Support NeoGAF

Bobby Roberts · Sep 9, 2017

rackham said:
Why do you NEED to see Pennywise kill anybody? That's not a problem or a critique. That's your personal preference to see blood and gore.

What did he mean by this? said:
What does seeing him kill a bunch of children do for you exactly?

Let 'em know, Boke:

Boke1879 said:
Because outside of Georgie and The one kid from Bowers gang the rest of the movie you see him fucking with the kids but failing to finish the job when they were clearly scared.

It's this. You wanna see him kill a kid because then the threat is real. Or Real-er. As the film goes on, and Pennywise just keeps missing the target, the threat behind him dissipates naturally. And as he gets bigger/bolder/crazier in response, that size just kinda hollows out, because he somehow never manages to get a kill on anyone but Georgie and Patrick. The film is all about kids going missing and IT watching from the sidelines, but the film also kinda needs IT to get some of these redshirt kids ONSCREEN so the threat level stays high.

So far as Georgie's death goes, I remember one of the drafts featured Pennywise flat out just horking Georgie back from the sewer. The old woman watches the clown swallow him whole like an Owl consuming a rat, with Georgie's legs kicking/flailing all the way down.

Obviously they decided to go with the arm rip - but then they didn't let Georgie's eyes fill with rain as he died in the street, which is one of the most disturbing visuals in the whole book.

The movie entire is kinda like that. It finds an in-between spot and gets comfy there, but the longer it stays, the more antsy/itchy you get for it to pick a lane. If you're going to ignore the town history to that extent, make Pennywise way deadlier. But if you're going to back off Pennywise's physical threat, you better amp up the town's decrepitude.

Anung · Sep 9, 2017

rackham said:
Why do you NEED to see Pennywise kill anybody? That's not a problem or a critique. That's your personal preference to see blood and gore.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre had barely any blood or gore and a small body count and it didn't stop that movie being scary as hell.

Jarmel · Sep 9, 2017

Just got out. I think this is a better acted film than it is directed. In fact the more I think about the direction, opinion drops further. The editing was just shoddy.

What did he mean by this? · Sep 9, 2017

Bobby Roberts said:
Let 'em know, Boke:

It's this. You wanna see him kill a kid because then the threat is real. Or Real-er. As the film goes on, and Pennywise just keeps missing the target, the threat behind him dissipates naturally. And as he gets bigger/bolder/crazier in response, that size just kinda hollows out, because he somehow never manages to get a kill on anyone but Georgie and Patrick. The film is all about kids going missing and IT watching from the sidelines, but the film also kinda needs IT to get some of these redshirt kids ONSCREEN so the threat level stays high.

Aint that the point? Them coming together gives them power over IT and reveals how hollow IT really is....in terms of the metaphor IT represents and whatnot

Dolling out random vignettes of gorey kid deaths is just excessive. That's cool in a book, but it reduces a film to be too exploitatey.

rackham · Sep 9, 2017

Boke1879 said:
Well yea. It's one thing I would change. Because outside of Georgie and The one kid from Bowers gang the rest of the movie you see him fucking with the kids but failing to finish the job when they were clearly scared.

It's implied he ripped that Ripsom girl in half when he killed her. He had his face over Stanley. He broke Georgie's arm. He convinced Henry to stab his father. It's kind of crazy that you don't think Pennywise was violent enough.

He is not a killer clown. He is an otherworldly entity..

Dalek · Sep 9, 2017

ElBoxyBrown said:
That garage scene. Holy shit! The whole crowd jumped.

Lol

Yeah I've never heard so many people in a theater scream before.

Right before the movie started these two young people sat down behind me and were talking loud and laughing obnoxiously during the trailers and generally being a nuisance. They even kept it up a bit during the start of the movie when the title card said 1989 and some reason started laughing and saying "19 Ellie nin right before the movie started these two young people sat down behind me and we're talking loud and laughing obnoxiously during the trailers and generally being a nuisance. They even kept it up a bit during the start of the movie when the title card said 1989 for some reason started laughing and saying "1989! Hahaha"

About a half hour later they shut the fuck up pretty quick.

