It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:33 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas
In response to what Mr. Sausage spoilerboxed:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
I haven't seen this new film, so I can't give my opinion on how well this works or whether or not it's offensive. In the novel, the boys do not kiss Bev to save her (nor does she need saving at all), but the novel does in fact make extensive allusions to fairy tales and the logic of children's stories. King has said that his original idea for Pennywise before he settled on a clown was to make him the troll from the story of the Three Billy Goats Gruff. Indeed, that story is mentioned several times in the novel, particularly the troll's famous question, "Who's that trip trapping across my bridge?" Pennywise even takes on the appearance of the witch from Hansel and Gretel in the adult section of the book. One of the underlying themes of the book is the power of children's belief in magic/fantasy, which is what makes the young heroes so powerful against Pennywise and also weakens them as adults, when they subscribe to more rational ways of viewing the world. So really Mr. Sausage is right on the money. While kissing the maiden is not in the book, that actually doesn't sound too out of place within the context of book's overarching fairy tale theme. I won't give away the end of the novel (the adult section, that is), but something happens there that is easily reminiscent of the clap your hands/"I do believe in fairies" section of Barrie's Peter Pan. Also, yes the abusive parents/adults/bullies in the town are very much an extension and product of Pennywise's evil, although it could be argued that their "over-emphatic badness" as you put it is just par for the course in King's work, where people are never just bad, they're heinous.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:07 am 

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:35 pm
In response to that I'd argue

[Reveal] Spoiler:
that while it absolutely is a homage to fairy tales when Bev has to be rescued with a kiss, it sits incredibly awkwardly in the film. It follows a section where Bev has just fought off an attempted rape by her father. She not only gets away from him she fights him and knocks him unconscious. She has finally stood up to her own bogeyman, the figure that has terrified her all her life. That is immediately followed, literally seconds later, by her being kidnapped by Pennywise. It really falls flat when you have a scene of the only female character in the film stand up for herself only to be immediately followed by her being put in a catatonic state and need to be rescued by the boys. It undercuts everything that came before and it feels unpleasant while watching it. As you say, there's no comparable sequence in the novel, so this is something that the creative team felt would be a strong addition to her story.

Also, it sits even more awkwardly because all of the other fairy tale/belief in childhood magic elements from the novel have been stripped away. Even the silver slugs are gone. In the novel they are possibly the biggest symbol of childhood belief. Silver hurts monsters, so they have silver and a slingshot. In the film they have a bolt gun from a slaughterhouse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas
Yes, it's hard to deny, even without having seen it, that they appear to have greatly reduced the roles of the lone female and black heroes. King's book has its issues as well, particularly the way he constantly draws attention to Beverly's body (it goes far beyond simply describing her maturity to just seeming like an old lech ogling a young girl). But while I don't necessarily demand making a previously weak character stronger just to make it more PC or in step with modern thinking (a la the Night of the Living Dead remake), it's disheartening that a 21st century adaptation seems to be even less progressive than the source and makes previously strong characters weaker.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:46 pm 
Not PETA approved
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada
Bev's role is so central in the movie that the only way her role could've been "greatly" reduced is for her to've been the main character of the novel rather than an ensemble player. Really, the only reduction comes at the end, and it's odd and as I said probably a remnant either of an earlier draft or an earlier intention that didn't make it into the screenplay beyond that one scene. There is so clearly a purposeful significance behind that kiss scene that it's hard to believe it's the result of unconscious sexism. It's just unfortunate the movie never developed it properly, leaving us with a problematic moment out of nowhere.

As for Mike, I suspect his character is a victim of time constraints and redundancy. Mike's basic component of the group, the outsider, was already developed earlier with Ben, a more important character given that he's the historian of the group. Having already gone through the outsider-becomes-insider plot, the movie is left with a redundant second version with Mike at a moment when character development needs to give way to plot momentum and resolution. Hence Mike's inclusion is done in a single scene and never mentioned again.

I think there are good-faith explanations for both reductions. But the fact that they nevertheless happen to the only characters not white or male in the group is pretty unfortunate, doubly so given that the movie handles those characters really well in many other scenes and is otherwise pretty aware of gender- and race-based problems in earlier scenes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Without seeing the film it sounds like the kissing scene is their way of replacing the blow jobs so in that sense it is a much better alternative.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:07 pm
Mr Sausage wrote:
Mike's basic component of the group, the outsider, was already developed earlier with Ben, a more important character given that he's the historian of the group.

Except, Mike is supposed to be the historian. They literally took a major part of his character away from him and gave it to a white character.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:06 pm 
Not PETA approved
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada
PfR73 wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:
Mike's basic component of the group, the outsider, was already developed earlier with Ben, a more important character given that he's the historian of the group.

Except, Mike is supposed to be the historian. They literally took a major part of his character away from him and gave it to a white character.

I don't know how it all plays out in the book, but in the movie it makes sense to introduce the history early in the second act; and in the logic of the narrative, Ben is naturally going to be introduced to the group earlier than Mike given that Ben lives in town and goes to their school and Mike is home schooled and lives outside the town. So maybe the filmmakers figured giving the historian role to the character who's going to be incorporated into the group first makes more sense? I don't know.

I think Mike the character just doesn't fit into this compressed narrative. He's superfluous, as some others above have intuited. There's no reason to have another outsider character join the group that late into the film, and definitely not if he's the one who's supposed to sets up the history and the motivations of the second act. It would work in a longer form like a novel, but not in a 2 hour movie. Really, Ben and Mike should've been merged. I'm guessing the only reasons they weren't is A. too big a change from the source material, and B. the filmmakers didn't want to get rid of their only black character.

