IT Chapter Two |OT| Hello |SPOILERS|

rude

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,172
Can a book reader explain to me Pennywise and the connection to the clearly human man who looks like Pennywise in those old pictures. Did It base itself off of that man?
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,861
UK
Pennywise taking about how useless those crunches and sit-ups were, had me laughing out loud
Yeah those buts were good, his interaction with adult Richie was good too. When they actually let Bill Skaarsgard do his thing it was solid. But there was so little of it and so much dodgy cgi, or pennywise doing his weird jerky run towards the camera schtick.

Like when bev turned into flaming weird corpse. Why not just have her turn into pennywise.. it's just bizarre to me that somehow they were able to cast someone that puts in a performance different enough but as good as Tim Curry and then completely underuse him.
 

DJ Lushious

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,822
I have to admit, seeing the movies really makes me want to read the book. However, I know that the experience would be tainted by what I saw as a movie, visually, first.

And then there’s the sex scene I’ve read about and there’s no way I could make it through that. As a person it makes me feel awful reading a vague synopsis, so the detailed account would magnify that.

Beyond that, I enjoyed the movie. It was good, not great, but I had fun and it didn’t feel like a 3 hour movie to me. I’ll certainly watch it again when it hits home video.
 

FusedAtoms

Member
Jul 21, 2018
1,223
In the book does It always show up as the clown? Or have some clown element too it ? I laughed pretty damn hard at the clown spider at the end
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,861
UK
In the book does It always show up as the clown? Or have some clown element too it ? I laughed pretty damn hard at the clown spider at the end
The clown is one of its preferred forms, but really it takes the form of what you fear. He appears as the leper, also takes the form of the creature from the black lagoon and Frankenstein. Because the book is set in the 50s he does a lot of the classic monsters. But yeah pennywise seems to be one of his most preferred forms.
 

Rogue74

Member
Nov 13, 2017
423
Miami, FL
Can a book reader explain to me Pennywise and the connection to the clearly human man who looks like Pennywise in those old pictures. Did It base itself off of that man?
It was Pennywise. Like explained above the clown was his preferred form for luring kids. But it could pretty much take whatever form it chose.
Those pictures were an illusion as well. Just like the sign on the door that read "Marsh" and then suddenly said "Kersh".
Pennywise is messing with Bev and having the guy in the photo look like the clown without makeup is part of that.
 

maruchan

Avenger
Oct 30, 2017
508
It was Pennywise. Like explained above the clown was his preferred form for luring kids. But it could pretty much take whatever form it chose.
Those pictures were an illusion as well. Just like the sign on the door that read "Marsh" and then suddenly said "Kersh".
Pennywise is messing with Bev and having the guy in the photo look like the clown without makeup is part of that.
I think penny wise is the persona he took on. I think their setting up supposed prequel on this idea.
 

Rogue74

Member
Nov 13, 2017
423
Miami, FL
So my thoughts on the movie. I liked it but didn't love it. It relies too much on jump scares featuring silly CGI, which gives it major problems with tone.

I think there are 3 really effective sequences in the movie. The hate crime at the beginning, the little girl lured from the bleachers, and the funhouse. All 3 have the same traits. Build up suspense and then have a shocking climax that doesn't go overboard. Oh and they end in a death. Pennywise isn't fucking around.
Then you have a few other scenes that nearly reach this level but are ruined because the director can't restrain himself.

Take the Chinese restaurant. Nice character moments - including Hader's amazing Jabba impression that had me and my son in stitches. A creepy buildup when they open the fortune cookie and are trying to put together that sentence using the individual words. This was a good use of dramatic irony because the audience already knows what happened to Stan and should be able to figure out the sentence before the on screen characters can. It's great up to that point. Then the creatures start emerging. Walking eyeballs, baby headed spider. Bat thing. All climaxing with a severed heads singing in a fish tank. IMO they ruined that scene. Just some simple practical effects with an eye rolling out of one of the cookies, a roach, and some blood that then slowly spreads over the tablecloth would have been enough.

Same problem with Bev in the old lady's house. Great buildup but when Pennywise reveals himself the CGI it's cartoony and silly looking. Just some makeup having the old hag full of those sores we got a glimpse of would have worked so much better.

The Pomeranian? Yeah it was funny but the shock wasn't so shocking when your CGI model looks like something from Ren and Stumpy. You're already having fun with King meta references. Turn that puppy into Cujo. That certainly couldn't have turned out worse.

