IT Chapter Two

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • The message board will be closed from Thursday, September 12th at 4pm EST until Tuesday, September 24th at 8:30 AM ET
    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

  • New 2019 Hours: The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Thursday and 8:30am ET Tuesday.

    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

preciousroy

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2018
152
569
That is so true. I did not get very far with the mist tv show.. did you enjoy it
No. I wasn't sure how they were going to stretch it out into multiple seasons but I didn't get past the first episode. I wanted to like it...

agreed, its become a cardboard cutout of a trait that has become an attention harboring crowd pleaser. an embodiment of a stereotype ironically to please the people claiming to be against stereotypes. I don't know how people give in to an obvious attempt to capitalize off the attention given from spotlighting a minority group only after the majority of society is for them. Why didn't they support them back before it was legalized and much more controversial? No more questions, just buy the product.
I don't believe many people know why they hold their convictions. I don't believe many people have examined this about themselves. I don't think many people know why they care about what they care about. But people did support them, there have been plenty of films featuring homosexual characters and cross dressers. It isn't new, it's just being shoved down our throats now and everyone's acting like it was never this way before.

or, and hang with me here, it could be they include characters of these stripes because thanks to the diverse nature of society, especially these days, having the whole bunch of characters be white and straight doesn't really reflect reality that much. i like how people love focusing on these characters as if it's somehow a bad thing for them to exist, given the glut of entertainment media that showcases white and straight. which is not an attack on white straight people before someone gets their knickers twisted. as for why not in the past, well, we can't exactly go back and change it, can we? the entertainment industry couldn't just overcome the attitudes in america regarding homosexuality overnight. they were operating in the same atmosphere that forced the majority of gay people to be in the closet for fear of retribution. you can choose to be cynical about it, and you can choose to view the very existence of a homosexual character as a negative (despite the look it presents), personally, i'll just be grateful that we've made enough progress that gay characters can just be in a movie/tv show without much fanfare outside of certain troglodyte hangouts on the internet.
I don't watch movies for their realistic representation of reality. I enjoy stories for the escapism. John McClane would not have survived the events of Die Hard, for example. Do you really like people focusing on those things or are you using sarcasm to vent your frustrations? We were conditioned in the past, we're being conditioned now. The entertainment industry has no responsibility to change America's attitude and I have not elected them to be my moral arbiter. I can recall a number of strong female icons and homosexual characters in movies for decades. Is it progress or are you being pandered to like everyone else in a demographic? And as an aside, referring to people who may not agree with you as troglodytes doesn't help maintain the image you are trying to present of diverse equality.
 

recitador

Speed Reader
Sep 3, 2016
1,719
8,020
36
No. I wasn't sure how they were going to stretch it out into multiple seasons but I didn't get past the first episode. I wanted to like it...


I don't believe many people know why they hold their convictions. I don't believe many people have examined this about themselves. I don't think many people know why they care about what they care about. But people did support them, there have been plenty of films featuring homosexual characters and cross dressers. It isn't new, it's just being shoved down our throats now and everyone's acting like it was never this way before.


I don't watch movies for their realistic representation of reality. I enjoy stories for the escapism. John McClane would not have survived the events of Die Hard, for example. Do you really like people focusing on those things or are you using sarcasm to vent your frustrations? We were conditioned in the past, we're being conditioned now. The entertainment industry has no responsibility to change America's attitude and I have not elected them to be my moral arbiter. I can recall a number of strong female icons and homosexual characters in movies for decades. Is it progress or are you being pandered to like everyone else in a demographic? And as an aside, referring to people who may not agree with you as troglodytes doesn't help maintain the image you are trying to present of diverse equality.
You're protesting a little too much. The very presence of homosexual characters makes hollywood your moral arbiter? Give me a break. Sorry hollywood is making it hard to escape the existence of gay people i guess? Poor you.Thanks for breaking out the tired cliche of gay people existing as "being shoved down your throat" though, that's always a classic. As an aside, believing in diversity and equality doesn't equal giving my blessing to ignorance. It's always cute when people who use the arguments you use try to misrepresent exactly what tolerance and equality mean though.
 

