What worries me about Chapter Two...

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • The message board is open 8:30am ET Tuesdays to 4pm ET Thursdays. Posts cannot be made outside of board hours.

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

Steve in WI

Active Member
Sep 17, 2017
38
172
35
As I have mentioned in a couple of threads here, I really loved Chapter One. I've seen it four times and find myself appreciating it more each time. I think it was just about as good of an adaptation of the kids' portion of It as could be made as a 2.25 hour movie.

That said, I'm nervous about Chapter Two. And my worries go beyond the normal concerns that Hollywood is going to screw it up somehow...I'm not talking about what could happen if they decide to give it a $150 million budget and demand tons of special effects, or if they cast big stars who are totally wrong for the characters. Obviously that's a risk with any movie. But I think there are a couple of big challenges that will be tough for Muschietti and company to overcome.

1. The adult portion of the book isn't as strong or compelling as the kids' story. I am definitely open to a different opinion, but I don't think I have ever heard someone say that they prefer the parts of the book following the adults over the part following the kids. I think taking Chapter One and focusing it entirely on the kids was absolutely the right decision for the movie, but it paints them into a corner for the second movie. The way the book interweaves 1958 with 1985 works so well that when I set the book down I don't think too hard about how much weaker the adult scenes are, especially because they lead directly into the flashbacks. Now I know Muschietti has said there will be flashbacks to the Losers Club as kids, and I am wholly in favor of that, but assuming another 2.25 hour runtime, or even 2.5 hours, they're going to be limited in how much time they can devote to flashbacks without shortchanging the main story.

2. By splitting the movies like this, I don't see how the second movie isn't going to be a huge downer. As dark as parts of Chapter One are, the movie ends largely on a happy note.
Other than Georgie being dead (and arguably Bill has at least gotten some closure and can truly begin grieving him instead of holding on to a belief that he might still be alive), it's largely a happy ending to the first chapter. Beverly is moving away from her abusive father and all of the kids have faced It and come away victorious, as far as they know. There are clues as to what's coming next for those of us who've read the book, but taken by itself it's a happy ending to the movie.
But unless Chapter Two makes serious changes from the source material (which would create different problems), we aren't going to get nearly as happy an ending.
We know Stan is going to be dead even before the Losers confront It again, and that Eddie is going to die in the sewers. (Side note: as a reader, I always felt less strongly about Eddie than any other character with the potential exception of Stan. His death never bothered me as much as it probably was meant to. But based on the nuance and likeability of his character in Chapter One, if they make the adult Eddie anything like the kid it's going to be devastating to watch him die).

Even before the ending, you've got Bev's abusive relationship (after watching how strong she was portrayed in Chapter One and how she stood up to her father, it's going to be so hard to watch her end up with essentially the same type of man as an adult), Eddie's marriage to a woman so much like his mother and his continued reliance on all kinds of medications, Mike's relative poverty and lack of success (and apparently his character is going to suffer even more in the movie than in the book), and so on. Even the Losers who make it through the final confrontation alive are destined to forget that their best friends ever even existed, which in its way is darker than the worst monsters that It can transform into.

To me, it all adds up to a movie that I find it hard to imagine I will want to see over and over again, because I don't see how they can put in enough lighter or more optimistic material without losing the heart of the story. The way the two timelines are woven together in the book goes a long way towards making the sadness manageable.

I hope I'm wrong and that I'll come back here in two years and laugh at how pessimistic I was, but for now, I think Muschietti and the writers, producers, actors, etc, have got a very tall task ahead of them.
 

Steffen

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,215
12,686
You've made some compelling arguments for me wanting to see Chapter 2 even more. I paid to watch Chapter 1 three times in theatres. As long as Andres Muschietti is given complete creative control, I have no qualms whatsoever about what we'll get. As far as the studio demanding big name stars, I seriously doubt it. The movie will sell itself. It sold itself fine enough with NO stars whatsoever in Chapter 1. They don't need big movie stars to sell Chapter 2. All my friends who saw it keep saying the same thing: they just want the adult actors to bring their best, cause it's going to be tough as hell to beat those kids' performances. Nobody I know has said that they want a Tom Cruise or a Nicole Kidman. They just want to see The Losers come back to kick Pennywise's @$$ for good.