Also, big missed opportunity not to have Mike take more a leadership/motivator role given that he's the only character who's given advice applicable to the situation: the whole speech about either letting people cage you or fighting back against it. Really, the confrontation with It should've been the fulfillment/resolution to that advice and to how the larger racism of the town reflects it. Great character point and arc lost. Maybe the filmmakers felt that the leadership and motivator roles were already taken by better established characters (Bev and Bill) and it didn't see the need for a third? Or maybe it's systemic racism. Or both. I don't really want to tar anyone's motives over stuff like this, tho', so I'm not going to try to answer that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:22 am
Given all the discussion of the progressiveness of the depiction of Bev in book vs. film, I'm assuming this ludicrous plot point from the book's wikipedia summary has been cut:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
After the battle, the Losers get lost in the sewers until Beverly has sex with all the boys to bring unity back to the group.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:16 pm 

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:35 pm
I don't think the discussion is really about the progressiveness of the character in the book vs the film. If anything the film seems like it's being more progressive with her, which makes it all the more infuriating when they undo it all with something they can't blame on the book.

But yeah, obviously that sequence was never going to be filmed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Shrew wrote:
Given all the discussion of the progressiveness of the depiction of Bev in book vs. film, I'm assuming this ludicrous plot point from the book's wikipedia summary has been cut:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
After the battle, the Losers get lost in the sewers until Beverly has sex with all the boys to bring unity back to the group.
That's what I was referring to above with my blowjob comment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:00 am
Location: USA
I'm rereading IT and had forgotten The Shining tie in.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
PFC Dick Halloran. Mentioned during Mike's conversations with is dad on when he was in the Army serving in Derry and the Black Spot fire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:01 pm 
Not PETA approved
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada
Shrew wrote:
Given all the discussion of the progressiveness of the depiction of Bev in book vs. film, I'm assuming this ludicrous plot point from the book's wikipedia summary has been cut:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
After the battle, the Losers get lost in the sewers until Beverly has sex with all the boys to bring unity back to the group.

Holy shit, that's a real thing in the book? Why? Why does that happen at all? I mean, I know by the time he wrote It that King was a huge cash cow and probably had all sorts of leeway, but did no one at his publisher sit him down and say
[Reveal] Spoiler:
"is underage gangbangs in the sewer really an avenue that's gone under-explored in the novel form?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:25 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
This is all anyone wants to talk about or joke about when discussing the book, I'm shocked people are just now hearing about it. It makes perhaps a little more sense within the context of the book than it might seem from a one sentence summary, but nowhere near enough to try to defend it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
This is the first I'm hearing of it, and I remember the original miniseries being a big deal when I was a kid
[Reveal] Spoiler:
IN OKLAHOMA

Good job at sheltering me, Mom and Dad!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas
In addition to that infamous passage, the novel also relates Bev's first true sexual encounter when
[Reveal] Spoiler:
she watches 12-year-old Henry Bowers get a hand job from 14-year-old Patrick Hocksetter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:15 pm 

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:32 pm
In response to some roles getting shorted and others getting expanded. Did anyone else just consider...

[Reveal] Spoiler:
The strength of the acting? Unfortunately, the kid who plays Stan is the weakest amongst the group. Where as, the kid who plays Ben was very naturalistic, amongst a lot of self awareness in the rest of the cast. I was happy to spend more time with him


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC
One thing this movie does continue is the recent theme of 80s nostalgia which at this point has been way overdone. To ribs' earlier point if the studio execs are smart that'll be their take away from the film's success at there seems to be an appetite for all that 80s crap.

Otherwise besides the
[Reveal] Spoiler:
blood scene
I was disappointed by this. For a pretty long movie I didn't really get a sense of much of anything besides the girl and the fat kid.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
it would have been much better if the fat kid got the girl,he was much cooler than the stutterer anyway. I also agree about how it was odd how much Beverly was sexualized and am surprised there hasn't been more made of it. Her sunbathing scene is basically Phoebe Cates for pedos, very strange indeed.
I never read the book but as I read the thread I thought the orgy talk was exaggeration but it's pretty bonkers that it's true. Is Bev the only female character in the book?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:38 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: the last question
[Reveal] Spoiler:
The adult Bill's wife plays a part in the adult portion, but I don't recall any significant female figure outside of Bev in the child section of the book other than Eddie's mom


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:00 am
Location: USA
Bev and Ben

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Bev and Ben end up together by the end of the book - which should / would be in chapter 2.


Last edited by D50 on Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:45 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Although it's worth noting that
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Ben is a more socially acceptable hunk as an adult


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:00 am
Location: USA
domino harvey wrote:
Although it's worth noting that
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Ben is a more socially acceptable hunk as an adult

[Reveal] Spoiler:
And Bev turns out to be the spitting image of Bill's movie star wife. In other words, nothing less than a 10!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:34 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas
Daneurism wrote:
In response to some roles getting shorted and others getting expanded. Did anyone else just consider...

[Reveal] Spoiler:
The strength of the acting? Unfortunately, the kid who plays Stan is the weakest amongst the group. Where as, the kid who plays Ben was very naturalistic, amongst a lot of self awareness in the rest of the cast. I was happy to spend more time with him

From what I understand, though, these character changes occurred in the writing stage, some of them originating with Fukunaga's script, long before the actors were cast. These changes were not made in the editing room in response to the acting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:43 am 

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:28 pm
I don't find horror films that rely on fantasy elements to be remotely scary. I have never read a word written by Stephen King, and generally avoid film adaptations of his work. I saw "It" just based on hype and having nothing better to do. Is this considered scary? It may be redundant to say so, but Kubrick seems to be the only director to have extracted something interesting from this hack.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:00 am
Location: USA
So you've never read a word written from this hack. Were you one of the co-founders of the jump to conclusions mat?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Anyone see that Burger King in Russia is pissed off at the movie because they think the clown looks like Ronald McDonald?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection