Just saw IT! SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

not_nadine

Comfortably Roont
Nov 19, 2011
29,655
139,785
Behind you
I read this about the deleted scene:

As you might know, Bill Skarsgard recently revealed that Pennywise's old-timey origins were left out of the film, despite the fact that they were initially written in. Skarsgard told of a flashback to the 1600s, before Pennywise was the horrible dancing clown the Losers' Club meets in the 1980s. On Throwing Shade, this is the scene Safi actually pulls up and reads out loud. Here's the full excerpt.

1637: Abigail, 19, rushes in and slams the door, as if trying to keep Satan himself out. She clutches her baby to her breast. Her baby starts to fuss. She stops, realizes that the small candle chandelier slowly spins above her, as if some unnatural forces cause this light to rotate. She hears something slithering in the gray shadows by the well. Occasionally, we catch a glimpse of a black silhouette. A beam of light passes, revealing Pennywise: naked, lithe, fresh, pale, and translucent — a half-formed imitation of a human. Opens his maw, full of large, razor-sharp teeth, dripping with saliva. . . . His voice is guttural, unnatural.

Here, Safi breaks and starts to paraphrase. Pennywise wants to eat Abigail's baby. "Basically, he says, 'I'll take your baby, then your husband, then the rest of your children.'" Simons chimes in with his memory of the scene: "Right. He basically says, 'Give me that baby or I will take everything from you, and then I will damn you to the soil.'"

Totally wild, right? It's a shame we didn't get to see this iteration of Pennywise, but there's still hope. In the confirmed sequel, which comes out in September 2019, we will be delving into the origin of Pennywise the clown. All I'm saying is that Abigail better watch her back.
 

Dana Jean

Dirty Pirate Hooker, The Return
Moderator
Apr 11, 2006
53,634
236,697
The High Seas
This is just the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately. :facepalm_smiley::apologetic:
THis is just horrible. Why does this make people feel so good to abuse and take advantage of others? I don't get that. All I really have in this world is my character, and I would not feel good about myself if I was a predator. I guess they just don't care and more damn people need to speak up and expose these creeps.

My grown children give me sh*t for being so protective. And you know what? Tough. I was protective because of people like this preying on children -- just waiting for someone to let their guard down. Didn't happen on my watch.
 

kingricefan

All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.
Jul 11, 2006
30,011
127,446
Spokane, WA
THis is just horrible. Why does this make people feel so good to abuse and take advantage of others? I don't get that. All I really have in this world is my character, and I would not feel good about myself if I was a predator. I guess they just don't care and more damn people need to speak up and expose these creeps.

My grown children give me sh*t for being so protective. And you know what? Tough. I was protective because of people like this preying on children -- just waiting for someone to let their guard down. Didn't happen on my watch.
Show your grown children stuff like this and maybe they'll stop giving you sh*t. At least you were there for them and protected them. In my book that spells G O O D M O M!
 

Dana Jean

Dirty Pirate Hooker, The Return
Moderator
Apr 11, 2006
53,634
236,697
The High Seas
Show your grown children stuff like this and maybe they'll stop giving you sh*t. At least you were there for them and protected them. In my book that spells G O O D M O M!
THank you. And yes, they tell me i was a good mom, just a little over protective. Hey, when I signed my kids up for anything, I stayed right there. I didn't go run errands or leave them with this random joe blow who was coaching t ball or whatever. I stayed with my kids.

And good thing I did. I signed one of my sons up for golf lessons. The guy was great. Super nice. Extended family had grown up with him, knew him all his life -- he kept telling me he would be happy to give my son private lessons, he could transport him if I needed help with that -- but, my son didn't like golf and I wouldn't have taken him up on the offer anyway. Come to find out, he molested a kid and was convicted of it.

To this day, when my kids start that protective crap with me, I throw that out there. I protected you from a predator douchebag, don't give me your whiny bs.
 

