Just saw IT! SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • 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.

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
Heh. I had let the Molly R. thing slide because... well that is the kind of mistake people make in posts. It wasn't really about the substance of the film either. Emily Perkins is one of my favorite lesser-known actresses. Her performance in Ginger Snaps alone was overlooked Oscar-worthy. Horror movies just don't get that kind of consideration. :) I did want to revisit something else though... which has been ASSUMED in my opinion.

I don't think Beverly was taken as bait. I'm not sure why people assume that. The monster took her because she HURT it. In the film she is the one who gets them out alive by stabbing it through the leg. She hurt it. She stopped it. That was all Bev. It came after her because it assumed that taking her off the board would make sure the rest could not defy it; and, it wanted a bit of payback. The fact that they regrouped to come for Beverly is based on two factors:

1. There is an aspect of the male psyche at play and they all have a crush on her (some more than others).
2. They owe her because of the encounter at the house where she saves them.

The film Losers are not forged into a strong bond of friendship like the ones in the book. Not enough has happened yet. They broke apart because realistically that is exactly what would happen based on film events (remember we must exclude the book from our thinking). The strongest link between the Losers in the film is Beverly and that is why it is important that the monster takes her. Did Pennywise think some of them might follow? Probably, but I doubted it cared much. Did it think they would all come? Unlikely. It was also not saving her for bait. It was going to kill her pretty early on but her lack of fear balked it. Realistically the Losers have no reason whatsoever to think she is still alive and that running into the sewer will matter. They know this. The clown knows this. Do you follow? It took her to get even and demoralize them. It figured the next encounter with any or all of the Losers would go better because Bev was off the board. That is really all there is to it.
 

Steve in WI

Active Member
Sep 17, 2017
38
168
34
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.
I didn’t feel this way, with one key exception. The bond among Bill, Stan, Eddie, and Richie felt very strong and very realistic, Bev felt like an integral part of the group once she joined, and the only complaint I have about Ben and Mike is they don’t get the same amount of time to establish their bond with everyone else as they did in the book.

That exception, though...the scene where Bill hits Richie and the group apparently splinters for a significant length of time feels like the worst kind of formulaic Hollywood screenwriting. It's especially notable because the rest of the writing is so strong. It just feels like someone said “we don’t have enough drama in this movie about seven kids taking on a killer demon, so add more.”

Plus, if you do have a problem with Bev being taken by It (personally, I have come around to the interpretation that she is not at all a damsel in distress), I would argue that the inclusion of this scene could be the catalyst for needing her to be taken at all. The writers chose to break the group apart, so they needed something big to bring them back together.
 

recitador

Speed Reader
Sep 3, 2016
1,704
7,949
36
If I read Damsel in Distress one more time, I'm sh*tting myself.

:rofl:
gotta be honest, i'm getting pretty tired of that argument too. waiting for the first time a guy gets captured by the antagonist of the film and gets referred to as "______ in distress" as if it's a negative. what's that, it'll probably never happen? then we should probably stop assuming that just because it's a female getting captured they're automatically weak and their characterization is ruined, and maybe go by the rest of the movie where they were defiant, and stood up to the evil, toe to toe. who was the first one to throw a rock at henry, who was the only one at neibolt to actually strike a real blow at It? beverly was. who looked the monster right in the eye and said "i'm not afraid of you"? beverly. now if they spent the whole movie portraying her as if she was a shrinking violet who couldn't do anything on her own, the argument might have more merit, as that's obviously not book Bev. even the strongest of people need a little rescuing from time to time.
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
8,974
59,473
54
sweden
I didn’t feel this way, with one key exception. The bond among Bill, Stan, Eddie, and Richie felt very strong and very realistic, Bev felt like an integral part of the group once she joined, and the only complaint I have about Ben and Mike is they don’t get the same amount of time to establish their bond with everyone else as they did in the book.