To add to that complaint, in all these scenes the characters escape when seemingly they should not have been able to. It's hard to tell what rules are being followed with Pennywise. Is it sometimes an illusion in their heads, or is it really there. If so, why let them get away? The ending really highlights this issue because there are moments where clearly the monster is in a position to kill but doesn't. Except for Eddie.

So that's what I kept noticing. Lots of wasted opportunities to really creep the audience out exchanged for bad CGI. That doesn't mean you can't have humor in there. But have it come from the characters. Not from bad creature design.
And finally, they win by being mean to the monster? GTFO.
 
Last edited:

Matthew77

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
2,815
Massachusetts
Slight correction, in the book Pennywise is not it’s preferred form for luring children, it’s the form it takes when it wants to be out in public such as the mass disasters that end each cycle.
 
Nov 13, 2017
4,763
The portrait of the old lady’s dad and the vision Jesica Chastain has of him putting on makeup is 100% teasing a prequel.
 

JetmanJay

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,145
What happened to the Zombie Bully who picked up Bowers at the mental ward? Did anyone kill him?

Did Pennywise really kill the skateboard kid in the Fun House or was that just a vision to piss off Bill?

And I know it’s not supposed to be super logical because Pennywise is a clown and likes to play or whatever, but the how’s and whys of him killing confuses me. Like he can only kill someone when they are super afraid of him because he feeds on that fear? When they don’t, he can’t? The Losers were all pretty fucking afraid of him throughout the movie, why couldn’t he just kill them then? Eddie finds his courage to strike a devastating blow to Pennywise, then Pennywise kills him? Pennywise is damn near omnipotent in creating entire environments and warping reality around his prey, but doesn’t kill in those moments? I just don’t entirely get this things’ MO.
 

Rogue74

Member
Nov 13, 2017
423
Miami, FL
They became the thing they hated the most: bullies. :(
LOL. I guess but it wasn't that per say.

I don't give a fuck about Pennywise. It was a monster who killed countless people through centuries. So it gets no sympathy from me, nor do I fault the Losers for being "mean" to it. Hell, their goal was to kill it after all. I also don't think that because of that these characters fundamentally changed to the point where they now condone bullying. Nah.

My issue is that you have this cosmic godlike being who can bend reality and all it took was a few mean words? Such bullshit.
 

Kaswa101

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,836
I actually really loved how they killed It, the more I think about it. His form has always depended upon his victims' fears, but because the Losers no longer fear him, they can project weakness onto him and render him powerless. They also "projected" a heart into his body because that's what they believe will be the key to killing him, so his form is forced to operate via a heart.

Really cool imo. I do wish that he had begged and pleaded for his life though, like in the book, but I also liked his final comment of "You're all grown up". Just the right amount of cynicism, and maybe even a dash of respect for his first true rivals? Not sure. But I loved it :)
 

Socivol

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,670
I saw it last night and really enjoyed the movie. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood had a similar runtime and felt like a total slog to me, this one kept my interest pretty much throughout. There are a couple scenes I felt last too long (the final encounter with those damn lights for example), but I think those moments were few and far between for me. I agree with the Henry complaint, his role just seemed like it amounted to not much. I thought the adult case and the kids were casted pretty perfectly except for Bill.
I went into this thinking of it as a companion to the first film kind of like Kill Bill and I think it definitely worked for me on that level. I would enjoy seeing a cut of both films together like many others have requested.
 

Socivol

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,670
I actually really loved how they killed It, the more I think about it. His form has always depended upon his victims' fears, but because the Losers no longer fear him, they can project weakness onto him and render him powerless. They also "projected" a heart into his body because that's what they believe will be the key to killing him, so his form is forced to operate via a heart.

Really cool imo. I do wish that he had begged and pleaded for his life though, like in the book, but I also liked his final comment of "You're all grown up". Just the right amount of cynicism, and maybe even a dash of respect for his first true rivals? Not sure. But I loved it :)
You said this perfectly. I think within the themes of the movie the ending made sense. As kids, they would remind themselves it was not real to escape It. It makes sense that as adults they figure out how to take that to the next level and manipulate It to becoming something that could defeat. I think they nailed it because without fear, Pennywise is really nothing.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,861
UK
What happened to the Zombie Bully who picked up Bowers at the mental ward? Did anyone kill him?

