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
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.
It happens. If we all agreed on everything all the time, there wouldn't be any reason for a conversation. My personal view is that you are letting too much of the book (which we both love) intrude upon your judgement of these events in the film. I think don't think the Losers in the film had yet forged into the kind of group that can withstand fighting monsters. I think it was only natural for that group to break apart. I think subsequent viewings will change your mind.

In regards to the shallowness of the characters, I agree that some were better represented than others. I think the film needed to be longer. To tell the truth and shame the devil, there should have been three films, two with the kid Losers, and one with the adults. The first film should have gone up through the rock fight and the joining of all seven and their subsequent group encounter with the slideshow. This would have given more time for each Loser and to build more bonds. The second film should have been their growing battles with Bowers and the Clown culminating with their battle in the sewers. Two films of good length would have allowed the kind of depth in all the Losers that have been perfect. Still, I think they did well with the time they got. I think if they had known how well the film would do, the studio would have gone for a trilogy out of the gate. They didn't know. :)
 

Steve in WI

Active Member
Sep 17, 2017
38
172
35
My personal view is that you are letting too much of the book (which we both love) intrude upon your judgement of these events in the film. I think don't think the Losers in the film had yet forged into the kind of group that can withstand fighting monsters. I think it was only natural for that group to break apart. I think subsequent viewings will change your mind.
My thoughts on this: I'll admit it's probably impossible for me to fully separate the book from the movie. But to the extent that I can look at the movie by itself, I would still argue that it was unnatural for the group to break apart to the extent that they did. I would also argue for a distinction between truly breaking apart as the movie seems to suggest they did, and simply not being willing yet to continue to fight It. As to the latter, I would agree with you that the movie doesn't (or cannot) give us enough info on the characters to confidently say at that point that they would have been ready to stick with Bill in his relentless pursuit of It.

But my interpretation of the movie is that after the climactic fight between Bill and Richie, we are supposed to believe that roughly a month passes and that when Bill enters the arcade to enlist Richie's help in finding Bev, the two have either not spoken for that length of time or at the very least have not made up in the slightest (even if they've had some contact through others in the group). I also believe that there is enough in the movie itself to indicate that Bill and Richie have a pretty longstanding and deep friendship, at least as strong as the bond between any other two Losers. My recollection of having been a 13-year-old boy is that it would be very unusual for something to cause two good friends to flat-out not speak to each other for an entire month, especially in the summer where boredom and spare time to fill are both catalysts to encourage a reconciliation when two friends have a falling out.

In regards to the shallowness of the characters, I agree that some were better represented than others. I think the film needed to be longer. To tell the truth and shame the devil, there should have been three films, two with the kid Losers, and one with the adults. The first film should have gone up through the rock fight and the joining of all seven and their subsequent group encounter with the slideshow. This would have given more time for each Loser and to build more bonds. The second film should have been their growing battles with Bowers and the Clown culminating with their battle in the sewers. Two films of good length would have allowed the kind of depth in all the Losers that have been perfect. Still, I think they did well with the time they got. I think if they had known how well the film would do, the studio would have gone for a trilogy out of the gate. They didn't know. :)
I agree with both your analysis and how you would have wanted the split the first two films. I think it will go down as one of my biggest cinematic regrets of all-time that they couldn't have known how big a hit this would be, and given us a total of maybe 7 hours of movie start to finish instead of the 4.5 or so we seem likely to get.
 

johntfs

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2008
277
966
My recollection of having been a 13-year-old boy is that it would be very unusual for something to cause two good friends to flat-out not speak to each other for an entire month, especially in the summer where boredom and spare time to fill are both catalysts to encourage a reconciliation when two friends have a falling out.
To be fair, there was something very unusual. They were hunting/being hunted by an actual, supernatural monster. Bill's point was that for the sake of Ralph, the other victims and themselves, the group had to hunt down and destroy the monster. Richie's point was that if they did that they were all going to die - and they were going to die trying to "rescue" a little kid, Georgie, who was long dead. There might have been abortive attempts at reconciliation but they'd end up back at the same impasse. Bill would point at all the other kids going missing and Richie would point at the fact that none of those kids were them, that the monster was going after other prey and the Losers were safe.

Once Beverly was taken, all bets were off. At that point Richie knows that It is coming for them, starting with the person It perceived to be the most dangerous, Beverly, who was the one who pretty much drove It off the first time. So, the Losers have to hang together or they'll float separately.
 

Steve in WI

Active Member
Sep 17, 2017
38
172
35
I know very little about the process of lobbying for Oscar nominations, but I'm a little surprised to see Wyatt Oleff, Jeremy Ray Taylor, and Chosen Jacobs on the studio's list just because I don't think Stan/Ben/Mike had enough to do in the movie to justify an Oscar nomination. No slight against those kids, who I thought did well with what the script gave them, but I would rank the other 3 boys plus Sophia Lillis considerably above them. Or it is just one of those things where it's such a long shot to get any of the actors nominated that the studio may as well put all their names out there rather than play favorites?

I will say this...obviously I'm biased, but in an era of so many superhero movies and big-budget special effects movies that are light on any kind of story or human depth, I am very hard pressed to think of 10 other movies that deserve a Best Picture nomination more than It. Maybe It wasn't actually the very best picture of 2017, but it has to be up there.
 

kingricefan

All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.
Jul 11, 2006
29,449
123,623
Spokane, WA
I know very little about the process of lobbying for Oscar nominations, but I'm a little surprised to see Wyatt Oleff, Jeremy Ray Taylor, and Chosen Jacobs on the studio's list just because I don't think Stan/Ben/Mike had enough to do in the movie to justify an Oscar nomination. No slight against those kids, who I thought did well with what the script gave them, but I would rank the other 3 boys plus Sophia Lillis considerably above them. Or it is just one of those things where it's such a long shot to get any of the actors nominated that the studio may as well put all their names out there rather than play favorites?

I will say this...obviously I'm biased, but in an era of so many superhero movies and big-budget special effects movies that are light on any kind of story or human depth, I am very hard pressed to think of 10 other movies that deserve a Best Picture nomination more than It. Maybe It wasn't actually the very best picture of 2017, but it has to be up there.
Listing a bunch of actors/actresses and then other categories (sound editing, FX, etc.) is exactly what the studios do so that it reminds the Oscar voters what to look for when they vote. It doesn't mean that a certain actor was absolutely wonderful in their role, it's just to say 'Hey! You remember this person?'. I agree with what you said about the three kids not having high impact roles.
 

Tak96

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2018
126
380
15
I noticed that the kid who played Ben did a fantastic job emoting with just expressions, but am I the only one who could not stop looking at his nipples? They looked so weird.

Also, I was sad that none of the kids said, "Beep-beep, Richie," but Pennywise does! People who didn't read the novel would have no idea why the clown would say that.

Another note: It would seem that Stephen King himself is in the universe, as one of the bullies is wearing an Anthrax t-shirt with lyrics from "Among the Living" on it, which happens to be a song based on The Stand...hmm.

And did you notice the two turtle references? :)
I would say it was a shout out. Also, as a metal fan, are you telling me that Anthrax did a Stand song? I'll definitely listen later.
 

Wab

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
86
311
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.
There is a third factor I remember from being just a bit older than the Losers in the mid-eighties, they were protective because she was a girl.
 
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!