Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

"That scene" is not going to be in the movie. There is no reason to assume will be in the movie. It is a fundamentally widely-mocked and rarely-liked scene in a film adaptation that is already taking plenty of more-controversial liberties with the concept anyway. There is no logical reason to even mention that scene except to make sure everyone knows you don't want in it because, no, the scene is not going to be in.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Yeah, the scariest part of It isn't the clown or the monsters. It's the sense of subtle passive hostility that radiates from Derry. Be it the fake asthma medicine to the people who ignore violence and death to the just genuine sense of malicious ignorance that fills the town. It's scary not just because of how awful it is but because at its core it is a lot more plausible than the evil space spider.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Tenzarin posted:

I rewatched the made for tv movies last night, its almost comically how ignorant and malevolent the common people of the town are. Like how no adults trust the kids and even that kid who the fat kid's family is living with saying that they only took them in because of their "Christian's duty". Its almost like the small town deserves to be preyed upon by a giant spider monster.

The second part gets so boring for me to watch. They go into the sewers with a sling shot? These are grown adults and they show them being kinda successful. They couldn't be bothered to bring any guns to hunt IT? Isn't one of them a cop too?

A major factor with It is that it isn't vulnerable to actual weapons. It's vulnerable to childish faith. The reason why it waits until they are adults to get revenge is that it believes (largely correctly) that they no longer have the ability to hurt it.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

It also goes into entirely too much detail that it probably didn't need to which kinda weakens any symbolic value in favor of "did I really need to hear discussions on dick size?"

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

What is the Black Spot sequence for someone who never read the book?

It's basically Mike's father telling a story about his army days (guest starring Dick from The Shining) where they dealt with institutionalized racism by building their own club, making it better than the white officer's club, and then it got burned down by the KKK (or a vaugly-renamed offshoot, I forget) and a lot innocent people burned inside. It's by far the most mundane of the "Derry" stories but that is what makes it creepy.

ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Apr 4, 2017

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

I stand by my feeling that the scariest thing Stephen King has ever written was "The Jaunt."

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

I am like 90% sure that's a troll and 'that scene' is referring to the scene from the trailer where they're hopping into the river.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Why would a little girl even troll about that? There's nothing about that tweet that isn't deeply unsettling.

If you're asking on Somethingawful.com why a teenager would make a joke like that, well... the answer is because 'they're a teenager.'

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Is this really a discussion we need to be having?

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

The genuinely scary thing about Bowers is the idea that even if It hadn't been involved at all he very well might have killed one or more of the Losers. Obviously that relies on the general awfulness of adults in the town and the general air of hosed-upness that Pennywise encouraged but it wasn't It at all and you could easily have gotten a horror story just out of this one hosed up bully getting more and more screwed up as his targets don't let themselves get bullied.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Super Fan posted:

He did murder his brother but I don't recall his dad suspecting him. It's been awhile since I read it though.

Nah, there's totally a moment where his dad (I think) notices something and gets a weird feeling and tries to ignore it because otherwise he's going to figure it out.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

joylessdivision posted:

I found out today that King has apparently written something like 62 novels, and I'm just :psyduck:

I mean I knew the man was prolific but god drat I didn't realize he'd written that many loving novels.

He also has an absolutely absurd amount of those made into movies. It's sort of insane when you think about how many books he's written that have film adaptations, even if they're wildly different. (Running Man.)

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

It's probably a cut back to Bill.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

FreudianSlippers posted:

I'm listening to the audiobook of this and poo poo man. Ritchie just did one of his racist audio-blackface voices right in front of Mike and no one went "Woah! What the gently caress Ritchie?!?". I mean it was 1985 but surely someone would've said something.

People, for good or ill, tend to be a lot more forgiving of poo poo when it comes from a friend. That said I'm pretty sure Mike does say something to Richie about it later at some point (though I may be misremembering.)

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Writers who can create good evocative names are few and far between. It's always genuinely impressive to me when people can pull it off because making a good name is loving hard. People who can pull off on-the-nose names deserve a bit more credit than they usually get because damned if it isn't hard.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Hodgepodge posted:

The kids are right about the age to be able to percieve It as Lavos during the final showdown as adults...

:getin:

I assume you meant Gygas.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

"Bev gets kidnapped to motivate the boys" is the stupidest loving change ever, holy poo poo.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Das Boo posted:

I was just kinda hoping you'd get more book Bev this time around, where she has a reputation as a rough girl that people are too afraid/intimidated by to approach. The idea that she was acting out and driving people away due to fear seated in her relationship with her father was a realistic depiction. She didn't want to be a victim and was exerting the only control a child actually has. That was an issue I had with the original mini-series, where she just went from "delicate, scared girl" to "weird slut vibe adult...?" Book Bev was always bubbling below the surface for the chance to fight back. It's even noted that her ferocity was the primary factor in her success. I really liked that. The spoiler undermines her character's primary motivation for no real reason and it bothers me. Shoulda been Stan.

