• 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)

K

kswiston

Member
Bobby Roberts said:
Budget on this thing was reportedly less than 40mil, correct?

It looks very, very good for a price that low.
Click to expand...

I think that I read $35M in one of the trades. The production budget will be made back on the first two days of domestic gross, assuming around a 50/50 split for the Studio. I don't know what WB spent on P&A, but that probably won't take much time to make back either.

Last I checked, UK and Australia grosses looked good as well.
 
B

BackLogJoe

Member
youngplaya21 said:
It's kinda hard to explain without a wall of text imo, but I'd say the simplest explanation is that it's a nod that the movie is part of King's cinematic universe. Just like how the Dark Tower trailer had an 'It' nod:

IT-movie-links-to-The-Dark-Tower-1013260.jpg
Click to expand...

I think It was released before The Dark Tower. It's not a nod to the cinematic universe. It's kind of the source of power for the kids.
 
D

DerekOfTheDykes

Member
Bobby Roberts said:
Budget on this thing was reportedly less than 40mil, correct?

It looks very, very good for a price that low.
Click to expand...

That would explain it. Yeah, a 40mil budget isn't that much to go on considering the sheer amount of effects work this movie needed to go through to get it right.

In that case, it's a miracle all the CGI works as well as it does, and a testament to good design and direction. Those setpieces were phenominally well executed, and very imaginative.
 
C

causan

Member
gagecube said:
I saw this movie. I loved this movie. Should I read the book? I never have, and I haven’t seen the old movie since I was a kid, so I remember nothing
Click to expand...

Definitely. I read the book back in high school and loved it but recently I did the audio book version last year and the narrator does a awesome performance. I definitely can recommend that version as well.
 
L

Liamc723

Member
Just got out of my screening, absolutely amazing!

I haven't read the book and the OT talked about "that scene" from the book not being in the film. What is that?
 
K

Kuraudo

Banned
Liamc723 said:
Just got out of my screening, absolutely amazing!

I haven't read the book and the OT talked about "that scene" from the book not being in the film. What is that?
Click to expand...

They get lost in the sewers on the way out from Pennywise's layer. In order to calm everyone, Beverley has sex with them all in turn.
 
S

Sullichin

Member
Liamc723 said:
What the fuuuck!?
Click to expand...

Stephen King was on cocaine.

But really, the reasoning behind it is that the kids were
guided by a supernatural force (the turtle) to help find their way and defeat IT. After they hurt IT, they start to lose this bond and they become lost. This was their way of forming another bond.
. Yeah it's as fucked up as it sounds.


Loved the movie, although the pacing seemed weird. Like, if I didn't know the book so well I think I might be confused as to what's going on. It seemed to assume a certain amount of knowledge of the viewer already.
 
M

More_Badass

Member
Sullichin said:
Stephen King was on cocaine.

But really, the reasoning behind it is that the kids were
guided by a supernatural force (the turtle) to help find their way and defeat IT. After they hurt IT, they start to lose this bond and they become lost. This was their way of forming another bond.
. Yeah it's as fucked up as it sounds.
Click to expand...
You could also argue that it was meant to be a kind of arc with Bev rebelling against the control of her father had over her.
Doesn't makes it any less fucked up
 
L

Liamc723

Member
Sullichin said:
Stephen King was on cocaine.

But really, the reasoning behind it is that the kids were
guided by a supernatural force (the turtle) to help find their way and defeat IT. After they hurt IT, they start to lose this bond and they become lost. This was their way of forming another bond.
. Yeah it's as fucked up as it sounds.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's errm, certainly something.

It would have been completely out of place in the film.
 
D

DerekOfTheDykes

Member
Liamc723 said:
What the fuuuck!?
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, King has openly regretted writing that bit in. He was coked to the gills for a good chunk of his career, so he doesn't even remember writing a lot of what he wrote and he despises some of it (or certain specific chunks in this case).
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
He wrote both IT and The Tommyknockers (which is probably his worst book) right around his rock bottom point. Tommyknockers actually got interrupted by an intervention his family held (knowing this explains a lot of that book's weird digressions)

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if his wife learning that he had spent a couple weeks writing two really weird and completely unneccessary child sex scenes into his 1000 page behemoth about interstellar eldritch clown-monsters was one of the tipping points to be like "we're gonna have to get this guy in a fucking room here real soon"

re: The Pharmacist - if I remember correctly, he was one of the few good adults in the town, wasn't he? Now he's just another adult perving on Bev.
 
M

Majora

Member
Can someone who has read the book explain the rules or constraints that IT has to abide by, because if there's one thing both the miniseries and movie completely fail to communicate, it is WHY IT behaves the way it does. I was hoping the movie may make it clearer but it's every bit as obtuse to me as it was before.