Steffen

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,233
12,800

GeorgieFan2003

Bill and Georgie Fan
Sep 17, 2017
1,376
4,480
40
I read this about the deleted scene:

As you might know, Bill Skarsgard recently revealed that Pennywise's old-timey origins were left out of the film, despite the fact that they were initially written in. Skarsgard told of a flashback to the 1600s, before Pennywise was the horrible dancing clown the Losers' Club meets in the 1980s. On Throwing Shade, this is the scene Safi actually pulls up and reads out loud. Here's the full excerpt.

1637: Abigail, 19, rushes in and slams the door, as if trying to keep Satan himself out. She clutches her baby to her breast. Her baby starts to fuss. She stops, realizes that the small candle chandelier slowly spins above her, as if some unnatural forces cause this light to rotate. She hears something slithering in the gray shadows by the well. Occasionally, we catch a glimpse of a black silhouette. A beam of light passes, revealing Pennywise: naked, lithe, fresh, pale, and translucent — a half-formed imitation of a human. Opens his maw, full of large, razor-sharp teeth, dripping with saliva. . . . His voice is guttural, unnatural.

Here, Safi breaks and starts to paraphrase. Pennywise wants to eat Abigail's baby. "Basically, he says, 'I'll take your baby, then your husband, then the rest of your children.'" Simons chimes in with his memory of the scene: "Right. He basically says, 'Give me that baby or I will take everything from you, and then I will damn you to the soil.'"

Totally wild, right? It's a shame we didn't get to see this iteration of Pennywise, but there's still hope. In the confirmed sequel, which comes out in September 2019, we will be delving into the origin of Pennywise the clown. All I'm saying is that Abigail better watch her back.

This scene could make it's way to the director's cut of Chapter 1. But they could also save it for Chapter 2 since it deals more with It's origins.


Good for Finn, I hope none of the kids experienced this stuff
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
My vievs on IT. First some questions: Why make Beverly to a damsel in distress close to the end? A change i thought was totally unnecessary and diminished the movie. Why make them so divisive inside the Losers? Why the fights, arguments and angry words inside the Losers? The friendship, that deep friendship that held them together, were not there. There were minor changes too, like Henry Bowers dad being a cop, like Mike being raised by a grandparent. Those changes i can live with the others were mistakes. Richie was only jokes, that he is one of the most intelligent of the Losers isnt even hinted at. They transformed him to the jokeguy and forgot all the rest of him. For acting i think the Kids did fine, better than in the original and Skarsgård was good as Pennywise. He did his own thing which was a wise choice and did not try to imitate Tim Curry. A fun little nod to the earlier it in a comment where Richie says to Bev that shes trying to look like Molly Ringwald (played bev in the first movie). Some really important scenes were not there; The Smokehouse or the Silver ball making. The second i can understand, the first.... Are they saving it for next movie?
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
My vievs on IT. First some questions: Why make Beverly to a damsel in distress close to the end? A change i thought was totally unnecessary and diminished the movie. Why make them so divisive inside the Losers? Why the fights, arguments and angry words inside the Losers? The friendship, that deep friendship that held them together, were not there. There were minor changes too, like Henry Bowers dad being a cop, like Mike being raised by a grandparent. Those changes i can live with the others were mistakes. Richie was only jokes, that he is one of the most intelligent of the Losers isnt even hinted at. They transformed him to the jokeguy and forgot all the rest of him. For acting i think the Kids did fine, better than in the original and Skarsgård was good as Pennywise. He did his own thing which was a wise choice and did not try to imitate Tim Curry. A fun little nod to the earlier it in a comment where Richie says to Bev that shes trying to look like Molly Ringwald (played bev in the first movie). Some really important scenes were not there; The Smokehouse or the Silver ball making. The second i can understand, the first.... Are they saving it for next movie?