In Muschietti I trust.
 

mal

content
Jun 23, 2007
4,483
25,676
57
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
You've made some compelling arguments for me wanting to see Chapter 2 even more. I paid to watch Chapter 1 three times in theatres. As long as Andres Muschietti is given complete creative control, I have no qualms whatsoever about what we'll get. As far as the studio demanding big name stars, I seriously doubt it. The movie will sell itself. It sold itself fine enough with NO stars whatsoever in Chapter 1. They don't need big movie stars to sell Chapter 2. All my friends who saw it keep saying the same thing: they just want the adult actors to bring their best, cause it's going to be tough as hell to beat those kids' performances. Nobody I know has said that they want a Tom Cruise or a Nicole Kidman. They just want to see The Losers come back to kick Pennywise's @$$ for good.

In Muschietti I trust.
Maybe Tom Cruise as one of the kids, but not the adults.
 

GeorgieFan2003

Bill and Georgie Fan
Sep 17, 2017
1,362
4,434
36
The biggest things we know so far about Chapter 2:

1. Bill Skarsgard is back as Pennywise.
2. The kids will be back for flashbacks via Chapter 1 scenes, as well as new scenes specific for Chapter 2.
3. Mike will be the one in Derry like the original, but he's gonna be some kind of junkie to deal with all he's been through.
4. It's going to take place in 2016
5. Jessica Chastain seems to be the favorite for Beverly.
6. The release date is September 06th, 2019

Like I said before, I'm curious for how everything is gonna be. I've started reading the book. I'm barely into the whole Adrian Mellon murder. I am curious if Bill is still gonna see Georgie during the final battle. I can see it being either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy

Steve in WI

Active Member
Sep 17, 2017
38
172
35
In Muschietti I trust.
Oh, I agree with this completely. And I am trying to be optimistic that the studio won’t step in and screw it up.

I’m more thinking about the emotional difference between the two halves of the story. To put it another way, I also went to see chapter 1 multiple times in the theater and if it hangs around long enough I might even go back one more time. But even if Muschietti comes through with just as good of an adaptation of the adults’ story and I rate it as being just as high quality as the first, I can’t believe I’ll want to see it again and again because it will likely be so much darker. (Which as I’m typing this I’m realizing is more a reflection on me than anything else. I have a hard time liking really sad movies, and certainly with seeing them multiple times, even if they are objectively really good and well-made movies).
 

GeorgieFan2003

Bill and Georgie Fan
Sep 17, 2017
1,362
4,434
36
You do realize that you're posting on the Stephen King Message Board, right?
Yeah I do know I'm posting on the Stephen King message board. Do you know that not every Stephen King fan is a fan of grossout gore? Now Im not saying have no gore. I just don't want it to be overly gory, just for the sake of it. What's wrong with leaving certain things up to the imagination? Take the original IT for example, Georgie's death. Just because we didn't actually see the arm get ripped off, did that change the impact of the scene? In my opinion no. The new version still had the same impact on me as the original. But it wasn't overly gory on how it played out. You don't have to go all out with gore to make it scary. To me what makes something more scary is a good performance like Tim Curry, or Bill Skarsgard. Combined with all the tricks at a filmmaker's disposal. Gore doesn't have to be the end all be all of a good horror film.
 

Paddy C

All Hail The KING...
Sep 18, 2017
1,078
5,888
53
Drogheda, Ireland
Yeah I do know I'm posting on the Stephen King message board. Do you know that not every Stephen King fan is a fan of grossout gore? Now Im not saying have no gore. I just don't want it to be overly gory, just for the sake of it. What's wrong with leaving certain things up to the imagination? Take the original IT for example, Georgie's death. Just because we didn't actually see the arm get ripped off, did that change the impact of the scene? In my opinion no. The new version still had the same impact on me as the original. But it wasn't overly gory on how it played out. You don't have to go all out with gore to make it scary. To me what makes something more scary is a good performance like Tim Curry, or Bill Skarsgard. Combined with all the tricks at a filmmaker's disposal. Gore doesn't have to be the end all be all of a good horror film.
I have to agree with you on the 'gore for the sake of it' view. OK, if a scene calls for something to be gory that's fair enough but I'd rather have ramped up tension than buckets of blood and guts.