That exception, though...the scene where Bill hits Richie and the group apparently splinters for a significant length of time feels like the worst kind of formulaic Hollywood screenwriting. It's especially notable because the rest of the writing is so strong. It just feels like someone said “we don’t have enough drama in this movie about seven kids taking on a killer demon, so add more.”

Plus, if you do have a problem with Bev being taken by It (personally, I have come around to the interpretation that she is not at all a damsel in distress), I would argue that the inclusion of this scene could be the catalyst for needing her to be taken at all. The writers chose to break the group apart, so they needed something big to bring them back together.
Yeah, thats my complaint. I understand why they made bev be taken to give the group a reason to get together again but why split it in the first place? Bad screenwriting choice and makes the bond being so strong seem unprobable. It weakens the foundation of the group and by doing that the chance for them of beating it. Richie being hit by Bill is in my view a huge mistake. Exclude that and you can also exclude bev being taken because that is then unneccessary as the group wouldn't have split. And youll get free time to spend on other things
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
8,974
59,473
54
sweden
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.
My mistake then. My memory starts to go, sad, sad. She was very brave. You are correct. Then she is used as a DID to give the boys a reason to get together again after they split when Bill hit Richie. Thats the original mistake, splitting the group. But two weongs does not make one right. But its not an actor mistake. its a huge bad screenwriting error!
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
8,974
59,473
54
sweden
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.
Oh, well, then we can agree to disagree. The splitting of the group is in my view a huge mistake in judgement from the writers. But if you think i by using the expression damsel in distress implied weakness youre wrong. Bev was very brave, totally agree. But i dont agree that her being taken would automatically have joined them again. Some even voiced opinions about not wanting to fight but living instead and was very clear about it. I doubt all would have changed their minds because the thing Bill said would happen (It getting one of them) did happen. About the characters i have no problem with Bill, Ben, Stan, Beverly and Eddie. Richie is IMO just jokes. Even in the moviemedia you can make a character make jokes but still use his brain. Here Richie is just a jokemachine and as shallow. Mike is OK but we see really to little of him to make him a believable member of the group. Even the moviemedia can fix that especially as they would have had more times on their hands if they hadnt made the original mistake.
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
8,974
59,473
54
sweden
gotta be honest, i'm getting pretty tired of that argument too. waiting for the first time a guy gets captured by the antagonist of the film and gets referred to as "______ in distress" as if it's a negative. what's that, it'll probably never happen? then we should probably stop assuming that just because it's a female getting captured they're automatically weak and their characterization is ruined, and maybe go by the rest of the movie where they were defiant, and stood up to the evil, toe to toe. who was the first one to throw a rock at henry, who was the only one at neibolt to actually strike a real blow at It? beverly was. who looked the monster right in the eye and said "i'm not afraid of you"? beverly. now if they spent the whole movie portraying her as if she was a shrinking violet who couldn't do anything on her own, the argument might have more merit, as that's obviously not book Bev. even the strongest of people need a little rescuing from time to time.
I have never thought of that expression as expressing weakness. as you say anyone need a little rescuing now and then. Bev is brave and is portrayed as such. I was thinking of the writers that used that tired old cliche to get the group together again.
 

recitador

Speed Reader
Sep 3, 2016
1,704
7,949
36
I have never thought of that expression as expressing weakness. as you say anyone need a little rescuing now and then. Bev is brave and is portrayed as such. I was thinking of the writers that used that tired old cliche to get the group together again.
you'd be a minority then, because most seem to equate it to completely erasing her brave nature. cliches in movies are pretty inevitable
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
8,974
59,473
54
sweden
you'd be a minority then, because most seem to equate it to completely erasing her brave nature. cliches in movies are pretty inevitable
Might be a translation thing.... I have always interpreted it rather literally. A woman in distress does not mean she cant be brave, strong and intelligent too. Sure cliches cant always be avoided but it is unnecessary to seek them out. Especially when there are other avenues open to you.
 
The Institute - Coming September 10th, 2019 Pet Sematary - In Theaters Now!