Remove ads

Stephen King's IT

Burning Baron said:
Tim Curry's Pennywise was terrifying, because the makeup and costume was the same as any other circus clown. That, and Tim Curry really brought Pennywise to life, whereas this Pennywise comes off more as 'Scary Clown' trope #5864. He looks like the 'Killer Clown' hysteria around last Halloween. Part of the Tim Curry character was that, until the teeth came out, anyone may think it was just another clown. Like what happened to Georgie. He had a lure, not 'om nom nom children.'
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That, and the miniseries' director understood that what makes Pennywise scary isn't just that he's a monster who kills people. Its that there shouldn't be a clown in the middle of the sewer/locker room/abandoned factory. He's standing there with a handful of balloons, eagerly waiting to hand them out to nonexistent crowds in a place where it would never make sense for a clown to be. It creates this sense of unreality, where you're not sure if this is real life or a dream, and plays into It's whole message about children experiencing a different and more chaotic reality than adults do.

If Pennywise just moves and acts like a generic slasher movie monster throughout his appearances as the trailers suggest, then there's no point in even making him a clown in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Leila Hann said:
That, and the miniseries' director understood that what makes Pennywise scary isn't just that he's a monster who kills people. Its that there shouldn't be a clown in the middle of the sewer/locker room/abandoned factory. He's standing there with a handful of balloons, eagerly waiting to hand them out to nonexistent crowds in a place where it would never make sense for a clown to be. It creates this sense of unreality, where you're not sure if this is real life or a dream, and plays into It's whole message about children experiencing a different and more chaotic reality than adults do.

If Pennywise just moves and acts like a generic slasher movie monster throughout his appearances as the trailers suggest, then there's no point in even making him a clown in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The thing is, in the book, Pennywise the Clown barely ever shows up to kill someone. Usually, he appears in some other form, a form that terrifies the person and suits the environment, in order to kill them. Two of them got attacked by a wolfman, another was chased by the mummy, another got attacked by a giant bird, and one of the bullies got killed by leeches. Pennywise only ever showed up to menace the gang on the side.
 
serra2 said:
The thing is, in the book, Pennywise the Clown barely ever shows up to kill someone. Usually, he appears in some other form, a form that terrifies the person and suits the environment, in order to kill them. Two of them got attacked by a wolfman, another was chased by the mummy, another got attacked by a giant bird, and one of the bullies got killed by leeches. Pennywise only ever showed up to menace the gang on the side.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
:???: What part of Derry would have a mummy? Isn't it supposed to be a small town? I don't think they'd have a museum with an Egypt exhibit.
 
serra2 said:
The thing is, in the book, Pennywise the Clown barely ever shows up to kill someone. Usually, he appears in some other form, a form that terrifies the person and suits the environment, in order to kill them. Two of them got attacked by a wolfman, another was chased by the mummy, another got attacked by a giant bird, and one of the bullies got killed by leeches. Pennywise only ever showed up to menace the gang on the side.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I read the book. The clown basically introduced the other, more monstrous avatars, like an actual ringmaster introducing circus acts. Though there were a few occasions where the clown itself turned into a monstrous form after luring someone close and engulfing them in its (un)reality.

The miniseries did it better than the book, but they both seemed to be going for the same idea.

Insufficient Dakka said:
:???: What part of Derry would have a mummy? Isn't it supposed to be a small town? I don't think they'd have a museum with an Egypt exhibit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Don't remember where the mummy manifested in the book, but in the miniseries it came from some random building in the park. It was one of he best moments of nightmarish surrealism.
 
Last edited:
The book impressed me far more than the TV series. The most horrifying scene in the book isn't even in the movie. In fact, I don't think the character of Patrick is even in the miniseries?

Also the audiobook of It is fucking phenomenal. I really can't recommend it enough. I listen to audiobooks for practical reasons but the fact is, the narrator of It - Steven Weber - makes a really long book just fly by because he gives everyone a great voice. Including IT.\
It

I liked that IT gets...uh, its own chapters in the book. I also liked the wider cosmology laid out here that of course the miniseries cuts out completely.
 
Nikkolas said:
The book impressed me far more than the TV series. The most horrifying scene in the book isn't even in the movie. In fact, I don't think the character of Patrick is even in the miniseries?

Also the audiobook of It is fucking phenomenal. I really can't recommend it enough. I listen to audiobooks for practical reasons but the fact is, the narrator of It - Steven Weber - makes a really long book just fly by because he gives everyone a great voice. Including IT.\
It

I liked that IT gets...uh, its own chapters in the book. I also liked the wider cosmology laid out here that of course the miniseries cuts out completely.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Eh. The cosmology/It chapters seemed like King had written himself into a corner with regards to the entity's origins and motivations. It felt very post-hoc and unfitting.

Patrick Hockstetter was one fucked up and scary kid, though. I agree with that.
 


This has to be a troll but even still. There's been so much talk about "that scene". I wonder if she's actually read the book.
 
The movie It (which cost 35 million to make) has made 117 million in its opening weekend, breaking the previous records for Fall and September openings by more than double, the number one opening for an R-rated horror movie, and the number two opening for R-rated movies of any genre, behind Deadpool's 132 million. Its also opened to excellent critical and audience reviews according to Rotten Tomatoes. So... did anyone here actually see it?
 
Last edited:
It was good; got the unpopular kid group dynamic down just right (down to Richie the joker being the only one that really put the group ahead of himself) even if Pennywise was a lot less menacing and relied more on jump scares.
 
