IT Chapter Two |OT| Hello |SPOILERS|

BWoog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,644
Pennywise's whole thing is that imagination and willpower beat him and if you overcome your fear of him, you win. In It's presence, will becomes real. (Though I do have a problem with Eddie getting shanked as he had overcome his fear of the clown before getting stabbed in the back)

Remember in the first movie when Bill puts the bolt gun and Mike yells that its not loaded, but it works anyway?
 

oatmeal

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,516
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.
Totally. An obvious thing. How it played out didn't even make sense.
 

Timmm

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,699
Manchester, UK
I think I liked part 2 a lot more than i would otherwise because I saw it in IMAX, the combination of the big screen and louder sound really made the scenes with jump scares or tense moments have more of an impact than i think they would have otherwise

There was a bit of cheesy stuff at the start which made the film feel like a bit of a made-for-tv film, but after that I quite enjoyed it

Overall it was a pretty good popcorn film to watch at the cinema, it would be much diminished watching it on a TV at home imo

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?
In the book they go over how IT has been terrorising the area that Derry is in for centuries, and imply he was behind a few other disasters. One of them was making a colony of new world settlers go missing, and another was making some kind of factory explode. Him appearing in the old pictures can just be him being there, but also him altering the reality of the person looking at the old pictures to scare them


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.
There is a lot of weird stuff in the book, more than just what you said, however a lot of it is concentrated in the ending. There is more good stuff that wasn't in the film (or only touched on) than weird stuff in the book imo. If you liked the film then I would recommend giving the book a go. It's a long read but worth it, even with the weird stuff at the end.
 
Apr 19, 2018
1,140
When Bill was buying back Silver, did anyone else initially think it was going to serve as his token? Or a part of the bike, at least?

At that point, it didn't seem like Audra was going to play a major role in this adaptation anyway, and I was thinking, "Wow, he got off pretty easy compared to the rest of the Losers." At least have King turn into some gnarled beast he would have to fight off, lol.
 

Toth

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,159
Can we talk about the incredible soundtrack the movies had? The Loser’s theme in particular is very beautiful and heartwarming.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,730
United Kingdom
Really enjoyed it, part 1 is definitely the better of the 2 but this was still really good.

They could trim a few things here and there to make the movie a little tighter and the ending is still a bit meh. The giant spider still isn't amazing and how they beat IT felt a bit rushed right at the end.
 

KillingJoke

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
705
Thought it was enjoyable. Bill Hader was the highlight, but the horror beats were so generic by the book hollywood bullshit. And just like others, i can't tell what Pennywise master plan was or how he works. They show him killing kids with ease but for some reason he wants to fuck with the losers even though they proven they can beat his power.
 

maigret

Member
Jun 28, 2018
126
So after seeing this and the miniseries again on TV, I decided to finally order the book to see once and for all what the best version is.
 

Thrill_house

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,115
Liked it better than part one, which I absolutely loved. Best horror movie of the year and the best one I've seen in awhile. My crew and I loved it
 

Astral

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,744
Hollywood needs to learn how to do horror. I get that fear is subjective and the general audience loves their shitty jump scares, but there’s more to horror than generic loud music jump scare sound effects. So many scenes in this movie would’ve been better without it.
 

Spehornoob

Member
Nov 15, 2017
723
Saw this today. It's a messy movie that somehow feels rushed despite there being no real story and lasting three hours. But I was crying like a kid at the end so I think I still really liked it overall.
 

Gaia Lanzer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,727
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's suspected that It first took the form of Pennywise to get close to children. It witnessed the first circus to roll into Derry and realized that form was perfect to lure children into its grasp (and at that time, kids were more likely to not be suspicious of clowns, as the "scary clown" thing wasn't a, well, THING). Though, the old photos and the human man in Chapter 2 aren't a thing in the novel. Basically, the whole scene with Mrs. Kersh goes down like...
this: Bev has tea with Mrs. Kersh, whose mannerisms start to change. Mrs. Kersh tells Bev how her father was named Bob Grey (and that her "Faddah was also her Muddah"), Bev soon realizes the tea in her cup isn't tea, but sewage ripe shit and Mrs. Kersh has transformed into a shrivel faced witch. It's pretty similar to the mini-series, with the exception that Bev realizes the house is turning into candy (like from Hansel and Gretel) and the pictures on the walls start winking and making faces at her.

