We All Float Down Here - IT (September 2017)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > We All Float Down Here - IT (September 2017)

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Just going to quote my thoughts from the horror thread.

The It trailer is pretty good and I'm looking forward to the movie.

I think as much as they have confidence in just how great their look for Pennywise is--and it is an interesting look--I think it misses the mark on Pennywise's whole deal. In reality I think their character has a lot in common with Freddy Krueger in terms of just their disdain for their young victims. Despite their otherworldliness, they are very much coded as adults. Adults who resent, hate, and want to devour children. They are fundamentally abusers as seen through the lenses of grungy late 80s fairytales.

I think what worked so well about Curry's Pennywise is that he really was just a lovely Bozo the Clown. Even a picture of Curry just looking friendly in the clown make-up is terrifying because Bozo and Ronald McDonald look creepy. But there is at work this other level that the children are made to feel unreasonable. Bozo and Ronald McDonald are scary looking dudes created by adults and pushed onto children. And it is the children who are treated unreasonable when they find the creatures scary.

This ties into an element of the book that the adults are literally blind to the horrors the kids face. Pennywise is such a scary force because he exists with a level of authority. The parents, teachers, and cops are all on some level complicit in his actions. A lot of the scariest parts of the book and original movie are not when he violently goes on the attack, but when he tries to lure kids to him. When he lets them feel uneasy but also helpless to not listen to him. The book and the original film really push the notion that the biggest fear the kids often face is the adults in their lives.

The Losers know Pennywise is a real threat, but like those who abuse children in the real world, Pennywise works to force them to feel unreasonable for challenging him or even being afraid of him.

The new Pennywise design is simultaneously much more Victorian looking and also much more childlike in appearance. And I think it just loses all the stuff I'm talking about. He's something that you fundamentally know you should find scary. Making him more antique in appearance works to sort of divorce him from the realm of adulthood and everyday lives of the kids. And the more childlike appearance takes away from that gross adult disdain of youth that defined Curry's performance.

I will say though, there is one part in the original book where It turns into Frankenstein's monster. Since this is the 80s, I would lose my poo poo if he showed up as Jason or something for a scene.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 03:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 06:35

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

TheBigBudgetSequel posted:

I always felt that a movie version of the story should have different actors portraying slightly different versions of Pennywise the Dancing Clown to lend to the eeriness of his character. That said, I kind of dig the old victorian look he's wearing in the movie. It's kind of unsettling in it's own way.

My hope was always that they would translate the book's dichotomy of older people seeing Pennywise as Bozo and younger people seeing him as Ronald McDonald. Since it takes place in the 80s I was hoping they would get a pretty likable comedian or someone like Tom Kenny doing a Ronald McDonald Pennywise. Play up that creepy guidance counselor tone that Ronald McDonald speaks in as opposed to the old comedian that Curry's Pennywise presented him as.

I think he reminds of my issue with Annabelle which does a lot to make it's doll look super creepy and forgets that dolls are creepy on their own.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 10:38

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Ensign_Ricky posted:

Well, the thing is, it's supposed to be because of the giant shapeshifting spider monster that the townsfolk are that way.

I think there's a more give and take with that. The organization of the book is interesting because you get George's death but then the death of a full adult man in the 80s. It's important to set-up that It doesn't exclusively kill children and setting up the rules for what it is willing to do and capable of.

The whole section with the hate crime includes people ignoring eyewitness reports of Pennywise for selfish reasons disguised as just ones, but more important is the eyewitnesses. The attackers are younger with one of them still essentially being a child. But the boyfriend of the man who's attacked sees Pennywise as well, but his whole deal is that he despises Derry. He even describes seeing Pennywise as Derry itself. And I've always taken the reason that he's able to see It is because he sees through Derry's bullshit.