preciousroy

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2018
152
569
You're protesting a little too much. The very presence of homosexual characters makes hollywood your moral arbiter? Give me a break. Sorry hollywood is making it hard to escape the existence of gay people i guess? Poor you.Thanks for breaking out the tired cliche of gay people existing as "being shoved down your throat" though, that's always a classic. As an aside, believing in diversity and equality doesn't equal giving my blessing to ignorance. It's always cute when people who use the arguments you use try to misrepresent exactly what tolerance and equality mean though.
If you believe people weren't tolerant and inclusive of homosexuals before now then maybe you are the one who had a problem with them originally.
 

recitador

Speed Reader
Sep 3, 2016
1,719
8,020
36
If you believe people weren't tolerant and inclusive of homosexuals before now then maybe you are the one who had a problem with them originally.
Oh, we've reached the part of the discussion where you just make up something i supposedly said. Please refer to exactly when i said no one was tolerant of gay people before now, this year (i guess that's what "now" is supposed to mean?) second thought, since you're clearly a member of the dishonest discourse brigade, i'll go back to my corner, you go back to your basement, and i'll just give you exactly the amount of attention you merit, which is none. also, i'm sorry to burst the bubble you're projecting so hard my way, but i'm gay. you've shown exactly what type of person you are in fairly short order so i'm done engaging with you. .
 

preciousroy

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2018
152
569
Oh, we've reached the part of the discussion where you just make up something i supposedly said. Please refer to exactly when i said no one was tolerant of gay people before now, this year (i guess that's what "now" is supposed to mean?) second thought, since you're clearly a member of the dishonest discourse brigade, i'll go back to my corner, you go back to your basement, and i'll just give you exactly the amount of attention you merit, which is none. also, i'm sorry to burst the bubble you're projecting so hard my way, but i'm gay. you've shown exactly what type of person you are in fairly short order so i'm done engaging with you. .
Lol It was in your mental gymnastics where you chose to selectively address my comment and made claims about my arguments misrepresenting tolerance and equality without actually pointing out what those argument were or addressing them. You are aware of what you were responding to, are you not? You clearly derive a sense of personal satisfaction from playing victim to a reality you seem to be selectively perceiving. I don't care if you're gay. I'm glad you're done engaging with me. You are a very unpleasant person to communicate with. Goodnight.
 

Wayoftheredpanda

Flaming Wonder Telepath
May 15, 2018
3,259
14,615
15
I don't believe many people know why they hold their convictions. I don't believe many people have examined this about themselves. I don't think many people know why they care about what they care about. But people did support them, there have been plenty of films featuring homosexual characters and cross dressers. It isn't new, it's just being shoved down our throats now and everyone's acting like it was never this way before.
to clarify, I'm not saying there aren't companies and films who actually support them. It just seems there are many that could care less and are merely trying to profit off their very existence. Maybe that's a narrow minded outlook when consumer culture is based around pandering to certain groups of people, but it seems very relevant in todays culture.
 

preciousroy

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2018
152
569
to clarify, I'm not saying there aren't companies and films who actually support them. It just seems there are many that could care less and are merely trying to profit off their very existence. Maybe that's a narrow minded outlook when consumer culture is based around pandering to certain groups of people, but it seems very relevant in todays culture.
Yes you are correct but that is true of most things. No organic movement ever stays organic for very long before it gets highjacked by people with the funds to profit off the new movement. It happened to electronic music as it crept from underground to psuedo-mainstream to mainstream. Most of the fans of electronic music now would have been the same people calling it noise in the 90's. Basically if there's an opportunity for profit, someone with money will find a way to yield that profit. Genuine things become commericalized and commodified all the time. Mainstream-ism is where movements come to die.
 

Wayoftheredpanda

Flaming Wonder Telepath
May 15, 2018
3,259
14,615
15
You're protesting a little too much. The very presence of homosexual characters makes hollywood your moral arbiter? Give me a break. Sorry hollywood is making it hard to escape the existence of gay people i guess? Poor you.Thanks for breaking out the tired cliche of gay people existing as "being shoved down your throat" though, that's always a classic. As an aside, believing in diversity and equality doesn't equal giving my blessing to ignorance. It's always cute when people who use the arguments you use try to misrepresent exactly what tolerance and equality mean though.
I really apologize if this whole discussion came off this way and I really shouldn't have brung up the politics around it. I'm not homophobic and I think it's safe to say none of us here are, it just seems (to me) that equality has become a very marketable term. If these multimillion dollar companies really want to show their support for them, why aren't some of them donating to charities or speaking up about countries where being gay is punishable by state? I'm not claiming none of them do. it just seems a lot prefer to sit on the sidelines. I really think the discussion should cease now as it's kinda turned into something that could go off the rails. if it hasn't already.
 