Jarmel · Sep 9, 2017

Bobby Roberts said:
It's this. You wanna see him kill a kid because then the threat is real. Or Real-er. As the film goes on, and Pennywise just keeps missing the target, the threat behind him dissipates naturally. And as he gets bigger/bolder/crazier in response, that size just kinda hollows out, because he somehow never manages to get a kill on anyone but Georgie and Patrick. The film is all about kids going missing and IT watching from the sidelines, but the film also kinda needs IT to get some of these redshirt kids ONSCREEN so the threat level stays high.

Yep, Pennywise doesn't feel like a serious threat for most of this film other than a few scenes, which is really just the projector scene. Stan gets bite in the face and he comes out fine other than a few bite marks.

It's neutered.

Yaboosh · Sep 9, 2017

They should have done a better job about indicting the adults of Derry. Show their negligence better.

DerekOfTheDykes · Sep 9, 2017

So... was it a good or a bad thing that Hockstetter didn't get killed by flying vampiric refrigerator needle-noodles?

Boke1879 · Sep 9, 2017

rackham said:
It's implied he ripped that Ripsom girl in half when he killed her. He had his face over Stanley. He broke Georgie's arm. He convinced Henry to stab his father. It's kind of crazy that you don't think Pennywise was violent enough.

He is not a killer clown. He is an otherworldly entity..

That kills and eats children.

ElBoxyBrown · Sep 9, 2017

The main villain in Get Out are white people, or more specifically, a white family.

The main villain in IT is a clown with powers that rival Cthulhu.

Two very different psychological horror movies.

Bobby Roberts · Sep 9, 2017

What did he mean by this? said:
Aint that the point?

The point of what?

Pennywise isn't hollow. The kids combined strength is strong, but that doesn't mean Pennywise was weak the whole time. He's been feeding on kids for 27 years and held the town in his thrall that entire time.

If you're not going to emphasize the "town in thrall" part you have to see him get those fuckin' kids. Otherwise he's just a clown. An off-putting, drooling, wall-eyed, yukmouth fucked-up clown, but still: Clown.

You're arguing that he has to ultimately be ineffectual for the children to win, and that just robs the children of the special nature of their victory over him - and that's the point. Their victory is special. It's unique, and it's miraculous, and it belongs to them.

Suggesting that they get the victory just because the clown is empty inside lessens their strength. It's handicapping the Losers, instead of bolstering them

rackham · Sep 9, 2017

Boke1879 said:
That kills and eats children.

You want to treat It as regular serial killer. Your complaint is that he doesn't kill enough on screen for your tastes because you want It to act the way you think a killer clown should act.

DrEvil · Sep 9, 2017

ElBoxyBrown said:
The main villain in Get Out are white people, or more specifically, a white family.

The main villain in IT is a clown with powers that rival Cthulhu.

Two very different psychological horror movies.

Absolutely different films. I'm just saying Get Out had some very original methods of being disturbing and genuinely unsettling.

I just hoped there would have been one good moment like that in IT.

ElBoxyBrown · Sep 9, 2017

Jarmel said:
Yep, Pennywise doesn't feel like a serious threat for most of this film other than a few scenes, which is really just the projector scene. Stan gets bite in the face and he comes out fine other than a few bite marks.

It's neutered.

I don't think Bobby was arguing that Pennywise felt weak.

Edit: Or he is?

Bobby Roberts · Sep 9, 2017

rackham said:
You want to treat It as regular serial killer. Your complaint is that he doesn't kill enough on screen for your tastes because you want It to act the way you think a killer clown should act.

No, the reason some more kills are being asked for is clearly spelled out in the posts above, and it has nothing to do with the imaginary rules for killer clown behavior. It's a matter of keeping the villain potent so as to keep the Losers' victory OVER that villain even stronger than it is.

You reduce the villain's potency and when the kids knock him over it's not as exhilarating. The win doesn't feel as special because you've already shown the villain to be not as threatening as he could be.

Stop trying to frame it as "you just want to see dead kids!" That's not really the issue. By that logic, anyone that buys a ticket wants to see dead kids, because dead kids is a key part of IT's basic premise. No, it's a matter of increasing dramatic impact, and having your deadly threat actually emphasize the deadly part, especially in a horror film, is a big thing.

It's not a huge misstep that Pennywise doesn't get more onscreen kills, but it is a bit of a slip. Pennywise is still a malevolent presence, he's still got punch.