Yeah, It manipulates and controls people, but I don't think the people of Derry give much in terms of resistance.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2017 15:01

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

^ I thought that was from a script that isn't being produced.^

Vicissitude posted:

Well, you have to remember that a majority of the people of Derry were born and grew up there. Throughout their whole lives they've been steeped in IT's influence. We know that IT exists as more than just the physical. It's a pervasive influence everywhere and IT uses it to dull the people to letting it effectively run free and do as IT wills. IT can even directly take over someone, like it did Bev's dad. But you're probably right. Living in Derry probably saps any resistance you have. Whether it's just worn down by long exposure or if IT strips away the will to resist I dunno. But it doesn't take much to spur the townspeople into action or inaction.

Yeah, I think it just takes away from the book if you simply write off the adult characters as being normal people being brainwashed. Part of it is that a lot of the metaphor of It is how unreasonable adults seem to kids. Sometimes it's because the pressures of the real world trap adults into patterns of poo poo that realize is silly or even wrong when they take a step back from it and sometimes it's because adults are just being selfish assholes. And sometimes it's hard to distinguish between the two.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2017 00:28

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I'm making my way through the book, and I simultaneously hope that the Turtle is left out of the film like it was in the miniseries, but also hope there is constant subtle turtle imagery all over the movie.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 01:15

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I love the bulbous head because it makes him look a skull and a balloon. But I think part of the brilliance is that it's not clear at first what it is off about him.

Still in the process of rereading the book, and it's pretty clear that Eddie has a huge crush on Bill. Wonder if they'll play that up at all.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2017 02:44

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

PriorMarcus posted:

I've got it from a reasonable source that the film version isn't running with the multiple forms. All the kids see Pennywise as a clown and that's it. No manifestation of children's fears or anything. Just a scary clown. The studio wants to create an iconic character for merchandising in less than two hours of run time, so gently caress making him appear in multiple forms.

That said, hes real form is still in this, but it's more like a Resident Evil mutated T-Rex spider than anything else.

We know that's not true because we see what seems to be a hoard of zombies reaching from behind a door and trying to get to Mike in the trailer (Probably related to the Black Spot fire) as well as It appearing as Georgie.

I'd buy it not having that many forms though and the reality is that even in the book, even when it's in different forms, it's still the clown in some way. I think going back to my original post, I feel like while a giant spider is the closest thing to what It really is, Pennywise is the closest thing to what it is in terms of emotion and intent.

# ¿ Apr 9, 2017 12:20

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Yeah it even has a less than subtle parallel between It and Rodan.

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

The other one is The Giant Claw, right?

I really like that some of the forms it takes are from movies that are stupid through adult eyes but could freak out a child.

One of the cool things mentioned in the book repeatedly is that It never looks like the movie monsters exactly. It looks like the more vivid and realistic version of the monster created in the child's imagination.

# ¿ Apr 10, 2017 02:43

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

The ending of the miniseries also really falters because their stand against Pennywise in 1958 is just so much better. And you can't really do the same thing.

One thing I did notice though is that 2017 Pennywise's head is sort of shaped like the head and body of a spider. I wonder if they have any notion of making It's final form into a spider version of Pennywise. Honestly though, I think the smarter move would have the cast go into the Deadlights and make it a more abstract and psychological finale.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 15:59

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I wonder if they've discussed just casting Seth Green as adult Richie.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2017 18:00

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

The pro move would have been to not film the sequel for another 27 years.

Should've hired Linklater.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2017 16:19

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Steve Yun posted:

Not having read the book, can someone spell out concrete reasons why they don't want to see the kid/adult stories split into two movies? I'm a person who usually gets annoyed with framing devices in film because often they dampen the sense of immediate urgency.

To be honest, there's just not a whole lot there. In the book the framing device works because there is this tension to it. The events of the summer have been forgotten by the kids. So you have this constant tension of them rediscovering what happened. The book begins with this cold-open of Georgie's death, a recent Pennywise related death, and then you get what is definitely well over a hundred pages of just the adults reacting to the phone call that It's back and they need to return to Derry. You get these people who are both successful and hosed up knowing they have to come back to fight this monster, but they don't really know what it is and you as the reader don't know what it is either. You get more and more of what happened in 58 as they get closer to Derry. But as it's been mentioned before, the finale just doesn't really hit. There's some interesting ideas and thematics but they never congeal properly.