I didn't see Bev as the damsel in distress. In fact, we see her stand up to her father and lay him out. The fact that she can't face the clown alone, doesn't (at least in my opinion) undermine her asserting her power. Moreover, the clown would have already killed her long before the rest of the Losers showed up except for the fact that she stands up to it by not being afraid. The fact that she can't fight it physically alone, is irrelevant. She beats her father. She forces It into a standoff. She bought herself the time the Losers required to back her up. I just can't agree with your evaluation of what you saw. I do think, however, that by the film's approach it had to be Bev (of the Losers) that the monster grabbed which would galvanize the others. I will address this along with one of your other questions below.

You ask why the film Losers had so many fights and disagreements. You infer your dislike of the shallowness of the characters. It has to do with the medium. The film isn't long enough. That is why I've always said that to do It right, they need a series like American Gods. In the book, the Losers had more time and events to forge them into a strong unit. We can believe that they would be steadfast and not break. We even see the few times they almost broke; Bill holds them together. The film isn't spread out over the same amount of time. The Losers like each other sure. They are at the start of a friendship, but it isn't the same. I actually think the film did the RIGHT thing by having them break apart. Without the build up forging them into a unit, it wouldn't have been at all believable for them not to disagree, argue, and fall apart. Was it different from the book. Damn skippy; it had to be. That is why Bev getting taken was important. Since their unit had been split, it needed something extra. Had It grabbed one of the boys, some of them would have come... but probably not all of them. Like it or not, part of the male psyche was at play. It wasn't because Bev was a damsel in distress (in distress yes... damsel no)... but because the boys saw her that way which was extra motivation. We the audience believe on a gut level that yes, ALL of them would come out for her, whereas we probably would only some would come out (with the closest bonds) for one of the others. Does that make sense?

I want to be very clear. The movie was good. It was still nothing but a faint echo of the book. I agree the book is better and hope to see it adapted one day. You get no disagreement from me on that. Still, as far as film adaptations go, the film was very good. It did what it could and made some changes that probably were necessary for the suspension of disbelief. You and I can agree to disagree about Beverly's role at the end of the film. Getting taken by the clown, at least to me, doesn't demonstrate weakness. It could take down the Terminator. I think the fact that she faced it without fear was all win for her.
 

kingricefan

All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.
Jul 11, 2006
30,011
127,446
Spokane, WA
My vievs on IT. First some questions: Why make Beverly to a damsel in distress close to the end? A change i thought was totally unnecessary and diminished the movie. Why make them so divisive inside the Losers? Why the fights, arguments and angry words inside the Losers? The friendship, that deep friendship that held them together, were not there. There were minor changes too, like Henry Bowers dad being a cop, like Mike being raised by a grandparent. Those changes i can live with the others were mistakes. Richie was only jokes, that he is one of the most intelligent of the Losers isnt even hinted at. They transformed him to the jokeguy and forgot all the rest of him. For acting i think the Kids did fine, better than in the original and Skarsgård was good as Pennywise. He did his own thing which was a wise choice and did not try to imitate Tim Curry. A fun little nod to the earlier it in a comment where Richie says to Bev that shes trying to look like Molly Ringwald (played bev in the first movie). Some really important scenes were not there; The Smokehouse or the Silver ball making. The second i can understand, the first.... Are they saving it for next movie?
Molly Ringwald was not in It, sorry Kurben. Read through some of the previous posts because some of us didn't see Bev as a damsel in distress. I actually thought that she was very brave and that Pennywise used her as bait to get the rest of the Losers down in the sewers.
 

Dana Jean

Dirty Pirate Hooker, The Return
Moderator
Apr 11, 2006
53,634
236,697
The High Seas
Molly Ringwald was not in It, sorry Kurben. Read through some of the previous posts because some of us didn't see Bev as a damsel in distress. I actually thought that she was very brave and that Pennywise used her as bait to get the rest of the Losers down in the sewers.
If I read Damsel in Distress one more time, I'm sh*tting myself.

:rofl:
 

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,651
358,754
62
Cambridge, Ohio
If I read Damsel in Distress one more time, I'm sh*tting myself.

:rofl:
depends.jpg