Moderator

Ms. Mod
Administrator
Jul 10, 2006
49,950
140,505
Maine
Had my first viewing a couple days ago of this. It had some shaky parts, but overall, i think it ended up a solid movie. I lean towards the first one being a bit better, but I felt by the end of the movie that once again, they did a decent job navigating the pitfalls of adapting this.

The Adrian Mellon scene at the start - a bit rushed, and it doesn't really grab the details of what that scene established in the book, mainly that Derry has a deep down case of the crazies. But we get some nice character moments with Adrian and Don, quick as they are, before we proceed to what many in this day probably find to be a bit of a graphic scene. An understandable perspective, hatred in your face like that is uncomfortable. For people who have been on the receiving end of such hatred, even more so. It is something that still exists and is a problem unfortunately, albeit better than it used to be. It demos the dark underbelly of Derry, just in a little more of a shallow way than the book (but isn't that always the problem from the book to the screen?)

The intro of the adult Losers is very rapid fire. Peppered with some amusing moments and giving us a little glimpse into the characters lives, it's almost too rapid fire. It doesn't do the best job establishing just how completely they've forgotten their past lives, although there are a few references sprinkled in. We get very brief glimpses of Audra and Tom, never to be seen again. We get a fairly short but effective demo of what a piece of crap Tom is. Audra however, is given pretty short shrift. I understand the need to nerf the plotline of these two chasing their spouses to Derry in a movie that has so much to do, but it felt like Audra was just there, and she wasn't even convincing as a loving spouse. She did get to start the pretty fun running joke of how Bill is incapable of writing a good ending, something many have said of Stephen King, which is a clear call out to that running criticism. Henry shows up as an adult as well, again, feeling a little tacked on, even more so than in the first movie, which already suffered from time constraints not being able to demonstrate just how deep his crazy was and how much It was using him.

The Jade Orient scene, started out good, the camaraderie was there. It starts to get a little too manic for me when it comes time for Mike to inform the others what has been happening. Everyone talking over each other, not letting Mike actually talk, was a bit annoying. The fortune cookie messages were a nice touch however, and the reactions to the cookie monsters (ba dum dum) were well done. Then we get another dose of what the mini series suffered from that was one of my main annoyances with it. The adults all start talking about cutting and running, and not following through on their promise. I'm not sure why the need for anyone adapting this to make the adults act like they have no intentions of staying or following through on their promise to kill the child murdering monster. There was no such wavering in the book, and I don't think it plays particularly well. Having a moment of such thoughts, sure, and having one scene of convincing, but Richie is once again one foot out the door for half the movie, and others hop on and off the "let's get the **** out of dodge" train at various points.

We get the movies version of the Ritual of Chud, understandably toned down a bit from the book, and then we get the new version of the Walking Tours section. The tokens thing was a little meh, but again, trying to adapt the ritual to the big screen has its problems so i was mostly ok with it. We get some nice flashbacks along the way, and the underground clubhouse appears. It feels a little tacked on, and I wish they'd at least had one scene with it in the first one, but it was nice to see. We also get a serviceable Ms. Kersh scene, and we get one of the more unexpected things to actually make the leap from book to screen, the giant murderous Paul Bunyan statue. Here we start getting the heavy hint that Richie is gay and closeted, which while not true to the source material as such, isn't a bad change for me. The scene with Bill encountering the skateboard kid and his subsequent attempt to save him from Pennywise was fairly well done. Despite Henry's feeling of being tacked on, his quest to kill the Losers with the assistance of zombie Patrick wasn't too bad, we get some fun sequences from that, although Henry is pretty quickly put on the chopping block. Richie's little side trip down memory lane in regards to Stan's bar mitzvah speech while he was fleeing Derry was a nice way to bring him back in.