Did Pennywise really kill the skateboard kid in the Fun House or was that just a vision to piss off Bill?

And I know it’s not supposed to be super logical because Pennywise is a clown and likes to play or whatever, but the how’s and whys of him killing confuses me. Like he can only kill someone when they are super afraid of him because he feeds on that fear? When they don’t, he can’t? The Losers were all pretty fucking afraid of him throughout the movie, why couldn’t he just kill them then? Eddie finds his courage to strike a devastating blow to Pennywise, then Pennywise kills him? Pennywise is damn near omnipotent in creating entire environments and warping reality around his prey, but doesn’t kill in those moments? I just don’t entirely get this things’ MO.
Basically It has a massive ego, he doesn't view any human as his equal, we are just here for his amusement and his food source. He can eat humans who aren't scared but they dont taste as good.
 

Kaswa101

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,836
You said this perfectly. I think within the themes of the movie the ending made sense. As kids, they would remind themselves it was not real to escape It. It makes sense that as adults they figure out how to take that to the next level and manipulate It to becoming something that could defeat. I think they nailed it because without fear, Pennywise is really nothing.
Yeah for sure. I have my issues with the film (loved the first one more) but I think the first and third acts were done really well here. I don't really understand the complaints about the ending in particular, but to each their own. Personally I thought it wrapped up the story and the character arcs perfectly.

I also liked that the Losers didn't forget each other again, and that they accepted their past (both the good and the bad). Felt like a more optimistic take on the book ending, with the five of them finally being able to move on from their collective trauma - while also remembering how much they all mean to each other.
 

JetmanJay

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,145
Basically It has a massive ego, he doesn't view any human as his equal, we are just here for his amusement and his food source. He can eat humans who aren't scared but they dont taste as good.
Yeah, I guess, but he knows those humans are there to kill him. He knows that Mike has been studying a method to trap him from the Native Americans. I don’t think any creatures’ instinct to play would override its instinct to survive.
Pennywise has a whole entire town of children to scare and eat later.
 

Jarmel

The Jackrabbit Always Wins
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
4,712
New York
I wonder if Stephen King himself rewrote the ending considering all the jokes about endings at his expense.
Yeah, I guess, but he knows those humans are there to kill him. He knows that Mike has been studying a method to trap him from the Native Americans. I don’t think any creatures’ instinct to play would override its instinct to survive.
Pennywise has a whole entire town of children to scare and eat later.
He knew the Native American thing was bullshit and wasn’t going to work. The ending even implies that Pennywise deliberately showed it to Mike as a red herring.
 

HiLife

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,031
Part of me wishes they went with a slow burn style horror instead of the constant jump scares. I lost count of how many times the room would get quiet, then they’d turn around and pennywise was there.
 

vatstep

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,406
Part of me wishes they went with a slow burn style horror instead of the constant jump scares. I lost count of how many times the room would get quiet, then they’d turn around and pennywise was there.
Yeah, there were so many jump scares and they were all extremely predictable and by-the-numbers. Just felt silly.
 

Ducayne

Member
Oct 27, 2017
139
My expectations were lowered ahead of my viewing last night. I was worried about the runtime feeling long and am a big fan of the book. I liked the first movie, but recently rewatched it and some of its flaws started coming to light. But I really liked Chapter 2 more than I thought I would. I’m not totally sold on IT being bullied to death, and wish Eddie sacrifice was more in line with the book (inhaler/battery acid/arm bit off) but otherwise an overall solid telling with many of the story beats as the novel. I felt kinda empty after reading the book, like I had just lost something that was part of me, probably due to the 1200 pages, but that was a feeling I didn’t get from the film. Maybe had to do with the fact that the town got destroyed and they all started forgetting eachother again. Also if I’m not mistaken, I thought Bev still ended up with bill in the book no?
 

Ed.

Member
Oct 25, 2017
287
My expectations were lowered ahead of my viewing last night. I was worried about the runtime feeling long and am a big fan of the book. I liked the first movie, but recently rewatched it and some of its flaws started coming to light. But I really liked Chapter 2 more than I thought I would. I’m not totally sold on IT being bullied to death, and wish Eddie sacrifice was more in line with the book (inhaler/battery acid/arm bit off) but otherwise an overall solid telling with many of the story beats as the novel. I felt kinda empty after reading the book, like I had just lost something that was part of me, probably due to the 1200 pages, but that was a feeling I didn’t get from the film. Maybe had to do with the fact that the town got destroyed and they all started forgetting eachother again. Also if I’m not mistaken, I thought Bev still ended up with bill in the book no?
In the book I think Bev ended up with Ben. Bill had a wife who arrived in Derry and was kidnapped and kinda in a weird coma/trance. I remember it ended with Bill giving his kinda comatose wife a ride on his bike.
 