The 1958 parts really heightens the 1984 parts, and you're essentially draining a lot of what makes the 84 section work in what is already the weaker half of the story. I think it could work as long as they preserve the themes but go there own way with it.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2017 22:03

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

BiggerBoat posted:

I'm not sure how to follow up on it really but making Pennywise Bozo or Ronald McDonald again is probably an unwise approach since there's just no way to top it.

I think the way Curry plays It was the sort of gruffer versions of Bozo like WGN's or Rusty Nails, the inspiration for Krusty the Clown. I think Curry plays him in a way there is a level of surliness and underlying danger even when he's trying to be pleasant. I think it would be interesting to play him more with the guidance counselor tone that Ronald McDonald has and--as mentioned--the audio book employs.

I think saying there's no way to top it isn't really right, you just can't do it the same way Curry did. I think the lesson is that you need a good performance that just gets across the disdain it has for this victims and the joy it takes in what it does.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2017 01:56

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I like that their playing with the idea of the balloons defying physics.

# ¿ May 8, 2017 03:20

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

It's not so much that the book and Curry's Pennywise is alluring so much as he is disarming. He makes kids feel isolated and helpless, but most importantly, he makes them feel unreasonable. The new version might be fine, but it's definitely a direction that looks like it looses some of the thematics.

# ¿ May 21, 2017 03:32

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Ya'll are talking about how clowns weren't really a thing when the movie take place. You're neglecting how big Ronald McDonald was at the time. I've said it before but my ideal would be like Tom Kenny playing a very guidance counselor like Pennywise.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 14:36 on May 21, 2017

# ¿ May 21, 2017 13:33

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

Besides Georgie, are there any instances in the book of It, as Pennywise, luring anyone by pretending to be a benign clown? (and even Georgie realizes that hosed up clowns shouldn't be in the sewer.) He mostly shows up looking creepy, as a monster you remember and/or dead relative, then tries to eat you. And when he shows up in clown form none of the kids are excited for balloons. If they're drawn to him it's a strange lure, not a "oh boy a clown!" Sometimes he'll ask you to come with him but it's never in a pleasant way, it's your dead brother's rotten corpse in a clown outfit inviting you into the sewer. He's always explicitly spooky and supernatural.

Once again, I think people are caught up on the idea of Pennywise being alluring which he rarely is. Take something like this scene though. It's not that he's not menacing. It's that up until the very end he acts condescending and bullying but most importantly there is this weird air of authority to him. He's definitively an adult.

# ¿ May 21, 2017 20:24

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Len posted:

I'm honestly not sure where happy venus flytrap clown is coming from.

From the really definitive and iconic scene that most people remember.

# ¿ May 22, 2017 05:12

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Len posted:

So like 5 minutes of the miniseries and maybe ten pages of the monstrous book?

I'll be honest, I think it's kind of disingenuous point. In both the book and film, it's the establishment of Pennywise's character. And there's more going on than just that Pennywise is initially nice. Georgie goes through that whole chapter anticipating some monster coming and eating him, and hating himself for that. That's the great tragedy. He knew It existed, but tried to avoid that belief in appeasement of adults and Bill. He even recognizes Pennywise for his true nature at first but is lulled into a false sense of security. Pennywise is playing on Georgie's insecurities and internalized belief that he's unreasonable. The scene is a microcosm for the whole book: The adults are wrong. There is a monster in the darkness, and worse, the adults on some level conspire with it.

Pennywise being a clown works so well because for a lot of kids a clown is something that adults present to kids and go "Here, here's this thing you're supposed to enjoy and find funny and love" and for a lot of kids that's just baffling because that thing is clearly a monster. And I think for me that's my hangup with their version of It. Because a clown is also just a guy in make-up who can tell you that his real name is Bob. It's a monster that can reason with you and convince you that you were silly for ever thinking he was scary in the first place. And turning Pennywise from a clown that looks slightly unnerving to a straight up monster does take away something that works thematically well.

Still excited for the film.

# ¿ May 23, 2017 00:02

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

BiggerBoat posted:

Thinking about "that scene", the smartest way to do it would just be to replace it with a loving, gentle or even semi-passionate kiss at the most and move on. It would still convey the original intended point and I tend to think that's how they'll handle it.

The thing with the scene is that it has problems beyond just being kids having sex. Honestly, It isn't the only piece of literature that depicts children in sexual situations because its easier for prose to depict sex in away that is clinical and hitting a story beat rather than trying to titilate. And there isn't the discomfort of directing real child actors.

The problem with THE SCENE is that even if it isn't meant to titilate, it speaks to a sense of vouyerism that King's narration often takes on. The amount of times a lady's nipples are used to described her mental state across his books is insane. Like a rule of writing should be don't use a lady's nipples to describe her mental state but I think it happens in It at least twice in It. And when that vouyerism is applied to children and he's discussing dick sizes and Bev's orgasms, it feels a little uneasy.

But even if the writing didn't represent King's worst impulses, the whole concept of the scene is just kinda lovely in the way that it others Bev from the group. I mean a scene with a bunch of boys lining up to kiss Bev is equally dumb even if it's not as equally gross to watch as THE SCENE as written. A strength that the 90s film had over the book is that the romantic feelings are soley between Bill, Ben, and Bev. And even then, I'd say that I'd prefer Bev's crush to be one sided. Any version of the scene or trying to adapt it ultimately devalues Bev as being truly one of the Losers and not just this girl that they all have a crush on.

The blood pack does the job of binding the kids in a way that that treats Bev as part of the group.

# ¿ Jul 23, 2017 23:29

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

The last trailer was a weird experience for me because I am bummed that It is being depicted as more of a chidlike, trickster, goblin than a condescending adult, but the trailer really does a good job of making adults look like monsters.

# ¿ Aug 2, 2017 02:19

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I really love the idea of Georgie seeing Pennywise simultaneously above him, taunting him with the boat, while It grabs at his arm. It kind of establishes that It's not just an evil clown which you don't get from his first two appearances.

Fart City posted:

I can't remember who it was but somebody earlier in the thread spoke about how Pennywise is presented as a consummate, adult figure of authority in It, and that was dead on. So much of the book is about distrust of adults, and Pennywise was kind of a manifest of that. Skewing him younger is an odd choice. I get that it's "traditionally" creepy, but it loses a bit of what made him imposing in the source material. And that's a key word: imposing, not just threatening.

It was me. :smug:

# ¿ Aug 2, 2017 15:54

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I've come in here wringing my hands around their Pennywise a few times, and I'm pretty sold on that video. It's definitely not my read on Pennywise, but I like it nevertheless. Pennywise comes off as incredibly predator like. The way he warps George's insecurities and learns about Bill was unsettling.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one, but the performance reminds me a little bit of Vincent D'Onforio in Men in Black. He seems to have this slight discomfort talking and even maintaining his cartoon voice. He definitely feels like this larger creature stuffed into an approximation of a human being. I like the moment where it looks like George is seeing through the illusion. It is barely maintaining the Pennywise character.

I think Curry's performance is a smarter and more nuanced portrayal than the OP gives credit, but I have pretty high hopes for this.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2017 15:04

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

His reason for disliking The Shining is valid. His book is about alcoholism as a monster and Kubrick's movie is about white men in general as monsters with alcohol just being a means to an end. I get when you write a book that's so personal to you especially in the main character that seeing such a different product would be off-putting.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2017 03:30

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

It kind of sucks that Darabont is sitting on the rights to The Long Walk because I feel like it would be a pretty good YAish indie film.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2017 04:25

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

BiggerBoat posted:

They will. I can't imagine them glossing over it based on the tone I've seen them setting so far.

The thing that hinders it isn't tone, more that the plot construction and movement of a movie is just a different beast than a novel. A book, especially a long one like It, is something you sit with for awhile and feels like episodes. I think in the context of the movie, diversions into side characters can seem vestigial if it doesn't support the movement of the plot.

Honestly, I'm a bit bummed how light the campaign has been. I'd love to see stuff like that goes deeper into Derry's history.

# ¿ Aug 16, 2017 04:02

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Just a friendly reminder that the new Pennywise having a head that is basically the body of a spider and making it subtle and look good is already really impressive.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Aug 27, 2017

# ¿ Aug 26, 2017 22:50

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

The Cameo posted:

I�d bet good money that the haircut will have something to do with her father disapproving of it.

