 

Gravidee

Member
Was anyone else surprised by the level of violence shown in that first scene with the 7-year old kid? It really shocked me. Usually, movies are reluctant to show graphic violence against children. It's always either subdued or off-screen. But that little kid had his fuckin' arm ripped off and we saw all of it. Fuck.

I thought it was really sad, mostly because Georgie at the beginning kind of reminded me of myself when I was younger. Being afraid of going to the basement because something bad could be there ( and possibly seeing or hearing something), quickly grabbing what I needed before heading back up with haste. Only in this case, something bad really did happen to him eventually. :(
 
I got to say, while I told my brother I'd give it a 9/10 after we left the theater, my impressions have diminished since then. Such is the fate of the book reader when watching film adaptations. As a movie, I think it's overall pretty effective, but as an adaptation, it nails Pennywise and Bev IMO, but other aspects, critical aspects that make IT the beloved story that it is, are so lacking to the point of not even existing in the film. And it's hard not to think of the movie from the context of the book

It's like World War Z; as a movie, I found that to be a pretty decent zombie movie, but it is also one of the worse adaptations ever and I dislike it as much as I enjoy it.

I'll have to keep this in mind when I see it again. With any adaptation, I think fans of the novel bring so much character and plot backstory to their movie experience that we might not notice gaps in the storytelling that the film is actually showing us. Just as a random example, there are elements in the Harry Potter movies that I sometimes think would make absolutely zero sense to people who've only seen the movies.
 
This is a problem I have, too. If I've read a book and plan to see the film adaptation, I try to seriously lower my expectations so that I don't leave disappointed. It doesn't always work that way, though, because deep down you really want the film to leave the same lasting impression on you.
Some of it is unavoidable unless it was a TV series, but still. Like I originally felt the movie nailed the Loser's Club, but thinking back, it all rested solely on the chemistry and the great kid actors and not on how the movie portrays the group. They feel like friends due to how good the actors are with eachother, but it never felt like friendship forged through their shared nightmarish experience or their everyday struggles. We never get that sense. The pact at the end feels particularly toothless, like a formality because of the story, not something earned through their bond.

Or the town of Derry. They lay the foundations and hint at it with the woman at the start or the history book or the missing posters, but then they go the "tell, instead of show" route by literally having Mike talk about a curse, one evil thing feeding off the town. But we never get the sense of that before or after. The provided details don't support a statement of that magnitude
 
Was anyone else surprised by the level of violence shown in that first scene with the 7-year old kid? It really shocked me. Usually, movies are reluctant to show graphic violence against children. It's always either subdued or off-screen. But that little kid had his fuckin' arm ripped off and we saw all of it. Fuck.

I dont' believe you actually see his arm come off. This got talked about earlier in the thread, but Muschietti does some pretty nifty work in that scene to make you feel like you saw way more than you did.

You see the mouth distend, you see the bite come down - but I don't know that you actually see the teeth go in, and the rip isn't onscreen either. I think it's a cut to Georgie crawling away almost immediately, and even then, you don't really see the stump. I think it's just a shock of red on the side of his coat for maybe a second - and then Pennywise grabs him and pulls him down.

So basically, all you saw was a kid screaming and a puddle of blood. But you would SWEAR you saw Pennywise physically pull the whole arm off while blood was gouting everywhere.
 
I dont' believe you actually see his arm come off. This got talked about earlier in the thread, but Muschietti does some pretty nifty work in that scene to make you feel like you saw way more than you did.

You see the mouth distend, you see the bite come down - but I don't know that you actually see the teeth go in, and the rip isn't onscreen either. I think it's a cut to Georgie crawling away almost immediately, and even then, you don't really see the stump. I think it's just a shock of red on the side of his coat for maybe a second - and then Pennywise grabs him and pulls him down.

So basically, all you saw was a kid screaming and a puddle of blood. But you would SWEAR you saw Pennywise physically pull the whole arm off while blood was gouting everywhere.

I think I called it "surprisingly bloodless" earlier and I still stand by that - you'd come away swearing you'd seen much worse than was actually onscreen, much like with Hooper's Texas Chainsaw direction. There is blood, but there's no lingering on wounding or the wound itself and the blood in the water is quickly swept away. Even later, I don't think there's much visible of Georgie's injury when Pennywise manifests as him during the climax.
 
Saw IT a couple of days ago and loved it. I've read the book, but never seen the mini series. I thought they nailed the opening perfectly. Getting introduced to Pennywise that way was perfect. His voice and the conversation with Georgie was excellent.

A couple of smaller things I'd wish they'd done differently:

They never called Ben by his nickname Haystack and no beep beep Richie from the kids. Small things, but I missed them. Only Pennywise actually said beep beep Richie which seemed out of place without the kids using it beforehand.

I wished Bowers was established more. He was kinda just a generic dick instead of the dog-killing, murderous, psychotic, racist he was in the books.

Was hoping for more of Mike. He kinda joined the group late. Would have liked to see all of the kids together a bit more in non-life threatening situations. No dam, no clubhouse, just the one scene at the lake.

I know they had a limited amount of run time for this and I loved the movie and thought all the kids were excellent. They did a great job with them individually.
 

Bookoo

Member
After letting it sink in for a few days, I'd go with the initial storm drain encounter as my favorite scene overall.