He just coulda had a li'l more, is all.

Jarmel · Sep 9, 2017

The problem isn't so much the body count. It's how ineffective the movie portays Pennywise as being. He has those kids seperated multiple times and nothing ends up happening to them. He has Bev in his lair and nothing ends up happening to her. Ben gets a few scratch marks. Ritchie survives randomly. Eddie only gets a broken arm from physics.

LiquidMetal14 · Sep 9, 2017

I liked it. I'm kind of glad they split it into two parts even though I was kind of waiting to see the ladder parts from the original so while we get another movie out of this I would have loved to have seen the rest of it right now.

Farsi · Sep 9, 2017

Jarmel said:
Just got out. I think this is a better acted film than it is directed. In fact the more I think about the direction, opinion drops further. The editing was just shoddy.

I don't understand why so many critics were praising the editing. I got so frustrated with how many times the editor kept playing with the camera angles. Fukunaga would of never let that slide.

Boke1879 · Sep 9, 2017

rackham said:
You want to treat It as regular serial killer. Your complaint is that he doesn't kill enough on screen for your tastes because you want It to act the way you think a killer clown should act.

That's not it at all. Like I said. Outside of Georgie and the other kid. For the rest of the movie you see Pennywise failing to do the one thing he's supposed to do.

It's not even that I have a huge problem with it. It's just something I would change for myself. Just show him get one more on screen kill.

Because for me outside of that he's just fucking around and failing. That's just me nitpicking though.

Bobby Roberts · Sep 9, 2017

Farsi said:
I got so frustrated with how many times the editor kept playing with the angles.

Wouldn't camera angles be a cinematography/direction problem?

amaretto · Sep 9, 2017

Jarmel said:
Just got out. I think this is a better acted film than it is directed. In fact the more I think about the direction, opinion drops further. The editing was just shoddy.

That's my biggest problem with it 24 hours later. The editing is a bit of a mess and rather amateur.

Jarmel · Sep 9, 2017

Farsi said:
I don't understand why so many critics were praising the editing. I got so frustrated with how many times the editor kept playing with the angles. Fukunaga would of never let that slide.

The critics are praising the editing? The hell? That's by far the worst part.

rackham · Sep 9, 2017

Bobby Roberts said:
No, the reason some more kills are being asked for is clearly spelled out in the posts above, and it has nothing to do with the imaginary rules for killer clown behavior. It's a matter of keeping the villain potent so as to keep the Losers' victory OVER that villain even stronger than it is.

You reduce the villain's potency and when the kids knock him over it's not as exhilarating. The win doesn't feel as special because you've already shown the villain to be not as threatening as he could be.

Stop trying to frame it as "you just want to see dead kids!" That's not really the issue. By that logic, anyone that buys a ticket wants to see dead kids, because dead kids is a key part of IT's basic premise. No, it's a matter of increasing dramatic impact, and having your deadly threat actually emphasize the deadly part, especially in a horror film, is a big thing.

It's not a huge misstep that Pennywise doesn't get more onscreen kills, but it is a bit of a slip. Pennywise is still a malevolent presence, he's still got punch.

He just coulda had a li'l more, is all.

How can I not frame it as that. They fucking flat out said that the clown has been around for hundreds of years but I guess that just isn't enough for you guys because clearly you want to see more dead kids.

Use your heads a little bit more. The "LOSERS" won because they had been terrorized most of their lives and although they were terrified of It, they learned to overcome together. Bill with bullies and his stutter, Bev with her slut rumors, Tits with his tits. This is an issue of things needing to be spelled, read aloud and then beat over the audiences heads I guess.

What did he mean by this? · Sep 9, 2017

Bobby Roberts said:
The point of what?

Pennywise isn't hollow. The kids combined strength is strong, but that doesn't mean Pennywise was weak the whole time. He's been feeding on kids for 27 years and held the town in his thrall that entire time.

If you're not going to emphasize the "town in thrall" part you have to see him get those fuckin' kids. Otherwise he's just a clown. An off-putting, drooling, wall-eyed, yukmouth fucked-up clown, but still: Clown.

You're arguing that he has to ultimately be ineffectual for the children to win, and that just robs the children of the special nature of their victory over him - and that's the point. Their victory is special. It's unique, and it's miraculous, and it belongs to them.