Wowbiggulps

Member
Dec 4, 2018
18
I found myself not enjoying this as much as chapter 1. The run-time really is overlong in a way that makes many things feel drawn out if not ultimately pointless (Bowers). I enjoyed the mixing of comedy and horror, but they felt better intertwined in the first film. Agree with most here that Hader and Skarsgard were the standouts, and I wish the latter was given more screen time.

Still glad these two films exist and overall had a good time with both.
 

Rogue74

Member
Nov 13, 2017
423
Miami, FL
Yeah for sure. I have my issues with the film (loved the first one more) but I think the first and third acts were done really well here. I don't really understand the complaints about the ending in particular, but to each their own. Personally I thought it wrapped up the story and the character arcs perfectly.

I also liked that the Losers didn't forget each other again, and that they accepted their past (both the good and the bad). Felt like a more optimistic take on the book ending, with the five of them finally being able to move on from their collective trauma - while also remembering how much they all mean to each other.
The reasons I have complaints about the way the monster was killed is because there are multiple scenes in the movie that contradict your interpretation of the monster's power.
Yes, it transforms into it's victims fears in order to terrorize them. In the book it is even mentioned that this intense fear tenderizes the meat, making it taste better. But it isn't required for it's victims to be terrorized before it makes a kill.

The scenes where he lures kids to their deaths in clown form prove this. Georgie wasn't terrified of Pennywise. Yes, he was apprehensive because WTF is a clown doing in a sewer? But then Pennywise goes to great lengths to reassure him in order to get him to come closer. Same thing with the little girl in part 2 who walks away from the bleachers following the firefly. At first she finds him creepy, but he convinces her to trust him. By the end of the scene she is actually smiling and at ease right before he makes the killing blow. There is no indication that Pennywise was powerless because those kids weren't scared in that moment.

This brings up again one of my issues with both movies. The monster's abilities and characteristics are not consistent and seem to change depending on what the scene requires.

The rest of the ending after Pennywise was dead I mostly liked.
 
Last edited:

Pilgrimzero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,687
My expectations were lowered ahead of my viewing last night. I was worried about the runtime feeling long and am a big fan of the book. I liked the first movie, but recently rewatched it and some of its flaws started coming to light. But I really liked Chapter 2 more than I thought I would. I’m not totally sold on IT being bullied to death, and wish Eddie sacrifice was more in line with the book (inhaler/battery acid/arm bit off) but otherwise an overall solid telling with many of the story beats as the novel. I felt kinda empty after reading the book, like I had just lost something that was part of me, probably due to the 1200 pages, but that was a feeling I didn’t get from the film. Maybe had to do with the fact that the town got destroyed and they all started forgetting eachother again. Also if I’m not mistaken, I thought Bev still ended up with bill in the book no?
If I recall corrrectly, The magic that bound them together helped to make adult Bev and Bill attracted to each other and Bill was thinking about cheating on his wife with Bev. Once the magic fades they are fine. Something like that.
 

noomi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,547
New Jersey
Just saw it snd really liked it, not as much as the first movie... but this one was just fine for me.

I love how they kept making jokes about how Bill cant write an ending. I assume they knew the ending would be disliked.
 

HotHamBoy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,319
The reasons I have complaints about the way the monster was killed is because there are multiple scenes in the movie that contradict your interpretation of the monster's power.
Yes, it transforms into it's victims fears in order to terrorize them. In the book it is even mentioned that this intense fear tenderizes the meat, making it taste better. But it isn't required for it's victims to be terrorized before it makes a kill.

The scenes where he lures kids to their deaths in clown form prove this. Georgie wasn't terrified of Pennywise. Yes, he was apprehensive because WTF is a clown doing in a sewer? But then Pennywise goes to great lengths to reassure him in order to get him to come closer. Same thing with the little girl in part 2 who walks away from the bleachers following the firefly. At first she finds him creepy, but he convinces her to trust him. By the end of the scene she is actually smiling and at ease right before he makes the killing blow. There is no indication that Pennywise was powerless because those kids weren't scared in that moment.