I�m actually wondering now what they�re going to do about casting the adult characters since it seems like it�s all clear for whatever they intend to call the second movie to start really early development. Do you go with stars? Do you find a bunch of unknowns?

Part of me kind of wants them to just symbolize the fact that kids are still on some level tethered to Derry by having the kid actors play the adult versions of themselves.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2017 04:17

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

There should be a scene where they just walk in on Pennywise recreating that loving Tom Petty video with one of the kids he's killed.

# ¿ Aug 30, 2017 02:56

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Basebf555 posted:

That's the stuff most book fans are hoping made it in, or at least if Part 1 is a hit maybe they can throw in for Part 2. None of it really moves the story forward, so typically it would be prime cutting room floor material, even if they did shoot it. But almost everyone who reads It says they love those portions.

I think the way you could honestly do it is not start the movies with the phone calls. Start with Mike and his research and transition to him finding out about the bridge murder and him admitting what is happening is actually happening again. You could get in an interview with the Black Spot or something of the sort. Or even do the cold open as the Black Spot and cut to a grown up Mike.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2017 03:19

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I just bought the last two tickets for the 7 PM Alamo Drafthouse screening in Brooklyn next Friday. All the Thursday night shows are booked. I feel like this movie is about to do really, really well.

One question is this: Say the movie does well, they do a sequel, it does well. They announce they're making a prequel that takes place in colinial Derry. ya'll down or no?

# ¿ Sep 2, 2017 02:57

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Sometimes It Comes Back

# ¿ Sep 3, 2017 00:53

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

FreudianSlippers posted:

2 I 2 T

Motherfucker, you were so close to 2 It 2 Quit. Which is clearly the correct title.

You had the shot!

# ¿ Sep 3, 2017 01:31

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Revenge of the It.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2017 03:19

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Honestly, very little of what we've seen is really cashing in on 80s nostalgia. Most shots from the film could easily take place in 2017. It's there, but it's not Stranger Things. Hell, you could convince someone who's not paying attention that what we've seen of the Georgie scene takes place in the 50s.

The one true strength of the 1986 parts of both the book and the miniseries is that the adult versions of the characters somehow feel more vulnerable than they were in they were children. One thing that's been very prevalent in a lot of recent media is this promise of possibility in childhood being lost and broken. I think an It sequel that takes the themes and runs them in more interesting places can be good and also more visceral and cutting if it's specifically about the people who are in their thirties and forties now.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2017 04:40

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

It 2: How Pennywise Got Its Groove Back

# ¿ Sep 5, 2017 02:41

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I liked it a lot, but it definitely lost me a bit as an adaptation in some places. I think the one thing the mini-series gets that I think is lacking a bit in the film is that Pennywise doesn't seem as embedded in the kids' lives. A lot of the book is about the kids just being kids, and the weird thing about Pennywise is that it's not very disruptive to that. I think one of the creepy underlying things about It is that it feels like a thing that could have happened in your childhood but just forgot. For as much as the book's descriptions of children's private parts is justifiably mocked, it's a book that really is about how dangerous childhood feels and how dangerous children can seem to adults and it nails that. I think the film sort of gets there in the ending, but I think stuff like Bowers is lacking because a crazy and threatening twelve year old is sincerely more unsettling than a crazy sixteen year old or nebulous teen. Similarly, Eddie gets a good line when he stands up to his mom, but it lacks that punch to the gut from the book that almost makes you sympathize with his lovely mom.

I'm actually not totally against the change with Bev. One of the more intriguing things about the film is that it's never fully clear if Bev's dad is actively sexually assaulting her yet or even if she had sex with Bowers. That stuff is irrelevant because it doesn't matter when she's with the Losers. The only truth is the truth her friends believe. Ben decides what the truth is when he throws the rock. Bev literally being Sleeping Beauty is pretty on point. Friendship is transformative. although I'm curious if they'll do something with her having seen the Dead Lights.