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
A lot of It's forms feature the clown motif. For instance, when It turns into the giant bird to attack Mike at the Kitchener Iron Works, It's tongue has the clown's orange pom poms on it. The Leper's suit, while chasing Eddie, looks like a suit-version of Pennywise's clown costume. The Mummy, that appears to Ben, is dressed like a clown (pom poms and such). It's similar to how It appeared to Ben in the mini-series as Ben's dead father, who had the pom poms down his center. Though, in the book, the spider didn't look clown-like.

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.
Pretty much.

It's explained more in the book that It doesn't NEED to eat. It eats because it likes to eat (particularly fear-seasoned human flesh), but like I said, it doesn't eat to survive. It's "eternal". Because of that, it considers itself like a "god" among humans, an evolved existence that sees humans like walking gingerbread people. In the book, it was sloppy with its meals. The whole "dissappearing kids" wasn't as much of a thing more than It killing kids and hiding their corpses around Derry (for adults to find later, though some were taken into the sewers, but descarded in various pipes away for It's lair). It didn't take Georgie into the sewers, It just ate his arm and left the rest of him on the street. So basically, it's not eating for nourishment, and doesn't care about its food, as long as it gets a taste. It's like killing a chicken, cooking it and just eating one wing, then tossing the remainder of the chicken out on the trash heap. It is wasteful as fuck and in that aspect it differs from the movie version. One thing people have stated is how Pennywise tends to zone out due to hunger, like a monster trying to pretend to be a person but giving into those monstrous cravings. Novel It never did that (It would've thought itself to be above such weakness or flaws).
 

Carnby

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,442
I saw it today. It was okay. There was too much bad CG, cheesy sound cues, editing/transitions, and even directing for me to like it any more. It felt like it was made for TV. I was not scared once. The story was good, so I'll give it that.

I also had issues with the movie not following its own rules.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,126
Also they made sure to put a Street Fighter ONE cab in the arcade and not 2. But then they put a Mortal Kombat 2 cab in the scene too. What the fuck
 

MoosetheMark

Member
May 3, 2019
90
The only scene true to the tone of the source was the opening gay bashing scene. It’s gross, it’s awful, and it’s the tone that IT should have.

Instead it’s Goosebumps, making the intro scene stand out like crazy.
Agree with this 100%. The scene feels like a leftover from the True Detective/Fukunaga stage of development, it would have fit and worked in a film with a much different tone. I'm not against including it, but it set expectations for a vibe that was completely deflated through sentimentality, quips, and bizarre comedy.

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.
Oh man, this was the worst part for me. I'm fine with cutting out the tounge-biting cosmic confrontation, but losing the bittersweet ending hurt me a lot. The sharp divide between childhood and adulthood is such a huge theme of the book, and while the ending is happier as is, it loses so much of its emotional punch.

I will write about all of this one day, he thinks, and knows it's just a dawn thought, an after-dreaming thought. But it's nice to think so for a while in the morning's clean silence, to think that childhood has its own sweet secrets and confirms mortality, and that mortality defines all courage and love. To think that what has looked forward must also look back, and that each life makes its own imitation of immortality: a wheel. Or so Bill Denbrough sometimes thinks on those early mornings after dreaming, when he almost remembers his childhood, and the friends with whom he shared it.
The last few chapters of the book bring me to tears every time, especially after the exhausting 1200-page journey, but I didn't feel anything when the movie was over.

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.
In the book Bill and Bev actually do sleep together, which is another plot point I missed. I don't particularly fault this adaptation for it, it's more of a larger trend in Hollywood where they seem to be actively trying to avoid portraying sex at all these days... Like, besides Tony Stark sleeping with the reporter in Iron Man 1, is there even a hint of sex throughout the entire MCU after that?

Now, I'm not saying they should have kept the infamous sewer sex scene, it just doesn't work today, though I do understand what King was going for when he included it in the book. Sex is traditionally a major rite of passage from childhood to adulthood, in a way it can also be seen as the titular 'It,' I.E., "have you done It yet?" and having Bill and Bev follow through on their desires would have made the love triangle much more engaging.

EDIT: accidentially had my whole post in italics just like 50% of the end of the book
This got a bigger laugh from me than anything in a movie. I love when King interrupts his normal prose with just massive paragraphs of run-on italic inner voice.