This brings up again one of my issues with both movies. The monster's abilities and characteristics are not consistent and seem to change depending on what the scene requires.

The rest of the ending after Pennywise was dead I mostly liked.
I try not to get hung up on monster logic but Pennywise bothers me. I really don't get his rules and limitations. There are many times he could outright kill someone but chooses not to and othertimes he kills people almost immediately.

The rules governing his physical form and presence, what he can make you see and when, all of that seems to be whatever is convenient for the scene they want to have.

Why did he seem much more powerful this time than when they were kids?

They became the thing they hated the most: bullies. :(
This for me plays into the thematic confusion of the film, along with "fond memories of friendship" mainly comprising of shitting on each other.
 

Shawn128

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16
And special shout outs to the brain dead mother at my showing who brought her four year old to the movie who was audibly crying when Pennywise ripped into the chest of his first victim and left with her when Pennywise rips into the skull of that young girl approximately the same age as the girl she brought to the movie. I'm sure she wasn't permanently scarred.
The amount of children brought to my screening was nothing short of astounding. The entire first few rows of my theater had multiple families with kids.
 

Kaswa101

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,836
The reasons I have complaints about the way the monster was killed is because there are multiple scenes in the movie that contradict your interpretation of the monster's power.
Yes, it transforms into it's victims fears in order to terrorize them. In the book it is even mentioned that this intense fear tenderizes the meat, making it taste better. But it isn't required for it's victims to be terrorized before it makes a kill.

The scenes where he lures kids to their deaths in clown form prove this. Georgie wasn't terrified of Pennywise. Yes, he was apprehensive because WTF is a clown doing in a sewer? But then Pennywise goes to great lengths to reassure him in order to get him to come closer. Same thing with the little girl in part 2 who walks away from the bleachers following the firefly. At first she finds him creepy, but he convinces her to trust him. By the end of the scene she is actually smiling and at ease right before he makes the killing blow. There is no indication that Pennywise was powerless because those kids weren't scared in that moment.

This brings up again one of my issues with both movies. The monster's abilities and characteristics are not consistent and seem to change depending on what the scene requires.

The rest of the ending after Pennywise was dead I mostly liked.
Yeah I can understand that viewpoint, but personally it doesn't bother me. I like to think of it as Pennywise is just "enjoying the hunt" in Chapter 1, because he wants to terrify the Losers before killing them outright. We kinda see this when he corners Eddie and mocks him, or "plays with his food". And in terms of Georgie, I think he didn't care too much about terrifying him because Georgie was the first kill in It's new cycle, so he was probably just desperate for a meal lol.

In Chapter 2 though, my view is that he wants to make the Losers suffer as much as possible - such as by guilt-tripping Bill about Georgie, killing Dean in front of him, etc. You could also make the argument that he wants the Losers to attempt the ritual. That way, they lose their willpower and their faith in one another (such as blaming Mike), and they become cornered in what is literally It's home.

From a lore point of view, there's also that theory that each of the Losers have the Shining and are somehow "protected" from It. My memory's a bit fuzzy on that though, but IIRC the Turtle is no longer alive when they confront It at the end of Chapter 2, so that would explain why Eddie was vulnerable. Take your pick of which explanation you prefer, or just accept that the story is written in this way purely for the sake of entertainment lol :)
 

Jarmel

The Jackrabbit Always Wins
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
4,712
New York
It felt very unnecessary. I thought it'd have a bigger implication in the movie, but just reminding me that casual murder of gay people happens wasn't really something the film needed.
I thought it serves two main functions. One was to serve as a punchy way to reintroduce Pennywise and confirm for Mike that he’s back. The second was that it tied into Richie’s secret in general and why he had to hide that he was gay in Derry.
 

vitamind

Member
Nov 1, 2018
94
The kids experience terror right before he eats them. I mean we don’t know how much time lag is between the fear and meat salting 😂. Whenever Pennywise appears there is always a large upswell of violence the coincides its appearance. Derry is more evil than Pennywise. It’s unfortunate that more wasn’t shown in the movie but it was long enough as is. The scene works for what it’s trying to be in the movie as well as in the book.
 