Bill was again almost drawn away from the rest of the group, this time the catalyst being the kid he tried to save instead of his kidnapped wife, but the group catches him just before he enters the Neibolt house and we head into the final act. Mike is with them this time, unlike the book and miniseries, in part because of the movies version of the Ritual of Chud, so that's an interesting change, although they feel like they didn't give him quite enough to do despite that. The sequence with the Stan head/spider thing was pretty cool, we get the movie's version of the mini door to It's lair, there's a lot going on really, details i could go on about for awhile, and maybe we can dive into all that in subsequent posts. Bill addresses his guilt over his brothers death, Bev and Ben make a connection, Eddie overcomes his fear, showcased a couple times earlier with him freezing up when someone needed help. He hurts It, and while taking a mental victory lap we get the inevitable mortal injury for him. The end is a little shaky, with the Losers kind of shouting It down and expressing their belief that It's small/not scary becoming It's reality, fading It into a shell of Itself, and they snatch It's heart out and crush it together. Then they make their escape while It's lair crashes down around.

The series of scenes at the end were pretty emotional, coping with Eddie's death. The final series of scenes catching us up with the Losers post Derry. The fact they didn't forget each other was nice for me. One of the more depressing things about the novel's end is how much they all went through, some even sacrificing their lives, only to forget each other's very existence and the deep bond they shared. The letters from Stan were an interesting touch.

The adult cast is just as talented as the kids from part one. Great job by all of them. Bill Skarsgard is again in great form, the scene with the little girl and the end of the Kersh scene in particular. I felt a little shaky about things at the beginning but by the end of the movie i was placated. I'm not sure how i felt about other little details like Bev's precognition because of being in the deadlights (speaking of things feeling tacked on, i don't recall that word being used at all in the first movie, but they talk about it in this one like they all know exactly what it is and what it means). The rushing at the beginning and the statement the cycle is almost over feels a little disconcerting too, as the timeline of events didn't feel very established. Sticking an arbitrary deadline on is an understandable movie trope to move things along, so i can forgive that somewhat at least.

Sorry for the essay, TLDR great movie, with some shaky parts/tropes but i enjoyed it for the most part.

Also: waves Hello all, I've been away for a bit, nice to be back, trying to catch up on everything, missed a lot of you, hope everyone has been well.
So good to see you posting again!
 

Dana Jean

Moderator
Moderator
Apr 11, 2006
50,330
217,951
Thornfield
Notaro said:

Also in It Chapter 2 I loved the homage to John Carpenter's The Thing, they even used the same dialogue, it was really cool :yes_pig:

Yes,
that head sprouting spider legs was a nice nod

I also loved how Bill is seen
at the end of the movie at his writing desk just like
Gordie Lachance
is seen at his writing desk at the end of Stand by Me.
 
Last edited:

recitador

Speed Reader
Sep 3, 2016
1,719
8,020
36
I really apologize if this whole discussion came off this way and I really shouldn't have brung up the politics around it. I'm not homophobic and I think it's safe to say none of us here are, it just seems (to me) that equality has become a very marketable term. If these multimillion dollar companies really want to show their support for them, why aren't some of them donating to charities or speaking up about countries where being gay is punishable by state? I'm not claiming none of them do. it just seems a lot prefer to sit on the sidelines. I really think the discussion should cease now as it's kinda turned into something that could go off the rails. if it hasn't already.
I don't think you strayed quite as far into inappropriate comments/reasoning as some did, thanks for the apology/clarification nonetheless
 

Dana Jean

Moderator
Moderator
Apr 11, 2006
50,330
217,951
Thornfield
Notaro said:




Yes,
that head sprouting spider legs was a nice nod

I also loved how Bill is seen
at the end of the movie at his writing desk just like
Gordie Lachance
is seen at his writing desk at the end of It part two.

Notaro

And isn't it perfect that they both
end up at their writing desks

where Stephen King
starts it all?

Ka is most definitely one big fat creative, magical wheel.
 

Edward John

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2019
205
995
19
Notaro

And isn't it perfect that they both
end up at their writing desks

where Stephen King
starts it all?

Ka is most definitely one big fat creative, magical wheel.
If you remember in The Dark Tower film, they actually reference Pennywise, when Roland is demeonstrating the darkness that might corrupt the world he uses a spider, and what is Pennywise true form?
 