I guess my one big gripe with both the modern It movies is Pennywise's lack of personality. He's just such a monster from the get-go, the growly, snarly type, not the cerebral type. In the book, Pennywise is constantly talking shit, he's not scary because he's got big teeth and monster eyes, he's terrifying because he knows your innermost fears and secrets and knows exactly what to say to exploit them. Tim Curry was phenomenal at this aspect of the character, I know the effects failed him but I just prefer it so, so much to the jerky, weird voice and guttural sentences of the current iteration.

I still enjoyed both movies though, I've read the book so many times and I always get a kick out of seeing a King adaptation that at least attempts to take the source material seriously.
 

Jarmel

The Jackrabbit Always Wins
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
4,712
New York
Oh man, this was the worst part for me. I'm fine with cutting out the tounge-biting cosmic confrontation, but losing the bittersweet ending hurt me a lot. The sharp divide between childhood and adulthood is such a huge theme of the book, and while the ending is happier as is, it loses so much of its emotional punch.
The ending was probably King’s idea or done with his blessing. All those jokes about endings makes me think he did some advising or writing on the scripts.
 

Gaia Lanzer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,727
Also they made sure to put a Street Fighter ONE cab in the arcade and not 2. But then they put a Mortal Kombat 2 cab in the scene too. What the fuck
If that was the case, they should've just fuckin' went with Street Fighter 2. As it is, I had a hard time thinking Richie would be that into the first Street Fighter game (nobody was into the first Street Fighter. The popular consensus was that it sucked and series "Street Fighter" didn't become big in the US until Street Fighter II). Street Fighter One was one of those games, as a kid, you'd go, waste your quarter on, cringe at the controls and say, "Man, this game SUCKS!" and from then on, you avoid it at all costs. That's why, when I saw the first one and saw Richie playing that game in the arcade, I was sayin', "Why the fuck would you play that piece of shit game when there is a perfectly good Rampage cabinet in the background?"

Agree with this 100%. The scene feels like a leftover from the True Detective/Fukunaga stage of development, it would have fit and worked in a film with a much different tone. I'm not against including it, but it set expectations for a vibe that was completely deflated through sentimentality, quips, and bizarre comedy.

I guess my one big gripe with both the modern It movies is Pennywise's lack of personality. He's just such a monster from the get-go, the growly, snarly type, not the cerebral type. In the book, Pennywise is constantly talking shit, he's not scary because he's got big teeth and monster eyes, he's terrifying because he knows your innermost fears and secrets and knows exactly what to say to exploit them. Tim Curry was phenomenal at this aspect of the character, I know the effects failed him but I just prefer it so, so much to the jerky, weird voice and guttural sentences of the current iteration.
I didn't care much for Kukunaga's script, but I did like that he kept the more brutal edge of the novel. I've said it before, it might've felt out of place, pacing-wise, but he included the whole "Massacre at the Silver Dollar Bar" scene in one of his drafts, and it was basically true to the novel, gory violence and all.

And yeah, I've brought that aspect of Pennywise up before. I heard times people talked about how the movies' take on Pennywise is more true to the book, but it really isn't. Like I said, in the novel, It isn't a salivating monster trying to keep up a disguise, but keeps on zoning out because It's hungry and doesn't "feel right". It was GOOD at Its impersonations. Pennywise didn't even look threatening, until It wanted to. And yeah, It, particularly in Pennywise form, was TALKY AS FUCK. It talked a LOT OF SHIT, which is why I've said it before, It was just a big inter-dimensional bully, a "Henry Bowers" to the infinite power, from the space between spaces.
 
Last edited:

Matthew77

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
2,815
Massachusetts
A cosmic battle of wills in which if they lose, they go insane seeing the Dead Lights. That’s significantly cooler than fighting off a giant spider.
I agree. It’s funny I just watched Season 3 of Channel Zero today and while it wasn’t as intense as a proper it adaption would be they actually made a cosmic monster, well, cosmic.

Also I’m starting to feel like Skarsgard was wasted in this, and since he is the current closest thing the genre has to a Paxton or a Russell or any other big name cult horror stars I would rather he be in more stuff that’s classic instead of how many years he spent on what is eventually going to be considered two fun rollicking popcorn adventures that are ultimately forgettable. I want him to have a Near Dark or The Thing on his resume.
 