Matthew77

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
2,815
Massachusetts
I thought it serves two main functions. One was to serve as a punchy way to reintroduce Pennywise and confirm for Mike that he’s back. The second was that it tied into Richie’s secret in general and why he had to hide that he was gay in Derry.
Don’t forget the cycle always starts with an act of extreme, evil, disturbing violence.

The cycle that the losers interrupted started when a man (forget his name but his son shows back up in 11/22/63 and this incident is a major plot point in that book) slaughters most of his family with a sledgehammer only his son getting away but taking a glancing blow and being brain damaged.
 

Rogue74

Member
Nov 13, 2017
423
Miami, FL
Yeah I can understand that viewpoint, but personally it doesn't bother me. I like to think of it as Pennywise is just "enjoying the hunt" in Chapter 1, because he wants to terrify the Losers before killing them outright. We kinda see this when he corners Eddie and mocks him, or "plays with his food". And in terms of Georgie, I think he didn't care too much about terrifying him because Georgie was the first kill in It's new cycle, so he was probably just desperate for a meal lol.

In Chapter 2 though, my view is that he wants to make the Losers suffer as much as possible - such as by guilt-tripping Bill about Georgie, killing Dean in front of him, etc. You could also make the argument that he wants the Losers to attempt the ritual. That way, they lose their willpower and their faith in one another (such as blaming Mike), and they become cornered in what is literally It's home.

From a lore point of view, there's also that theory that each of the Losers have the Shining and are somehow "protected" from It. My memory's a bit fuzzy on that though, but IIRC the Turtle is no longer alive when they confront It at the end of Chapter 2, so that would explain why Eddie was vulnerable. Take your pick of which explanation you prefer, or just accept that the story is written in this way purely for the sake of entertainment lol :)
So IMO Pennywise would be less likely to play around with them in Chapter 2 because he now knows they aren't just everyday people and are actually a threat to it. After all, they defeated him 27 years earlier. He should want them dead as quickly as possible.

You bring up lore and the turtle. For those who don't know, in the book, it is shown that the Losers actually have a kind of guardian angel somewhat protecting them and inching them in the right direction on their quest to kill the monster.

This guardian angel-like figure is Maturin, who in the books manifests itself to the kids as a giant turtle. Yeah I know. It's trippy. So they don't exactly have the shine but are being used as agents of Maturin to defeat It. This is completely absent from the movies. There are a few homages here and there. In the first film I think there is Lego turtle amongst Georgie's toys. In part 2 there is a stuffed turtle prominently featured in a scene in a classroom.

But the film does away with this altogether and replaces Maturin with a Native American tribe who Mike got all his info from. It's all a bit of a mess. I happen to think that if they had somehow incorporated Maturin there would be some explanation for why the Losers club sometimes seem like the luckiest motherfuckers on Earth.
 
Last edited:

Toth

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,159
As a huge fan of the book, I loved this movie. The changes worked well for me and the scares were great. I did not have an issue with the final battle because it was so much better than the book and TV series and they actually included the Ritual of Chuud! Stanley was actually given some great development in this movie, and helped make his action more meaningful. I feel they aligned with the character in the film series and not with the book Stanley, who was kind of dull.

Still odd they completely cut out Audrey’s role but there was too much to work with as is.
 

TaySan

Member
Dec 10, 2018
4,778
Why doesn't he just kill them when he had a million chances? Movie would have been much shorter lol
 
Dec 12, 2017
6,758
I found it to be really great writing how the childhood trauma caused Eddie to marry his mother and Bev to marry her father.

That psychologically makes a ton of sense.
 
Apr 19, 2018
1,140
And the scene when Ben is hiding in the locker and the NKOTB poster is right over his shoulder, and they didn't use that in any good way. They just stick Pennywise impossibly in there. Terrible. That would have been terrifying if the poster talked.
Yeah, this felt like a wasted opportunity. Would have been gnarly seeing a deformed version of Danny Wood terrifying Ben in that moment.

One other instance of a wasted opportunity is when Eddie has his final confrontation with the leper. I felt like the leper had worn out its welcome at this point, so it would have been a neat twist if It took the form of his mother, now leprosy-infected.
 

Ryuelli

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,036
And I know it’s not supposed to be super logical because Pennywise is a clown and likes to play or whatever, but the how’s and whys of him killing confuses me. Like he can only kill someone when they are super afraid of him because he feeds on that fear? When they don’t, he can’t?
In the book it describes fear as IT's seasoning. People taste better when they're scared and children taste the best.