I have read before that the book explains that he likes to 'salt the meat' through invoking fear in the kids first. That makes sense and is reasonably convenient justification as to why he doesn't just kill all the kids outright at the very first opportunity.

However, even this seems inconsistent. Why does he not try to scare Georgie before killing him? He lures him but doesn't outright scare him like he does the other kids. Why is this the case? He also doesn't seem to shapeshift to represent any sort of deep rooted fear with Patrick - why is this? Why is he interested in representing deep rooted fears for some of the kids, in order to scare them, but not others?

Also, why does he appear so incompetent at killing some kids but not others? With Georgie and Patrick he is absolutely ruthless and barely gives them any chance to escape. He is, as far as I can tell, capable of jumping OUT of any object he wants, changing INTO any object he wants, and basically popping up whenever and wherever he pleases. With these powers he should be able to both scare the kids AND ensure that they never escape, because how could they ever compete with that?

Yet scene after scene in both the miniseries and the movie, it just shows the kids casually escaping. Now of course for narrative purposes they have to stay alive, but they don't even seem to have to do all that much to escape him. If the movie showed them outsmarting him, or acquiring knowledge they use to defeat him, that would be fine. But it doesn't. For most of the fear sections, they just run out of the room or run for ten seconds and IT just gives up. Why? He is simultaneously portrayed as incredibly powerful and capable of nearly anything, and ridiculously useless.

If there is some justification given for this in the novel, it is completely ignored in both screen adaptations as far as I can tell.
 
E

elrechazado

Banned
Bobby Roberts said:
He wrote both IT and The Tommyknockers (which is probably his worst book) right around his rock bottom point. Tommyknockers actually got interrupted by an intervention his family held (knowing this explains a lot of that book's weird digressions)

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if his wife learning that he had spent a couple weeks writing two really weird and completely unneccessary child sex scenes into his 1000 page behemoth about interstellar eldritch clown-monsters was one of the tipping points to be like "we're gonna have to get this guy in a fucking room here real soon"

re: The Pharmacist - if I remember correctly, he was one of the few good adults in the town, wasn't he? Now he's just another adult perving on Bev.
Click to expand...
Naw, he is specifically described in the narration as not a good person.

"Mr. Keene grinned a little. If Bill had seen that grin it might have gone a good way toward confirming his idea that Mr. Keene was not exactly one of the world's champion nice guys. It was sour. The grin of a man who has found much to wonder about, but almost nothing to uplift in the human condition."
 
M

MetalliCabombination

Member
Saw it in an IMAX last night.
fucking phenomenal movie, far from the scariest but god damn did it deliver on what it set out to do
I loved every time it subverted the audience's expectations and everyone went HOLY SHIT, did they really just show a clown biting off a kid's hand in graphics detail?
and then my so closed her eyes when mullet was aiming at the cat sure that she was gonna die but nope.
This was certainly a way more accurate portrayal of pennywise as well.Great acting and setpieces . none of that schlocky hide in the dark bullshit by the evil entity either, he was a very physical threat from the get go. i loved that.
mullet's end and the fat kid's romance arc couldve been handled better.
overall, why the fuck isnt part 2 official yet? the chapter 1 thing at the end made it seem like it is but the marketing doesnt imply that whatsoever .
 
Hesemonni

Hesemonni

Banned
I didn't know they were doing it in two movies. Knowing what they did with Dark Tower I was kinda expecting them to cram it all in one movie. So a pleasant surprise there!

The bite scene was definately something I didn't expect.
 
M

MetalliCabombination

Member
Majora said:
Can someone who has read the book explain the rules or constraints that IT has to abide by, because if there's one thing both the miniseries and movie completely fail to communicate, it is WHY IT behaves the way it does. I was hoping the movie may make it clearer but it's every bit as obtuse to me as it was before.

I have read before that the book explains that he likes to 'salt the meat' through invoking fear in the kids first. That makes sense and is reasonably convenient justification as to why he doesn't just kill all the kids outright at the very first opportunity.

However, even this seems inconsistent. Why does he not try to scare Georgie before killing him? He lures him but doesn't outright scare him like he does the other kids. Why is this the case? He also doesn't seem to shapeshift to represent any sort of deep rooted fear with Patrick - why is this? Why is he interested in representing deep rooted fears for some of the kids, in order to scare them, but not others?

Also, why does he appear so incompetent at killing some kids but not others? With Georgie and Patrick he is absolutely ruthless and barely gives them any chance to escape. He is, as far as I can tell, capable of jumping OUT of any object he wants, changing INTO any object he wants, and basically popping up whenever and wherever he pleases. With these powers he should be able to both scare the kids AND ensure that they never escape, because how could they ever compete with that?