Jarmel

The Jackrabbit Always Wins
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
4,712
New York
I will never understand why people hate/dismiss the book version of the Ritual of Chud. It’s such a cool concept and would look absolutely amazing done in a visual format. It also ties in really well with both Bill and Richie’s characters.
 

BackLogJoe

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
612
I just saw it today. As a huge fan of King and It, I have to say this move was just good to me. The monsters kind of felt generic. The only one that hit home for me was the diseased bum attacking Eddie, the hypochondriac. I'll watch it again when it releases digitally.

I love how King makes fun of his criticism. I actually do not have a problem with his endings and love the way the Dark Tower ended.
 

Matthew77

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
2,815
Massachusetts
I will never understand why people hate/dismiss the book version of the Ritual of Chud. It’s such a cool concept and would look absolutely amazing done in a visual format. It also ties in really well with both Bill and Richie’s characters.
Some of us love cosmic horror and finding fear in either the unknowable or what we shouldn’t know

And other people find terror in a cat jumping when they are expecting a murderer.

There is a reason it took decades for people to realize in general and critics in particular to admit how great The Thing is.
 

pochi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,988
I think I liked the first film better.
I was laughing at the monster designs than being scared.
 

Toth

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,159
I will never understand why people hate/dismiss the book version of the Ritual of Chud. It’s such a cool concept and would look absolutely amazing done in a visual format. It also ties in really well with both Bill and Richie’s characters.
I think it is just too hard to film and it is too weird for the general audience. Heck, I am sure readers have an entirely differnet scene in their head as to what the 'space between space' even looks like and what a cosmic 'you bite my tongue, I bite harder on yours' battle would look like. A lot of the tension in that scene is reading the Losers' inner thoughts as It gets the upper hand and I struggle to see that produced on screen. Not to mention the whole Turtle scenes.
 
Apr 19, 2018
1,140
It Chapter 1 Release Date: 9/8/2017
9+8+2+0+1+7 = 27

It Chapter 2 Release Date: 9/6/2019
9+6+2+0+1+9 = 27

That's pretty cool.
 

Monkey DTT

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
2,238
USA West Virginia
I liked it alot but it felt alot more Hollywood. When the kids were funny it felt more natural, this felt alot more like "funny scene for actor " and it kind of killed tension. Eddie is super under rated the actor completely killed the role both young and old.

I despise the letter at the end, it felt very 13 reasons why. It's an 8.5, it's a fun movie but it's not a classic like part 1 was

I will never understand why people hate/dismiss the book version of the Ritual of Chud. It’s such a cool concept and would look absolutely amazing done in a visual format. It also ties in really well with both Bill and Richie’s characters.
Agreed completely
 

DarthOrange

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
1,624
Southern California, Mexico
I fucking loved this movie. I also really loved the first one. Totally managed to meet the expectations set by the first.

Anyone else get surprised by the Birds of Prey bit at the very start? When I saw the DC logo I legit thought the mad lads at Warner were going to make Pennywise part of the DCCU.
 

HF2014

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,138
What a shitty second part, like seriously. The first hour was good, but after that, it went wayyy downward. Too much CGI ( and can we speak on how bad they were? Last time i remember that bad CGI it was the first GI Joe ). Bill Hader really steal the show, but beside that, nothing is worth remembering. This movie is a contender with Godzilla for worst movie of the year, no doubt!
 

MoosetheMark

Member
May 3, 2019
90
I will never understand why people hate/dismiss the book version of the Ritual of Chud. It’s such a cool concept and would look absolutely amazing done in a visual format. It also ties in really well with both Bill and Richie’s characters.
I think it is just too hard to film and it is too weird for the general audience. Heck, I am sure readers have an entirely differnet scene in their head as to what the 'space between space' even looks like and what a cosmic 'you bite my tongue, I bite harder on yours' battle would look like. A lot of the tension in that scene is reading the Losers' inner thoughts as It gets the upper hand and I struggle to see that produced on screen. Not to mention the whole Turtle scenes.
I was really hoping we would get something like this:

 

Carnby

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,442
I'm almost certain it was the first Mortal Kombat -- but yes, that's still a glaring discrepancy.
MK2 was on the left side of SF, and MK1 was on the right side. (If you were facing the SF cabinet.)