Off topic, I know, but another thing that I can do without in books and movies is sex scenes. They don't usually enhance the story in my opinion. Well, maybe they did in the likes of those Grey books/movies but I wouldn't know about them lol
 

HedlessChickn

Booger Eater Extraordinaire
Jun 14, 2015
550
1,998
KC
Yeah I do know I'm posting on the Stephen King message board. Do you know that not every Stephen King fan is a fan of grossout gore? Now Im not saying have no gore. I just don't want it to be overly gory, just for the sake of it. What's wrong with leaving certain things up to the imagination? Take the original IT for example, Georgie's death. Just because we didn't actually see the arm get ripped off, did that change the impact of the scene? In my opinion no. The new version still had the same impact on me as the original. But it wasn't overly gory on how it played out. You don't have to go all out with gore to make it scary. To me what makes something more scary is a good performance like Tim Curry, or Bill Skarsgard. Combined with all the tricks at a filmmaker's disposal. Gore doesn't have to be the end all be all of a good horror film.
None of this is the point.

If you've ever read a Stephen King Novel, King doesn't tend to leave the gory parts out of it.

When I watch a King Movie, I want to actually see every last bit of the "poop"weasel from Dreamcatcher exiting McCarthy's rectum. I want to actually see Jim Gardener yanking his teeth out with pliers. I could go on and on here with several different parts of his books.

I want to actually see all of the most horrific, bloody, violent parts of his books put on full display.

When I want to use my imagination, I read the books. And trust me when I say I've read them all.

I am not a child, and I do not like it when I'm treated like one.

I'm not some squeamish little pansy that shudders at the sight of blood.

If I was, I wouldn't be a fan of horror novels.

I would have preferred to see IT tearing off Georgie's arm.

I would have preferred to see IT doing the things IT does, WITH TEETH. (Metaphorically speaking, but sometimes literally as well.)

I don't pretend to speak for all of his fans, I speak for myself.

And no. Gore isn't the end all, be all of a horror movie. That's a silly supposition in and of itself.

But good lord do I enjoy it when it's on full display.
 

GeorgieFan2003

Bill and Georgie Fan
Sep 17, 2017
1,362
4,434
36
None of this is the point.

If you've ever read a Stephen King Novel, King doesn't tend to leave the gory parts out of it.

When I watch a King Movie, I want to actually see every last bit of the "poop"weasel from Dreamcatcher exiting McCarthy's rectum. I want to actually see Jim Gardener yanking his teeth out with pliers. I could go on and on here with several different parts of his books.

I want to actually see all of the most horrific, bloody, violent parts of his books put on full display.

When I want to use my imagination, I read the books. And trust me when I say I've read them all.

I am not a child, and I do not like it when I'm treated like one.

I'm not some squeamish little pansy that shudders at the sight of blood.

If I was, I wouldn't be a fan of horror novels.

I would have preferred to see IT tearing off Georgie's arm.

I would have preferred to see IT doing the things IT does, WITH TEETH. (Metaphorically speaking, but sometimes literally as well.)

I don't pretend to speak for all of his fans, I speak for myself.

And no. Gore isn't the end all, be all of a horror movie. That's a silly supposition in and of itself.

But good lord do I enjoy it when it's on full display.
Grant it, I will admit that I have not read an actual Stephen King novel. The only book of his I read is Cycle of the Werewolf, and that was years ago. I don't remember it being too graphic, but it has been a while since I read it. I've only just started IT, and I'm passed Georgie's death. It didn't strike me as too graphic. I too do not speak for all fans. I speak only for myself as well. I am not a pansy that shudders at the sight of blood. One of my favorite movies from the 1980s is the original Waxwork. That movie has lots of blood. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy

HedlessChickn

Booger Eater Extraordinaire
Jun 14, 2015
550
1,998
KC
Grant it, I will admit that I have not read an actual Stephen King novel. The only book of his I read is Cycle of the Werewolf, and that was years ago. I don't remember it being too graphic, but it has been a while since I read it. I've only just started IT, and I'm passed Georgie's death. It didn't strike me as too graphic. I too do not speak for all fans. I speak only for myself as well. I am not a pansy that shudders at the sight of blood. One of my favorite movies from the 1980s is the original Waxwork. That movie has lots of blood. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.
If you haven't read the books, I understand.

I do not mean to dissuade you from reading more of them if that's what I've done.

Just be aware that there are some very graphically violent scenes in several of his books that are not portrayed in the movies.

Unfortunately.

Oh, and welcome to the SKMB. This place is wonderful.

[PS Edit: I said the "welcome" bit before I realized you are now a "Well-known Member." I mean it though. I just got out of newbie jail recently myself.]
 
If It Bleeds - New Collection Coming 5/5/20 The Institute - Available Now Flight or Fright - Now Available in Trade Paperback!