Yet scene after scene in both the miniseries and the movie, it just shows the kids casually escaping. Now of course for narrative purposes they have to stay alive, but they don't even seem to have to do all that much to escape him. If the movie showed them outsmarting him, or acquiring knowledge they use to defeat him, that would be fine. But it doesn't. For most of the fear sections, they just run out of the room or run for ten seconds and IT just gives up. Why? He is simultaneously portrayed as incredibly powerful and capable of nearly anything, and ridiculously useless.

If there is some justification given for this in the novel, it is completely ignored in both screen adaptations as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

i just had to turn off my brain for some bits tbh, for one the fat kid gets his belly ripped twice and no one seems to give enough shits, especially the second time with the adult in proximity.
adults just existed to be oppressive creeps
IT attacks gorgie when he's barely starting to comprehend the threat, but hygine kid is all alone in IT's stronghold , all scared up on the ground ready to be eater and he lets them go..
im also not sure if what he did with the illusions was just psychological or real withing a different realm or something, when the kids are cleaning the blood , its there, they have bags of it, its definitely something so what is it and whatll the adults see if they open the bag?
i did like how he got defeated tho, he kept using the same old predator scare tricks that eventually wear out and only make the kids angrier and forget their fear, that stuff goes for a lot of horror movies that just become boring when they keep scaring you with the same thing over and over without resolution
 
G

Garlador

Member
elrechazado said:
Naw, he is specifically described in the narration as not a good person.

"Mr. Keene grinned a little. If Bill had seen that grin it might have gone a good way toward confirming his idea that Mr. Keene was not exactly one of the world's champion nice guys. It was sour. The grin of a man who has found much to wonder about, but almost nothing to uplift in the human condition."
Click to expand...

Isn't the pharmacist also scamming Eddie's mother by charging her a ton of money for placebo medication for her son, like how his inhaler is just water vapor?
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
I thought he never liked that he was doing that (which is where I got the idea he was one of the only nice-ish adults in Derry), and his telling Eddie was done as a mercy (although I think it was also a little malicious too maybe?)

But yeah, Mrs. Kaspbrak's method of control over Eddie wasn't really addressed at any point in the film until Eddie breaks it. Up until his yelling at her, she's just kind of a gross presence, not a psychological abuser.
 
V

Vinc

Member
This was one of my favorite book adaptations of all time, I'm completely amazed at how good it was. I never expected them to do such a great job. As someone who loved the book, which I read for the first time last year, this was as perfect an adaptation as I could ask for. And it's a wonderful movie in its own right, regardless of genre.

I'm glad to see it's doing well, because it's totally deserved.
 
R

rgoulart

Member
DerekOfTheDykes said:
One form of It in particular
(the crooked woman)
gave me major Junji Ito vibes, only reinforced when
the kids find her chewing on Stan's face inside the well
. It almost couldn't be unintentional, that was definitely Ito-inspired.
Click to expand...

Also, it was totally a reference to Mama, from Andy Muschietti.
 
H

HiiiLife

Member
PapaGreg95 said:
Am I the only one here who liked the painting effect, I thought that the CG made it very uncanny but in a good way
Click to expand...

Wasn't a fan at all. Didn't find it creepy. The leper was cool, though. Maybe it was just the screening I went to but I'm planning on catching another showing in a couple hours at Alamo.
 
D

DerekOfTheDykes

Member
rgoulart said:
Also, it was totally a reference to Mama, from Andy Muschietti.
Click to expand...

Holy shit, it is DEFINITELY a slightly more exaggerated version of Mama. I apparently do not remember that movie very well, I forgot she looked like that.

Wonder if Muschietti (who worked on both films) is an Ito fan? We know GDT is, and he executive produced Mama. It's just a pretty distinctive visual style that is exceptionally rare to see other places.

It's just hard not to see Ito in that shot when the crooked woman pulls its face up, and the jaw... well, doesn't come up with the rest of it.
 
N

Nightwing123

Member
I just finished watching IT with some friends and as a fan of the book I have to say it was great. IT completely meet my expectations, so I'm happy to see that the movie is doing well. The movie completely deserves its success.
 
T

TheChewyWaffles

Member
So I had to leave the theater unexpectedly when the young kid was just confronting his mother about the pills being placebos. How far away from the end was I?
 
M

MetroidPrimeRib

Banned
Majora said:
Can someone who has read the book explain the rules or constraints that IT has to abide by, because if there's one thing both the miniseries and movie completely fail to communicate, it is WHY IT behaves the way it does. I was hoping the movie may make it clearer but it's every bit as obtuse to me as it was before.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the novel and barely remember the miniseries other then disliking it, but I have a huge issue with supernatural creatures and rules. I like when something has at least inferable rules like The Ring and isn't total inescapable bull shit like the 2016 Blair Witch movie or the Grudge.