Here's a map:

-------------MK2<->SF<->MK1<->Photo Booth

Rampage. -----------------------------------------------------Door

----------------------------------Token dispenser
 

HotHamBoy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,319
So I haven't read IT but I was curious about the Deadlights and discovered that they and Derry appear in The Dark Tower series?

I only read The Gunslinger and half of the 2nd book. What's the connection between these books? Is it just a weird meta-King thing (i recall reading that the Dark Tower gets real weird and meta).

The Deadlights are the kind of lore I live for. Anytime they showed them in the films I was glued to the screen.

... should i read IT? Goddamn it, i really dont want to...

Sidenote: Regular Pennywise is way scarier than CGI Pennywise in any form but I LOVED how he looked all pathetic and shriveled up.

Hollywood needs to learn how to do horror. I get that fear is subjective and the general audience loves their shitty jump scares, but there’s more to horror than generic loud music jump scare sound effects. So many scenes in this movie would’ve been better without it.
Hot take: this is the shit that general audiences are actually looking for.

The two IT films are full of tropes and cliches and little tricks that have been done to death and it really undermines everything else in the films that is fresh and original.

Rewatching Part 1 the other night I was irritated during one of the big horror scenes when you can hear a loud, non-diagetic heartbeat in a scene that is otherwise not particularly tense. That is such a lame trick. Took me right out of the movie.

What a shitty second part, like seriously. The first hour was good, but after that, it went wayyy downward. Too much CGI ( and can we speak on how bad they were? Last time i remember that bad CGI it was the first GI Joe ). Bill Hader really steal the show, but beside that, nothing is worth remembering. This movie is a contender with Godzilla for worst movie of the year, no doubt!
I promise you that IT 2 is not up for worst movie of the year and although I haven't seen KOTM because it looks like shit I'm pretty sure it's not the worst, either.

A LOT of movies come out and A LOT are awful.

Also I guess it's not his fault but Bill Hader was terrible. The majority of his lines sucked ass
Hader wasn't terrible but his character was. I absolutely don't get the praise for him in this, though. He's fine.

Bill Skarsgard and Sophia Lillis remain the best performances between the two movies.
 
Last edited:

MoosetheMark

Member
May 3, 2019
90
And yeah, I've brought that aspect of Pennywise up before. I heard times people talked about how the movies' take on Pennywise is more true to the book, but it really isn't. Like I said, in the novel, It isn't a salivating monster trying to keep up a disguise, but keeps on zoning out because It's hungry and doesn't "feel right". It was GOOD at Its impersonations. Pennywise didn't even look threatening, until It wanted to. And yeah, It, particularly in Pennywise form, was TALKY AS FUCK. It talked a LOT OF SHIT, which is why I've said it before, It was just a big inter-dimensional bully, a "Henry Bowers" to the infinite power, from the space between spaces.
A great example of this is the Stanley in the refrigerator scene. In the book and miniseries, it's just a decapitated head that comes to life and starts rambling about the Losers' deepest fears and insecurities. It's deeply unsettling and just feels utterly obscene and wrong. The miniseries version is a lot cheesier but imagine this done with a budget and the leeway of an R-rating:


Chapter 2 had a version of this scene, but instead of speaking and being deeply disturbing and horrifying, Stanley's head just turns into a CGI spider monster and we get a weak-ass chase scene instead.
 

Carnby

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,442
A great example of this is the Stanley in the refrigerator scene. In the book and miniseries, it's just a decapitated head that comes to life and starts rambling about the Losers' deepest fears and insecurities. It's deeply unsettling and just feels utterly obscene and wrong. The miniseries version is a lot cheesier but imagine this done with a budget and the leeway of an R-rating:


Chapter 2 had a version of this scene, but instead of speaking and being deeply disturbing and horrifying, Stanley's head just turns into a CGI spider monster and we get a weak-ass chase scene instead.
The weak-ass CG didn't help either.
 