Deviancy

I go Boo.....
Mar 20, 2019
175
599
46
California
www.facebook.com
It isn't new, it's just being shoved down our throats now and everyone's acting like it was never this way before.
There were films that did the gay thing properly back in the day but very few, it wasn't handled well until the 90's, and Buffy the tv series actually handled it the best in the 90's. These days its just the norm, almost every CW show has a gay couple and they just blend in with everyone else and the shows are pack full of diversity and I dig it. As for IT Chapter 2, haven't seen it yet but I heard the gay bashing scene is in it and I'm glad it is. Hate crimes have risen again lately in some countries and the US is one of them. There are some who actually say that racism no longer exists, and by some I mean US politicians. Homophobia and racism are alive and well and we cannot be complacent even if it means movies have to upset a few by making them feel these things are being shoved down their throats. We can't eradicate racism/homophobia/sexism but we can curb it to some degree.

Anywho, other than the gay bashing scene bothering some people in regards to chapter 2, I heard many complain about the length, some I know who complained about the length are football fans. I don't get how they can enjoy the film but complain about the length and then sit down and watch a game where they toss a ball around and scratch their nuts for three to four hours. But while I don't get it... that's their personal enjoyment so I accept it.. ;)
 

Rrty

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,337
4,251
I didn't read every post, so this may have already been mentioned, but on Ritchie (I believe that is the character I want to say): didn't Time magazine years ago imply that one of the characters in the book was of a different sexuality than the rest? I don't have my copy handy, but I remember thinking to myself that I did not remember that at all from the book (I even seem to recall writing King's office asking if I missed that part in the story; I think my letter was about other stuff as well, but I think I asked about this after the Time article; I don't believe I received a reply). Certainly would make for interesting character development, but I was really trying to figure out where it was mentioned in the narrative.

Furthermore, didn't King recently say somewhere during interviews for Institute and the recent film that he did not write the character that way, that it wasn't in the book? Forgive me, I can't locate a quote, but anyone happen to recall that?

If it is the case it wasn't in the book, did the Time article somehow influence the development of the character for the film? Did the screenwriter and/or director think there was such characterization in the book originally only from the piece? I have no problem with changing the character in this manner, I note, I'm just wondering if this had somehow turned into a literary urban legend that made its way into the film. Or, did Time accidentally predict something? Just a weird thing. (Thinking about it further, we may have discussed this somewhere on the board as well at some point.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNTLGNT

The Nameless

M-O-O-N - That spells Nameless
Jul 10, 2011
2,050
8,030
37
The Darkside of the Moon (England really)
I watched it chapter 2 on monday, and loved it. I love that they included more of ths novel like
adrian melons death, the ritual of child (albeit different from the novel) and Eddie being married. I also liked how eddie was really funny and more confident even though hes not in the book. The acting was great. I also loved how different pennywise was across both chapters compared with Tim curry, but the little homage to him (kiss me fat boy) was pretty damn cool

After the big debate above, I'll leave my thoughts on richie's sexuality out of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNTLGNT

recitador

Speed Reader
Sep 3, 2016
1,719
8,020
36
I didn't read every post, so this may have already been mentioned, but on Ritchie (I believe that is the character I want to say): didn't Time magazine years ago imply that one of the characters in the book was of a different sexuality than the rest? I don't have my copy handy, but I remember thinking to myself that I did not remember that at all from the book (I even seem to recall writing King's office asking if I missed that part in the story; I think my letter was about other stuff as well, but I think I asked about this after the Time article; I don't believe I received a reply). Certainly would make for interesting character development, but I was really trying to figure out where it was mentioned in the narrative.

Furthermore, didn't King recently say somewhere during interviews for Institute and the recent film that he did not write the character that way, that it wasn't in the book? Forgive me, I can't locate a quote, but anyone happen to recall that?

If it is the case it wasn't in the book, did the Time article somehow influence the development of the character for the film? Did the screenwriter and/or director think there was such characterization in the book originally only from the piece? I have no problem with changing the character in this manner, I note, I'm just wondering if this had somehow turned into a literary urban legend that made its way into the film. Or, did Time accidentally predict something? Just a weird thing. (Thinking about it further, we may have discussed this somewhere on the board as well at some point.)
in the miniseries from the 90's people speculated about eddie, or maybe there were actual plans that were scrapped for him, i don't recall. whichever it was, the end result was not to include actual hints. he was just an unmarried older man living with his mom in the miniseries, which i guess makes people think a certain way
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNTLGNT
The Institute - Coming September 10th, 2019 IT - Now Available in Trade Paperback! Flight or Fright - Now Available in Trade Paperback! The Outsider - Now Available in Trade Paperback!