And yeah, her dad was definitely ramping up to molestation post-puberty. I know a person who went through the same drat thing and when he mentioned "checking," I told myself she could never read this book. She even disliked 10 Cloverfield Lane because it reminded her too much of her relationship with her father. :(

Yeah, I have a friend in a similar situation. She actually loves horror but the stuff with Bev and her father is entirely too far in the bad direction for her. It's, for all King's weirdness, a surprisingly plausible depiction. I think that can be said about a lot of derry's weirdness which is what makes it sort of stand home. "Adults being lovely and awful to children" is a more believable horror than evil clown mans.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Das Boo posted:

I was a step ahead of the movie the entire time with the exception of one scene, and I imagine that true for anyone who's watched a bit of the genre. That is a problem in terms of horror. If you want a good recent example of horror, look at the first half of Insidious. Everything has your mind panicking to catch up or scrambling to understand "Did I really just see that?" The unknown is the core of fear. Having a firm grasp of the scene, knowing, spoils that.

Like I said, it's an exceptional 80's children's adventure movie.

I am honestly at a bit of a loss what horror movie this doesn't apply to. I'm not trying to judge your criticism but "I could anticipate what was coming" is something I can say about almost every horror movie I've seen except for when I was young because beyond a certain point you learn to read the language. I didn't at all have the response to Insidious that you did for example.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Das Boo posted:

There's more to horror than being surprised. You need to come away with the knowledge that you failed to either anticipate or react and that what happened to the character could happen to you. You should never be ahead of your character in horror.

I guess to me this is just a difference in how one watches horror. It sounds like you watch it a lot differently than I do. A lot of my favorite horror is stuff where I genuinely find it predictable and can anticipate it but the fear is not for myself but for the characters. You can argue It drains some of that with being a two-part film but I'd usually able to shove that side for films. Anticipation and knowing something is coming is more important to horror to me than failing to anticipate it because it heightens my own tension and concern for the characters because I, as the viewer, know what is coming. To me the scariest part of horror is the knowledge that you know something is coming and are unable to stop it. (Even if that something is just a jump or a scare.)

I'm that way outside of horror too. I find the buildup to, for example, shame or humiliation in a character infinitely harder to watch than the actual shame of humiliation.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Das Boo posted:

Also this is probably my only chance to bring this up on-topic: The haiku's always bugged me because it only works if "fire" is on the second line, but it's never written like that. Not criticism or detraction of the film, just a stick in my craw 20 years running. :mad:

To be fair it's written by a little kid!

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Deadulus posted:

Can Pennywise not physically harm someone that isn't scared?

There's some pretty strong implication in the book that he needs fear to be genuinely powerful, yes. (Though not to have others do the killing for him.)

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

WattsvilleBlues posted:

The kidding and adult parts of the book are intercut with each other, really effectively actually.

There will be a sequel for the movie but the book will have no follow up.

To be fair King has actually hinted at a followup to It. The Losers appear in some of his other books (most recently his JFK assassination one where Richie and Bev make a fairly significant appearance) and scattered throughout his books are hints that It has survived, things like "Pennywise Lives" graffiti. I don't know if he'll pull the switch but he did make a sequel to The Shining so...

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

935 posted:

Box office returns are in, IT only made a paltry $123,000,000 opening weekend and may be on track to be the second highest grossing R rated movie ever (inflation notwithstanding). Sorry to dash your hopes of part two ever happening :(

Jesus, isn't that like double the takings of the second highest rated R-rated horror?

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

The Berzerker posted:

Yes.

"Not only is It now the largest ever opening for a horror movie and the largest September opening of all time, the film more than doubled the earnings of the previous record holders. Before this weekend, Paranormal Activity 3 had the biggest horror opening with $52.6m from 2011, and the highest September debut was Hotel Transylvania 2’s $48.5m in 2015." (from here)

It demolished the box office. It also had a bigger opening than every other movie that came out this summer with the exception of Guardians of the Galaxy 2

That is absolutely crazy. It'll be interesting to see if it keeps momentum but at very least that's an insane debut.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

ZeeBoi posted:

Remember when It used Audra to lure Bill to his lair? Total damsel in distress. :buddy:

... Yes? I'm not sure if you're trying for an ice burn here but that is in fact exactly what happened there in the book. Whatever you say about Bev in the movie, Audra in the book is basically a non-character.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

LORD OF BOOTY posted:

:stare:

holy poo poo, his parents must be mortified

I mean I'm pretty sure if you're okay with your kid being in the R-rated movie about murdermolestoclown you've probably accepted they probably know some swear words.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

GonSmithe posted:

It's only two

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

CopywrightMMXI posted:

Like Spider-man?

Spins a web any size, catches children just like flies.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Arivia posted:

My understanding of King's criticism of many adaptations is that they're not good adaptations. The Shining is supposedly great (I haven't seen it), but King's discussion of it in Doctor Sleep's notes makes it clear that he objects to how Kubrick took out the emotional heart of his original work, and not that it's not a good movie.

I genuinely can't understand why you would say Stand by Me or Shawkshank Redemption are bad adaptations.

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Inzombiac posted:

Okay sure but my point was that she automatically dislikes any adaptation because she feels like its a dump on King's vision. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I think we've all known people who take a work of fiction too seriously and feel a kind of unearned kinship with the creator.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007


I mean it's not like he's going to have much of a role.

  • Locked thread