dennett316

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,104
Blackpool, UK
I thought it was decent, much preferred Chapter One. Just like the mini-series the kid-focused part was the better one.
It was a bit flabby, there was too much crash and boom spectacle-type scenes and not enough smaller, more intimate encounters. The best scene in the movie for me is when the little girl with the birth mark on her face talks to Pennywise under the bleachers. She recognised his obvious creepiness but he used it to manipulate her into coming closer. They still ended it with a loud jump-scarey attack, but it was one that was handled well in the scene. The Paul Bunyon statue attack was just excess for the sake of excess, and the design of it looked crappy compared to the design of the leper, or some of Pennywise's creepy facial contortions.
The shit with Stan's suicide and how it was turned into a noble sacrifice of sorts really kind of de-fanged the impact of his reaction to the news of Pennywise's return. The mini-series handled it really well, really got across the point of how terrified the thought of It made Stan. His demeanour changed to that of the younger version of him, pulling on his ear nervously, it contrasted perfectly with the brief glimpse of his obviously happy life with his wife. That's all that was needed there.

Eh. Overall I really enjoyed this new adaptation of It, even if the second half was once again a bit of a disappointment.
 

Sub Boss

Member
Nov 14, 2017
11,393
it was awesome i think i liked it more than the first part :,^)
the only problems were there in the first as well,the cgi looks bad at times, it isn't really scary but it has a lot of heart, and the humor i thought was pretty good, but too much it broke moments that should have been suspenseful or heartful/tender

Overall i think it was as good as the first. The setting, characters carry this one and it has a good message
 

HotHamBoy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,319
Chapter 2 had a version of this scene, but instead of speaking and being deeply disturbing and horrifying, Stanley's head just turns into a CGI spider monster and we get a weak-ass chase scene instead.
An homage to John Carpenter's The Thing though, right?

The Thing, It, haha. Very good. Direct reference to another shapeshifting monster with a nondescript name.



I have to imagine King was influenced by The Thing when writing his book, so that's very cute.
 

HueyFreeman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,171
I was really hoping we would get something like this:

I knew cosmic spider turtle battle wouldn’t be in it because it’s cinematically impossible, but I was still hoping for it. Generic “these indigenous mystics” substitute didn’t really cut it, though I appreciated at least any effort of making the whole thing larger than just a creature feature.
 

MoosetheMark

Member
May 3, 2019
90
An homage to John Carpenter's The Thing though, right?

The Thing, It, haha. Very good. Direct reference to another shapeshifting monster with a nondescript name.

Yeah it was pretty blatant, it was fine in concept. It felt kind of like a throwback to when Richie would see the Crawling Eye and Michael Landon's Teenage Werewolf and other famous monsters of filmland in the book. King basically wrote It as an excuse to get all of his favorite monsters in one novel, so I'm cool with the homage. I just wish it spoke more...
 

Donald Draper

Member
Feb 2, 2019
1,200
So I haven't read IT but I was curious about the Deadlights and discovered that they and Derry appear in The Dark Tower series?

I only read The Gunslinger and half of the 2nd book. What's the connection between these books? Is it just a weird meta-King thing (i recall reading that the Dark Tower gets real weird and meta).

The Deadlights are the kind of lore I live for. Anytime they showed them in the films I was glued to the screen.

... should i read IT? Goddamn it, i really dont want to...

Sidenote: Regular Pennywise is way scarier than CGI Pennywise in any form but I LOVED how he looked all pathetic and shriveled up.


Hot take: this is the shit that general audiences are actually looking for.

The two IT films are full of tropes and cliches and little tricks that have been done to death and it really undermines everything else in the films that is fresh and original.

Rewatching Part 1 the other night I was irritated during one of the big horror scenes when you can hear a loud, non-diagetic heartbeat in a scene that is otherwise not particularly tense. That is such a lame trick. Took me right out of the movie.


I promise you that IT 2 is not up for worst movie of the year and although I haven't seen KOTM because it looks like shit I'm pretty sure it's not the worst, either.

A LOT of movies come out and A LOT are awful.



Hader wasn't terrible but his character was. I absolutely don't get the praise for him in this, though. He's fine.

Bill Skarsgard and Sophia Lillis remain the best performances between the two movies.
Like almost every single King book in some way connects to The Dark Tower series.

The deadlights are used by the crimson king, who is the main enemy in the series.

IT if I remember correctly is a monster from the todash darkness. In"The Mist" they unlock a gate to the todash space which is where all the monsters come from.

The Dark Tower series goes more into depth about all this stuff. I highly recommend reading them. The gunslinger book itself is not a good representation of what the series is like.