The back and forth between hunter and prey essentially was really well done on Skarsgard's part, great performance.

Yea sort of sucks because it's probably the best scene in the movie. I found that seen creepy and interesting although I knew what was going to happen.

However the movie overall felt extremely rushed and none of the other scares worked at all. They didn't have time to build up any tension it was felt like it just cut from set piece to set piece.

I am most disappointed how they handled the bullies. I was hoping they would be a bigger focus because they are such a big part of the book and would have been a more interesting way to build tension. One of my favorite moments in the book is when Richie breaks his arm and I wasn't a fan of the way they did it in the book. I was happy to see the creepiness of Bevs father maintained though.
 
They never called Ben by his nickname Haystack and no beep beep Richie from the kids. Small things, but I missed them. Only Pennywise actually said beep beep Richie which seemed out of place without the kids using it beforehand.

Stuff like this makes me wonder if some scenes were cut that established the "Beep beep" routine with Richie. I really hope there are some unused scenes that get added in eventually.
 
Yea sort of sucks because it's probably the best scene in the movie. I found that seen creepy and interesting although I knew what was going to happen.

However the movie overall felt extremely rushed and none of the other scares worked at all. They didn't have time to build up any tension it was felt like it just cut from set piece to set piece.

I am most disappointed how they handled the bullies. I was hoping they would be a bigger focus because they are such a big part of the book and would have been a more interesting way to build tension. One of my favorite moments in the book is when Richie breaks his arm and I wasn't a fan of the way they did it in the book. I was happy to see the creepiness of Bevs father maintained though.

It certainly devolved into a haunted house attraction ride without much of a sense of time and place in my opinion. It felt entirely too short even at its quite ample running time somehow.

Then again, if you've ever read King and then see the film version, that comes with the territory I suppose. The guy really knows/knew how to put you into that world meticulously.
 
Controversial, but the TV version had better pacing and did a better job of making the kids feel like a closely knit group. Some of the kids were also developed better in the TV show such as Mike and Ben.

I think the kids half run time in the TV show is shorter than the new movie as well.
 

Bookoo

Member
It certainly devolved into a haunted house attraction ride without much of a sense of time and place in my opinion. It felt entirely too short even at its quite ample running time somehow.

Then again, if you've ever read King and then see the film version, that comes with the territory I suppose. The guy really knows/knew how to put you into that world meticulously.

Yea, I had just read the book before the movie and was really trying to lower my expectations for this movie, but I after seeing the 4 min clip of Georgie and Pennywise, knowing there will be 2 movies and knowing the run time I had more hope they would be able to do it justice.

That said I didn't hate it, I just thought it was ok. I sort of wonder how Part 2 will do since the most charming part of the movie was the children.
 
Yea, I had just read the book before the movie and was really trying to lower my expectations for this movie, but I after seeing the 4 min clip of Georgie and Pennywise, knowing there will be 2 movies and knowing the run time I had more hope they would be able to do it justice.

That said I didn't hate it, I just thought it was ok. I sort of wonder how Part 2 will do since the most charming part of the movie was the children.

Well, I had previously bashed it pretty hard and said I didn't like it "at all". My opinions regarding almost all the Horror scenes still stands, but after letting it sink in more, I'm slightly more lenient after talking it over with some friends. I'd say it's decent maybe at this point judged on its own merits and I may give it another go eventually when it's up for rent on Amazon.
 

Pilgrimzero

Member
I dont' believe you actually see his arm come off. This got talked about earlier in the thread, but Muschietti does some pretty nifty work in that scene to make you feel like you saw way more than you did.

You see the mouth distend, you see the bite come down - but I don't know that you actually see the teeth go in, and the rip isn't onscreen either. I think it's a cut to Georgie crawling away almost immediately, and even then, you don't really see the stump. I think it's just a shock of red on the side of his coat for maybe a second - and then Pennywise grabs him and pulls him down.

So basically, all you saw was a kid screaming and a puddle of blood. But you would SWEAR you saw Pennywise physically pull the whole arm off while blood was gouting everywhere.


Oh you see his arms gone. Goriest thing in the film
 
Oh you see his arms gone. Goriest thing in the film

You see the absence of an arm. I don't think you actually see it come off. You don't see the disembodied arm. And you don't really see much but a shock of red and the hint of a stump on his coat.

Seriously, I don't think Muschietti actually shows you much of much there.

It's kinda like how everyone swore they saw some crazy shit in the napkin during that one shot in Blair Witch Project.
 

Pilgrimzero

Member
Stuff like this makes me wonder if some scenes were cut that established the "Beep beep" routine with Richie. I really hope there are some unused scenes that get added in eventually.

I took beep beep as a squeaky clown nose since He was surrounded by clowns and has a fear or clowns.
 

Pilgrimzero

Member
You see the absence of an arm. I don't think you actually see it come off. You don't see the disembodied arm. And you don't really see much but a shock of red and the hint of a stump on his coat.

Seriously, I don't think Muschietti actually shows you much of much there.

It's kinda like how everyone swore they saw some crazy shit in the napkin during that one shot in Blair Witch Project.

I'd have see the scene again but when he's trying to crawl away it looks like a hunk of arm but could have been torn raincoat with blood covering the actual stump.
 
Top Bottom