Suggesting that they get the victory just because the clown is empty inside lessens their strength. It's handicapping the Losers, instead of bolstering them

The original story itself robs the kids of the special nature of their victory over IT through all the chud turtle crap.

I feel like not including more scenes of Pennywise eating kids characterizes him more. It exemplifies his incredulity that these special kids are actually opposing him. They become the focus of his attention and his downfall.

ronaldthump · Sep 9, 2017

HiiiLife said:
What would be yalls fav scene?

1. House
2. Garage projector
3. Library

didnt care for the house. From this point and the sewer onwards, it became unscary. The whole kids wandering off lost me.

2. Garage
3. Georgie/IT
4. Library
5. I thought the girl in the bathroom bit with the hair was very well done.
6. Basement - a little.

Boke1879 said:
Seriously, the woman in the painting was creepy.

]

it had potential til they showed the weird plasticky looking ghost. see also: leper (who had a bit of a the brain bug from starship troopers" sort of plastic look also.

they could have really made it scary with a different design

ElBoxyBrown · Sep 9, 2017

Bobby Roberts said:
No, the reason some more kills are being asked for is clearly spelled out in the posts above, and it has nothing to do with the imaginary rules for killer clown behavior. It's a matter of keeping the villain potent so as to keep the Losers' victory OVER that villain even stronger than it is.

You reduce the villain's potency and when the kids knock him over it's not as exhilarating. The win doesn't feel as special because you've already shown the villain to be not as threatening as he could be.

Stop trying to frame it as "you just want to see dead kids!" That's not really the issue. By that logic, anyone that buys a ticket wants to see dead kids, because dead kids is a key part of IT's basic premise. No, it's a matter of increasing dramatic impact, and having your deadly threat actually emphasize the deadly part, especially in a horror film, is a big thing.

It's not a huge misstep that Pennywise doesn't get more onscreen kills, but it is a bit of a slip. Pennywise is still a malevolent presence, he's still got punch.

He just coulda had a li'l more, is all.

But the thing is the kids braved their fears. They all passed Pennywise's trials and Pennywise had nothing to counteract that. The impact of what he can do is very real. His illusions are still dangerous. He really wants these kids but he is failing to get them and he decides to challenge that.

Farsi · Sep 9, 2017

Bobby Roberts said:
Wouldn't camera angles be a cinematography/direction problem?

The angles of the shots are fine, it's the editors job to see what cuts work best on certain scenes. Like the Georgie scene for example when Pennywise dragged him to the sewer instead of just letting us see the close up of Georgie's face getting dragged the editor cut up to a top shot.

Bobby Roberts · Sep 9, 2017

I don't think it's the worst part. I believe the editing is getting praised primarily because it's a film that is basically just a ton of set-pieces strung together one after another after another and yet it feels like a coherent story when it wraps up.

That shit isn't easy. The structure of this film probably shouldn't work, considering. But it does. So the editing gets praise for how well this cut together.

ElBoxyBrown said:
But the thing is the kids braved their fears.

I know. I'm not saying he's weak. I'm saying he could have been stronger, and fairly easily, too. It's a missed opportunity, but it's not a huge miss. It's a small one.

Farsi said:
The angles of the shots are fine, it's the editors job to see what cuts work best on certain scenes. Like the Georgie scene for example when Pennywise dragged him to the sewer instead of just letting us see the close up of Georgie's face getting dragged the editor cut up to a top shot.

That irritated you?

How do you know that wasn't the best call?

DrEvil · Sep 9, 2017

Bobby Roberts said:
No, the reason some more kills are being asked for is clearly spelled out in the posts above, and it has nothing to do with the imaginary rules for killer clown behavior. It's a matter of keeping the villain potent so as to keep the Losers' victory OVER that villain even stronger than it is.

You reduce the villain's potency and when the kids knock him over it's not as exhilarating. The win doesn't feel as special because you've already shown the villain to be not as threatening as he could be.

Stop trying to frame it as "you just want to see dead kids!" That's not really the issue. By that logic, anyone that buys a ticket wants to see dead kids, because dead kids is a key part of IT's basic premise. No, it's a matter of increasing dramatic impact, and having your deadly threat actually emphasize the deadly part, especially in a horror film, is a big thing.