Saying that I thought IT was explained fine. Knowing what the thing actually is, a really old and deep fucker type of evil that feeds on fear, it worked for me. It is powerful when It is luring a single person outside of a safe place, or a place naturally fearful like the dark basement or the sewers. The kids are always being lured away. If the kids are alone or don't feel safe, then they are vulnerable I think. When the kids are together or end up leaving, It backs off, presumably because it has all the time in the world (this thing is at least 200-300 years old, probably older) and It says the meat and flesh taste better the more fear is in it. Georgie and Patrick were alone and thus fucked. Although that doesn't seem to mean It wont try to attack them, like in the garage with the projector so I can see what you mean.

I think when it comes to mind trickery, a lot of things can be explained away. People seem to unknowingly enter some kind of pocket dimension that isn't perceivable by others, kind of like how Silent Hill works, which makes sense because King inspired the hell out of those games. I swear in the background of the library scene, the lady librarian is giving a barely noticeable death glare at the fat kid the entire time. Like you cant make out her face but its clear she is looking RIGHT at him. If you are able to break that illusion like when they open the garage door or leave the room then you are safe.

That's just how I read it.
 
S

Sullichin

Member
So what did you guys think about the kids literally floating in pennywise's lair?

I thought that was pretty lame. I don't mind how they changed the encounter from the book overall though. But really, actually floating? lol
 
B

Burbeting

Banned
I really liked the film, but it wasn't scary. Marketing it as a horror film was kind of a mistake, when it was much more of a coming of age story with some horror/creepy stuff as driving force of it. Almost all of the casting was great, and the movie just flowed well for me.

I wasn't a big fan of the bullies. They were so over the top it wasn't realistic any more.
 
S

Sullichin

Member
Bobby Roberts said:
I thought it was on-the-nose but smartly so. I liked the visual, too.
Click to expand...

I'm warming up to it the more I think about it. Again, I don't mind they changed the book but it was just jarring and like you said on the nose to see that.

But I guess if those kids are trapped in the deadlights..their bodies might as well be floating catatonically there. And now it actually makes sense that Pennywise says float so much lol
 
B

Burbeting

Banned
The floating was an interesting visual. By that scene it was clear the movie wasn't trying to make you scared, so I was just looking it as an interesting visual desicion.
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
It does make me wonder if they've changed how Pennywise feeds, too: Most of those corpses were whole, not dismembered. And Stan's whole head was engulfed in Aphex Twin's mouth, but it was just teeth marks ringing his face when he let go.

I wonder if Pennywise just swallows your head, shows you the deadlights, and just kinda... sucks your essence out or something like that?

He's not really eating the children, apparently.
 
E

esmith08734

Member
Bobby Roberts said:
It does make me wonder if they've changed how Pennywise feeds, too: Most of those corpses were whole, not dismembered. And Stan's whole head was engulfed in Aphex Twin's mouth, but it was just teeth marks ringing his face when he let go.

I wonder if Pennywise just swallows your head, shows you the deadlights, and just kinda... sucks your essence out or something like that?

He's not really eating the children, apparently.
Click to expand...

I think Pennywise mentions that he will slowly feed once he goes into hibernation. So maybe he's just stocking.
 
zeioIIDX

zeioIIDX

Member
Saw it this morning and really enjoyed it. The chemistry within The Losers felt natural and despite people claiming Mike didn't get enough screen time, I felt he did have some decent screen time. After all, he is home schooled so he wouldn't be around the group much to begin with until the moment he met them.

One of the creepiest bits to me was the
painted flute creature.
Really unsettling. Although the movements of Pennywise in some scenes were effective, I still thought it was a bit silly when he'd vibrate/thrash/float his way towards somebody. Oh, and the camera work in the sewers when Pennywise is
doing his little clown jig in front of the flames
was unsettling as well. Can't quite put my finger on why though.

I was the only one to leave the theater when the credits rolled. Doesn't anyone ever check those internet sites that state whether a film has an after-the-credits scene? Lol.
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
I just leave, regardless.

Anything you don't give a shit enough about to put in your movie proper I don't give a shit about seeing in the theater.

I'll YouTube it later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RDR2 is almost a perfect game for me. (SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!)
2 3
112
4K
danklord replied
Chainsaw Man |OT| True Best Friends Kick Devil Balls Together
2
84
7K
Doom85 replied
James Marsters Knew Dragonball Evolution Was Doomed From His First Day On Set
21
2K
Madflavor replied
Lara Croft Crowned Most Iconic Video Games Character of All Time, According to BAFTA Poll
2 3 4 5
208
8K
ResurrectedContrarian replied
Fallout - Series Reviews
15 16 17 18 19
922
47K
apple_of_enlightenment replied
Top Bottom