Mutton said:
It was good; got the unpopular kid group dynamic down just right (down to Richie the joker being the only one that really put the group ahead of himself) even if Pennywise was a lot less menacing and relied more on jump scares.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Honestly when they gave him shit to do that wasn't "jump out and try to chomp your face like an angry cat" he was pretty solid imo. Not scary exactly but super fun to watch, you really got the impression that it was just this utterly inhuman thing doing a really bad job (but not quite completely inept one) of seeming human. Just the way he moved, the sort of physicality. The exchange with Georgie and the bits with him in the TV in particular, and later when he's getting pissed off at Bev.
 
TenfoldShields said:
Honestly when they gave him shit to do that wasn't "jump out and try to chomp your face like an angry cat" he was pretty solid imo. Not scary exactly but super fun to watch, you really got the impression that it was just this utterly inhuman thing doing a really bad job (but not quite completely inept one) of seeming human. Just the way he moved, the sort of physicality. The exchange with Georgie and the bits with him in the TV in particular, and later when he's getting pissed off at Bev.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't know, the alterative transformations we're just very rubber costumey and his dance, which should have been the highlight, ended up being workmanlike instead of menacing. If he got to stand still and talk he did way better than any time he had to move and emote.

At least there was no bulimic turtle though.
 
Watched it. Loved it. Went to the cinema with my older brother. The movie got a lot scarier and sadder for him.
 
Just came back from watching it as a birthday treat - it was pretty damn good, and a damn sight better than the 90s miniseries in my opinion. Skarsgard was very very good at portraying something that was in no way human but was still pretending to be, and while some of the special effects were pretty cheesy they actually helped sell the whole 'it's not real, it's playing on their fears' thing more. The kids all turned in solid performances, especially Finn Wolfhard as Richie, and though there were some issues with things like 'we don't know how to write a teenage girl' and Stan and Mike basically just having the characteristics of 'is jewish' and 'parents are dead, is black and homeschooled' respectively, overall very well done. Would recommend.
 
hellgodsrus said:
Just came back from watching it as a birthday treat - it was pretty damn good, and a damn sight better than the 90s miniseries in my opinion. Skarsgard was very very good at portraying something that was in no way human but was still pretending to be, and while some of the special effects were pretty cheesy they actually helped sell the whole 'it's not real, it's playing on their fears' thing more. The kids all turned in solid performances, especially Finn Wolfhard as Richie, and though there were some issues with things like 'we don't know how to write a teenage girl' and Stan and Mike basically just having the characteristics of 'is jewish' and 'parents are dead, is black and homeschooled' respectively, overall very well done. Would recommend.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agreed. Stan is forgivable because
He offs himself early into the timeskip
, Mike less so since his role as "The Historian" was passed over to Ben. Hopefully he gets some more screen time in the next one.

I get the teenage girl thing. I was a bit irked by Bev being the damsel in distress in the third act, but I can kind of forgive it in that she spent the prior 2/3 of the movie being the single most pro-active character - she's only really eclipsed by Billy in that respect way later in the movie (the first time they go into the house on Neibolt street).
 
randomideguy said:
Agreed. Stan is forgivable because
He offs himself early into the timeskip
, Mike less so since his role as "The Historian" was passed over to Ben. Hopefully he gets some more screen time in the next one.

I get the teenage girl thing. I was a bit irked by Bev being the damsel in distress in the third act, but I can kind of forgive it in that she spent the prior 2/3 of the movie being the single most pro-active character - she's only really eclipsed by Billy in that respect way later in the movie (the first time they go into the house on Neibolt street).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I meant more the fact that while she was pro-active her only other character traits were being hot, and having a generic abusive rapey dad (and totally falling for the first nice guy to come along and not actually write a poem to her). I really really hope they don't give her an abusive partner in the sequel like she has in the book because that would just be... ugh.

Incidentally, who do you want to see as the grown up versions of the kids?
 
hellgodsrus said:
I meant more the fact that while she was pro-active her only other character traits were being hot, and having a generic abusive rapey dad (and totally falling for the first nice guy to come along and not actually write a poem to her). I really really hope they don't give her an abusive partner in the sequel like she has in the book because that would just be... ugh.

Incidentally, who do you want to see as the grown up versions of the kids?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
She was friendly, inclusive, and forceful with a bit of mischief. If anything she was the single most developed character in the whole film.
 
Mutton said:
She was friendly, inclusive, and forceful with a bit of mischief. If anything she was the single most developed character in the whole film.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not really? I mean, she was one of the more developed ones along with Billy and Eddie (and to a lesser extent Ben and Richie), but her characteristics were so fucking cliche and dull they barely made an impact.

Compare to, well, Richie, who got to be a foul-mouthed little shit for the whole movie but was one of the first ones to help comfort Stan, and whose initial reaction to Pennywise setting his fear on him showed both remarkable composure/genre saviness and remarkable lack of composure. His speech when they decided to fight Pennywise really showed how far he'd come and how far they'd come as a group. "Now I have to kill this fucking clown" is 900% more interesting as characterisation than anything Beverly does or says.
 
hellgodsrus said:
I meant more the fact that while she was pro-active her only other character traits were being hot, and having a generic abusive rapey dad (and totally falling for the first nice guy to come along and not actually write a poem to her). I really really hope they don't give her an abusive partner in the sequel like she has in the book because that would just be... ugh.

Incidentally, who do you want to see as the grown up versions of the kids?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agreed. I feel like in the original they really play up the fact that the kids pretty much repress the whole thing, thus making it a little more believable that they more or less fall into the same traps in adulthood that they conquered as kids (such as Eddie dating a woman who is much like his mom). I think since this is more chronological, they will have to do some serious expanding of the time skip story.

Re: Bev, I disagree, but I can see how you could see that. It's kind of in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. I think maybe thematically Richie would've worked best as the kidnapee since he was the only one who hadn't really had a developed fear beyond "I don't like clowns".

But then again, I like the interpretation that she was kidnapped because she was the only one in the group who was wholly unafraid of It.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top