It's not a huge misstep that Pennywise doesn't get more onscreen kills, but it is a bit of a slip. Pennywise is still a malevolent presence, he's still got punch.

He just coulda had a li'l more, is all.

I think if there was even a tad more exposition into his previous appearances in the town, if he was acknowledged as an urban legend by the adults, anything that legitimizes the fear outside the group of five kids, it would have helped.

No other kids save for the bully group experienced pennywise at all during the course of the films. Yes, a couple kids went missing off screen, but there were no rumours flying around school of some killer clown etc.

I wish there was more fear around him even if in the form of the adults being scared shitless.

We got a teeny tiny taste of it with that one mother. But it was never really explored beyond a subtle behavioural trait that was easily missed.

Boke1879 · Sep 9, 2017

Jarmel said:
The problem isn't so much the body count. It's how ineffective the movie portays Pennywise as being. He has those kids seperated multiple times and nothing ends up happening to them. He has Bev in his lair and nothing ends up happening to her. Ben gets a few scratch marks. Ritchie survives randomly. Eddie only gets a broken arm from physics.

He doesn't eat Bev because she's not scared of him. But you'd think he'd just say fuck it and get it out of the way.

Psychoward · Sep 9, 2017

Jarmel said:
Just got out. I think this is a better acted film than it is directed. In fact the more I think about the direction, opinion drops further. The editing was just shoddy.

The bathroom scene with the hair and blood was great tho, or are we talking macro editing?

Jarmel · Sep 9, 2017

The off-kilter camera angles are fine by themselves but they're used too often and thus make it really easy to know when a scary scene will happen. It's a blaring foghorn that Pennywise will show up.

Dalek · Sep 9, 2017

By the way-that bathroom scene was top notch. Completely unsettling.

Jarmel · Sep 9, 2017

Boke1879 said:
He doesn't eat Bev because she's not scared of him. But you'd think he'd just say fuck it and get it out of the way.

She sees the deadlights and is comatose for probably five minutes on-screen before Ben kisses her and snaps her out of it.

Completely non-threatening.

GhaleonEB · Sep 9, 2017

rackham said:
How can I not frame it as that. They fucking flat out said that the clown has been around for hundreds of years but I guess that just isn't enough for you guys because clearly you want to see more dead kids.

I just got back from seeing the movie, and reading the past page or two, that's not what they're saying at all.

IT stopped being scary around the 5th time it failed to get one of the kids. We needed It to be scary for the back half of the film to work, to have the level of menace and threat rise instead of dissipate, so it could all come to a head in the end. Instead the tension is sucked out by the midpoint because IT seems to be all bark and very little bite.

It's like if the shark in Jaws kept chasing people but never got a kill outside of the first woman that went skinny dipping in the opening. Around the 5th or 6th shark attack where it misses the victim as they pull their legs into the boat, the shark would stop being scary. It's scary because it eats people. If it doesn't, then the threat is not there and we don't fear it.

IT needs to be scary. IT's not, and that is one of the film's biggest failings.

ElBoxyBrown · Sep 9, 2017

Bobby Roberts said:
I don't think it's the worst part. I believe the editing is getting praised primarily because it's a film that is basically just a ton of set-pieces strung together one after another after another and yet it feels like a coherent story when it wraps up.

That shit isn't easy. The structure of this film probably shouldn't work, considering. But it does. So the editing gets praise for how well this cut together.

I know. I'm not saying he's weak. I'm saying he could have been stronger, and fairly easily, too. It's a missed opportunity, but it's not a huge miss. It's a small one.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think Pennywise was at his strongest and the kids found and exploited his gimmick. I believe the kids were better at outpacing him.

Learning to slowly not be afraid of Pennywise is a good thing, imo.

DrEvil · Sep 9, 2017

Boke1879 said:
He doesn't eat Bev because she's not scared of him. But you'd think he'd just say fuck it and get it out of the way.

At the end of the movie she isn't scared of him because she had defeated her father, but the bathroom scene where she is enthralled in hair etc, she is scared shitless and should have been dead as this occurred long before facing her dad.

She somehow escaped before her dad came rushing in, its not like he interrupted it.

