Stephen King's IT (2017) (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vee
- Start date
Just got back from watching. Great flick! Good humor, plenty of gruesome stuff. A+, especially considering the genre. Very few good horror flicks out there. This is one of them!
SPOILER BELOW
I've read the book several times, but I'm confused about the "floating kids" at the end of the movie. Why are they floating like that? Are they all in the Deadlights like Bev, and thus still alive? If dead, again, why are they floating like that?
In the book, the whole "floating" thing meant dead bodies floating in the sewer waters. Why change it up?
I've read the book several times, but I'm confused about the "floating kids" at the end of the movie. Why are they floating like that? Are they all in the Deadlights like Bev, and thus still alive? If dead, again, why are they floating like that?
In the book, the whole "floating" thing meant dead bodies floating in the sewer waters. Why change it up?
I didn't understand why they were floating either. Didn't he eat all of them?
Right. Were they being "preserved" or something for eating later? Were they put into the Deadlights to make them even more scared so they tasted better? If the latter, would they still be alive once Pennywise was defeated?
The fact that we didn't see kids "waking up" as they floated back down to the ground leads me to guess that they were indeed dead. But then why are they floating dead and Bev is floating alive? She was put into the Deadlights to make her more scared. If those kids were already dead, why did they need to go into the Deadlights as well?
I am sure that shot of floating kids looked great from a production design standpoint, and served as the big reveal of why Pennywise says "we all float" in the marketing tag line, but that overcomplicates a very straightforward story. And they didn't do a great job of explaining their overcomplication.
Pennywise uses its immense powers to scare the **** out of children, kills them and then eats them. Their discarded remains are left to rot, floating in the sewers. Done. It is horrific as-is. No mid-air floaty kid bodies required.
mkstewartesq
Sr Member
You know what I think? I think it’s because they wanted the line “they all float down here” as a motif in the movie, but they either completely forgot or completely omitted the reasoning for that line in the book. While the repeated incantation, both in the book and in the movie of “they all float down here” is certainly a creepy image, if you remember, in the book, it is simply the response Pennywise gives when he offers Georgie a balloon and Georgie asks, referring to the balloons, “ do they float?” To entice him, Pennywise replies that, yes they do float. However, Georgie’s question is omitted in the movie. Why they thought they needed to include that goofy floating kids part is beyond me.
I did, however, like the subtle reference to the Deadlights in the film when Pennywise’s head opened and we see the three bright points of light. Nice, subtle set up for the next film. Also liked the very subtle reference to “he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts” though I would have wished that reference had been a bit more overt. I do think that a central point of the book was completely dropped – namely that it was the kids belief that ultimately defeated Pennywise (silver bullets kill werewolves, the inhaler is battery acid). Instead, the kids merely beat the crap out of the clown. But again, overall, I enjoyed it a whole lot.
M
Did you catch how the empty bolt gun worked on Pennywise because Bill thought it was loaded and believed it would work? The filmmakers put that in the film and then totally ignored it. Why???
I understand this film was made on the cheap, and had a ton of stuff to cram into a 2:15 running time, but idea behind the power of belief is absolutely critical to the story. It would not have inflated their budget to make sure that pivotal plot point was added to the film and emphasized. Especially considering how instrumental it is in saving Audra later on.
They could have added a 15-second exchange between Mike, Bill and the rest of the Losers where Mike openly wonders how the bolt gun worked when it was empty, with Bill making the observation that he believed it would work. You don't have to drag it out and the kids don't have to figure out these metaphysical tenets on the spot, but at least bring up the point.
Last edited:
mkstewartesq
Sr Member
In all honesty, I completely forgot that. And I saw it just yesterday. Because I am getting old.
And I will say that I did not groove at all on the fact that Beverly killed her father. That was coloring a bit too far out of the lines, and unnecessary.
M
mkstewartesq
Sr Member
Well, it’s even more critical than just the Audra thing, correct? Isn’t that a big part of why Pennywise thinks he will prevail in the later time.? Not only because the group does not contain all of its members, but because they have lost the power to believe as they did as children. Or am I misremembering?
M
You are absolutely right. Audra was just an example.
I mean, isn't there a subtext in the book that Pennywise, even in his slumber, somehow kept all the Losers childless and (with the exception of Mike, because he stayed in Derry) wealthy, so they grew up, got wrapped up in their success, and as such lost childlike belief (or so Pennywise believes)?
Or was it the Turtle who kept them all childless so they would never have to forsake their childlike belief in favor of being parents? And Pennywise kept most of the kids wealthy because he was afraid of them and wanted to give them every incentive to stay focused on their successful, comfortable lives elsewhere and never even think of returning to Derry?
Last edited:
You can be forgiven for forgetting the bolt gun thing. It was totally underplayed.
I hear you about Bev's dad. Although I did kind of like how they played him up as a danger in his own right, without being influenced or possessed by Pennywise, like in the book. Still, I agree that killing him was another unnecessary overcomplication of the story.
EvilRocketeer
Master Member
overall, I enjoyed it.. the kid actors were amazing especially Eddie and Ritchie...stanley fell flat for me...but enjoyed the majority of the losers
pennywise was lackluster through half the film...he got a lot better during the abandoned house scene with Eddie..from that point on, he was great..
I prefer Tim Curry's voice and acting more than this remake version
pennywise was lackluster through half the film...he got a lot better during the abandoned house scene with Eddie..from that point on, he was great..
I prefer Tim Curry's voice and acting more than this remake version
Monkey67
Sr Member
He saw it before it was released and enjoyed it very much from what I heard: He also has been recorded back in the day. Saying if he did the tv version one it would have been 32 hours long. He kinda wanted to do the whole book. But he really enjoyed how curry and the team did it.
Last edited:
We got these special tickets when we saw it Sat night. Pretty kewel:
MooCriket
Master Member
Sequel details with child actors returning:
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/ne...quel-revealed-child-actors-to-return#/slide/1
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/ne...quel-revealed-child-actors-to-return#/slide/1
Mr Mold Maker
Master Member
Re: New Remake of Stephen King's book IT.
It looks like I have to eat my words. Saw IT and I really loved it. I worked at ADI shortly after the IT stuff they did, so I can't talk about much but I will say this.. I am a little disappointed that they didn't credit the Canadian effects team at all. They were responsible for almost every practical effect in the film, and didn't get a single nod.
The movie itself was great. The CG stuff stuck out pretty badly, but that's about my only gripe. Other than that.. 100% loved it.
It looks like I have to eat my words. Saw IT and I really loved it. I worked at ADI shortly after the IT stuff they did, so I can't talk about much but I will say this.. I am a little disappointed that they didn't credit the Canadian effects team at all. They were responsible for almost every practical effect in the film, and didn't get a single nod.
The movie itself was great. The CG stuff stuck out pretty badly, but that's about my only gripe. Other than that.. 100% loved it.
Similar threads