And I get there's a lot to be uneasy about what I just said, but I'd say it's not all just cliches.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2017 03:48

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

I also agree that it would work much better with the adults doing it.

It's funny how a lot of people were talking about it being made as a standalone film because it really is measured in terms of what it puts in the first chapter. Like I'm sure we're going to see Bill outrun the devil in the sequel but instead of having him do it twice or play up Silver as that significant of a thing, the bikes are just a continual motif of the film and children going to the unknown. I don't know if they are going to go as much with the power of imagination in the second film, but I was kind of anticipating them doing Street Fighter moves at one point.

It is interesting how off the mark a lot of us were in terms of stuff like Dracula and the Mummy being replaced with more time specific villains. Not saying it would have been better if they did, but I do think it speaks to the one thing that bothered me about the film which is it just doesn't seem as entrenched in its time or place as the book. It's a very fairytale like movie with an oddly timeless feel to it despite the time stamps.There is 80s stuff but it's very pronounced and broad although I'm pretty sure Ben has lovely taste in Rock and Roll in the books which was adapted well. I wish the 50s rock and roll reaction that rap was getting in the late 80s was there. It doesn't make it a bad film, but Derry definitely doesn't feel like a monster in of itself and it doesn't have as nuanced a take on childhood as the book does.

Das Boo posted:

The inclusion of Patrick was also really weird for how they handled him. I guess it was just a book nod, but they already had more bullies than they know how to close out at that point so why not use Belch or Vic?

Honestly, I do think the first act is really, really weak in terms of just how much It we get. The Georgie scene is brutal and sets it up well enough. The first act of the movie really treats Pennywise like a slasher villain. The Patrick scene in particular feels like it's from an 80s slasher and not the off brand Del Toro direction mixed with Goonies charm that the rest of the movie has.

If you were rewriting the film I think the thing to do is to make Stan's moment a lot more subtle. Have Ben be in the library to write the haiku but then have him pass by Mike who is doing research at the library. Have Mike be the one researching Derry and give him the egg-hunt scare which has a built in connection to his parents who also burned to death. Create a divide in the group that until Neibolt Street, Bev, Mike, and Bill are the only ones who have actually directly confronted It with Ben having seen how it impacts people. And really try to bring back the fridge scene from the first one. Nix the mutual masturbation and farts, but have Henry and Patrick killing animals to show these aren't just garden variety bullies. You probably can connect that to the rock fight. Have Mike be the one who sees it instead of Bev, have Henry and Patrick spot him and chase him, and connect into the rock fight itself.

I also wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a version of the script where Henry's dad is a racist rear end cop who harasses Mike's family and Mike learns about the Black Spot setting up as this missing puzzle piece who can give more context to what It is when he joins the losers. Henry being the one to fight Mike at wellhouse feels like it should have a lot more power to it. Even the comment about his parents feels hollow because Mike feels so disconnected from the group.

I think the thing I really disliked about the Patrick scene is that they did go through the trouble of him coming off as the more violent of the gang members. So they were trying to sell as fast as they could, "He's the crazy one!" But that's not really who he is in the books. The book makes a comment that he's not really a violent kid despite being infinitely more terrifying. There is the creepy detail of him molesting girls in class which is arguably worse than Bowers beating up kids but seemingly get away with it speaks to how hosed the adults in Derry are. The movie version isn't just a cut down version--the film shouldn't be devoting five minutes to a five year old killing his younger brother--but it's just a kind of lame CRAZY character as presented.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2017 22:39

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:

Then they should get Amy Schumer for Eddie's wife.

Based on her IMDB page she was really made up for this movie and I have a feeling they are actually just going to recast her as Eddie's wife.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2017 16:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 06:35

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Man, I thought I heard some mice in my house, but it turned out it was just some water hitting dishes in a weird way. And it really hit me how amazing the idea of It using the pipes to move is. "It's just the pipes" is a reasonable explanation that parents give for the sounds kids think are monsters. The inversion of, "yes it is the pipes because there's a loving monster in there" is a brilliant idea it took me thirty years to fully understand.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2017 03:03

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > We All Float Down Here - IT (September 2017)

«‹›2 »