I cannot rationalize why bev was not offed during the bathroom blood explosion other than plot contrivance.

GhaleonEB said:
I just got back from seeing the movie, and reading the past page or two, that's not what they're saying at all.

IT stopped being scary around the 5th time it failed to get one of the kids. We needed It to be scary for the back half of the film to work, to have the level of menace and threat rise instead of dissipate, so it could all come to a head in the end. Instead the tension is sucked out by the midpoint because IT seems to be all bark and very little bite.

It's like if the shark in Jaws kept chasing people but never got a kill outside of the first woman that went skinny dipping in the opening. Around the 5th or 6th shark attack where it misses the victim as they pull their legs into the boat, the shark would stop being scary.

It needs to be scary. It's not, and it's one of the film's biggest failings.

Yes. Thank you.

Biggest-Geek-Ever · Sep 9, 2017

The only point I thought the editing was "objectively" bad was during the final fight, where it along with the camera work was a little nauseating in IMAX.

Also, I wasn't bothered with Pennywise not killing anyone on screen in hindsight, because I just don't think the filmmakers were trying to make that kind of movie. I actually kind of enjoyed how pathetic he became towards the end, basically throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the Losers to try and scare them, and failing miserably.

Jarmel · Sep 9, 2017

Want to talk abot plot armor, Ritchie surviving that clown room was bullshit. He didn't even use the Voices but somehow Bill is able to get the door open in time. The fuck?

rackham · Sep 9, 2017

GhaleonEB said:
I just got back from seeing the movie, and reading the past page or two, that's not what they're saying at all.

IT stopped being scary around the 5th time it failed to get one of the kids. We needed It to be scary for the back half of the film to work, to have the level of menace and threat rise instead of dissipate, so it could all come to a head in the end. Instead the tension is sucked out by the midpoint because IT seems to be all bark and very little bite.

It's like if the shark in Jaws kept chasing people but never got a kill outside of the first woman that went skinny dipping in the opening. Around the 5th or 6th shark attack where it misses the victim as they pull their legs into the boat, the shark would stop being scary.

It needs to be scary. It's not, and it's one of the film's biggest failings.

That argument doesn't work because it kills Patrick and some other kid. It is killing so yeah that is clearly the argument.
Also, calling it a "failing" is hyperbole. The movie works for the majority of audiences. I wasn't scared of the movie and thought it had great tension and very enjoyable.

Bobby Roberts · Sep 9, 2017

ElBoxyBrown said:
I think Pennywise was at his strongest

I just don't see how you arrive at that since by that point he'd gone something like 70min without an onscreen kill? Something like that.

Ghaleon explained it pretty well a couple posts up.

Again - it's not a BIG complaint! Not at all. But it is there.

ElBoxyBrown · Sep 9, 2017

DrEvil said:
At the end of the movie she isn't scared of him because she had defeated her father, but the bathroom scene where she is enthralled in hair etc, she is scared shitless and should have been dead.

She somehow escaped before her dad came rushing in, its not like he interrupted it.

I cannot rationalize why bev was not offed during the bathroom blood explosion other than plot contrivance.

You might as well question why Freddy doesn't kill someone else on Elm Street instead of a select group of people trying to defy him.

Bobby Roberts said:
I just don't see how you arrive at that since by that point he'd gone something like 70min without an onscreen kill? Something like that.

Ghaleon explained it pretty well a couple posts up.

Again - it's not a BIG complaint! Not at all. But it is there.

It's a personal preference at this point. I don't need to see an on-screen kill for me to justify that he is strong.

IdreamofHIME · Sep 9, 2017

Why did Pennywise kill Georgie real quick but not the others?
Same reason I sometimes open the fridge and eat a chicken leg or steal a pickle straight from the jar. It fills a hole, but nothing beats a Thanksgiving dinner for full satisfaction.

.. especially if your nap after is 3 decades.

Poor GRIMES · Sep 9, 2017

Bobby Roberts said:
Let 'em know, Boke:

It's this. You wanna see him kill a kid because then the threat is real. Or Real-er. As the film goes on, and Pennywise just keeps missing the target, the threat behind him dissipates naturally. And as he gets bigger/bolder/crazier in response, that size just kinda hollows out, because he somehow never manages to get a kill on anyone but Georgie and Patrick. The film is all about kids going missing and IT watching from the sidelines, but the film also kinda needs IT to get some of these redshirt kids ONSCREEN so the threat level stays high.

So far as Georgie's death goes, I remember one of the drafts featured Pennywise flat out just horking Georgie back from the sewer. The old woman watches the clown swallow him whole like an Owl consuming a rat, with Georgie's legs kicking/flailing all the way down.

Obviously they decided to go with the arm rip - but then they didn't let Georgie's eyes fill with rain as he died in the street, which is one of the most disturbing visuals in the whole book.

The movie entire is kinda like that. It finds an in-between spot and gets comfy there, but the longer it stays, the more antsy/itchy you get for it to pick a lane. If you're going to ignore the town history to that extent, make Pennywise way deadlier. But if you're going to back off Pennywise's physical threat, you better amp up the town's decrepitude.

The movie is not a slasher film and gratuitous gore and death does not make a film's atmosphere more oppressive by any means.

Psychoward · Sep 9, 2017

DrEvil said:
At the end of the movie she isn't scared of him because she had defeated her father, but the bathroom scene where she is enthralled in hair etc, she is scared shitless and should have been dead as this occurred long before facing her dad.

She somehow escaped before her dad came rushing in, its not like he interrupted it.

I cannot rationalize why bev was not offed during the bathroom blood explosion other than plot contrivance.

Yes. Thank you.

Yeah agreed with that at least, I get that It plays with its victims and all but some things veered on cop-out territory.

Can we talk about how great the Cop was?

Bobby Roberts · Sep 9, 2017

Poor GRIMES said:
The movie is not a slasher film and gratuitous gore and death does not make a film's atmosphere more oppressive by any means.

But that shit is in the movie already. It's all there. I'm not arguing for gore and death in a vaccuum. I'm talking about the context of this film specifically.

I'm arguing for a more effective, efficient use of what's already very present gore and filth, to provide extra emphasis and oomph to the villain's very specific villainy (i.e. IT EATS KIDS) so as to make the victory by the Losers a little more emphatic.

That's all.

DrEvil · Sep 9, 2017

rackham said:
That argument doesn't work because it kills Patrick and some other kid. It is killing so yeah that is clearly the argument.
Also, calling it a "failing" is hyperbole. The movie works for the majority of audiences. I wasn't scared of the movie and thought it had great tension and very enjoyable.

You know what else worked for the majority of audiences? Voting for Hilary*.

You can't hide behind "everyone else liked it, why didn't you?" As an argument against why we are criticizing the film, we can differ on our opinions sure, but everyone is entitled to have a point of view without being attacked as wrong.

*I am Canadian.

ElBoxyBrown said:
You might as well question why Freddy doesn't kill someone else on Elm Street instead of a select group of people trying to defy him.

It's a personal preference at this point. I don't need to see an on-screen kill for me to justify that he is strong.

It feeds into the larger argument that pennywise could and should have offed a couple of the loser group because he had ample opportunity with no resistance yet somehow still failed to do so because of... reasons?

kaitoe · Sep 9, 2017

HiiiLife said:
What would be yalls fav scene?

1. House
2. Garage projector
3. Library

Opening - The interaction between Georgie and Bill was so freakin' adorable that I teared up knowing he was going to die
Quarry - The piano music that faded in with the slow motion "holy shit" in background followed by them playing in the water was so touching that I couldn't stop smiling
Garage - Huge-Pennywise popping out of the screen was genius

The rock fight and the house were pretty great too.

Jarmel · Sep 9, 2017

IdreamofHIME said:
Why did Pennywise kill Georgie real quick but not the others?
Same reason I sometimes open the fridge and eat a chicken leg or steal a pickle straight from the jar. It fills a hole, but nothing beats a Thanksgiving dinner for full satisfaction.

.. especially if your nap after is 3 decades.

Why did it not bite Stan's face off? Stan was apparently good enough to start eating but he somehow survives while Georgie has his arm ripped off in a flash.

Support NeoGAF

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

Banned

Un Rama

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Super Sleuth

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

not a medical professional

Banned

Banned

Banned

hide your water-based mammals

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

not a medical professional

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

not a medical professional

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

not a medical professional

Member

Banned

Similar threads