Stephen King's IT (2017) (Post-release)

I remember there being an animated Lone Ranger show in the 80s and even a live action movie. I know it wasn't super popular, but that could explain for keeping that reference in this version.

Well, I recall that Lone Ranger movie in 1981 that was a huge flop (Klintin Spilsbury was is the star if that tells you anything about the effect that movie had on the actor’s career - I don’t think he ever made another movie). Wasn’t aware of a cartoon until you brought it up, but it looks like it only ran 1980-1982 – so still seems a bit out of date for kids who would’ve only been three or four at the time. But who knows? Good catches.

M
 
You caught that too?! :thumbsup

:lol That was the only time I and my friends "Jumped" on this film.

It amazes me so many people were scared by this film, I was falling asleep for most of it! :lol

Yeah, definitely. No way to miss that guy. Especially how it's basically the last clown you see when they push into the coffin.

The only part that was really visually interesting in a horror sense was seeing Pennywise work the fake-Georgie like a puppet before slamming it into the water. Otherwise, it's like 95% jump-scares.
 
The lone ranger was around in the 80's in different ways, films, cartoons, comics books. I watched tons of old classic tv shows and films with my grandfather in the 80's. Not many kids could tell you who half the golden age of Hollywood where and what they were in. So Still he could of had exposure to the Lone Ranger in some form. Kids might of not played cowboys and Indians anymore. Yet we usally called our bikes some name that sounded cool or had a meaning behind it. As we got older the cars that we drove had gotten a name as well. People even went on to name their guns or weapons of choice. It's just something most people do.
 
The lone ranger was around in the 80's in different ways, films, cartoons, comics books. I watched tons of old classic tv shows and films with my grandfather in the 80's. Not many kids could tell you who half the golden age of Hollywood where and what they were in. So Still he could of had exposure to the Lone Ranger in some form. Kids might of not played cowboys and Indians anymore. Yet we usally called our bikes some name that sounded cool or had a meaning behind it. As we got older the cars that we drove had gotten a name as well. People even went on to name their guns or weapons of choice. It's just something most people do.

Going to agree with this...nitpicking about why a kid in the 80s would name a bike after anything is nitpicking just for the sake of nitpicking.

Why do do kids do half the things they do? When I was young I had a lizard named Carlos. I didn't know any Hispanic people with that name, no characters with that name, I just thought it was a cool name.

Also, just because something wasn't huge when someone was a child doesn't mean that child won't, can't, or shouldn't like something. I was born in 1979. My favorite film growing up was "Planet of the Apes," simply because I have fond memories of watching it when I was young with my father.

I also had a distinct knowledge of The Lone Ranger, because, you know...there weren't 300 channels playing 3,000 programs a day...so you watched what was on, and The Lone Ranger was pretty regularly on.

I feel like people complaining about the bike being named Silver because of the era would also be complaining if they changed the name to a more era appropriate interest, such as Optimus or Duke, because that would have been too much of a departure from the source material.
 
Last edited:
I have to say, Skarsgard knocks it out the park with this performance!

Tim Curry was legendary, and Skarsgard has followed up just as good. Brilliant performance.

Have to agree Skarsgard did a stellar performance. He was cute when he had to be, and evil as hell when he needed to be. I think he had more screen time than Tim Curry had. I enjoyed seeing the house which was the main reason I went to see it. I watched for the special effects and found them flawless. The only glitch I saw was when the camera was in the dead tree watching the kids approaching the walkway from the street there was a zoom shot and the straps and bolts could be seen holding the tree together. It was a lot more gruesome than the original. Poor Georgie with his missing arm, crawling along asking for help before he gets dragged back into the sewer was pretty nasty. Id highly recommend the movie. And you can expect part 2 to come out in probably 2 years from now. If it returns to Canada with the IT house I will be sure to get there for a few more shots.
 
I feel like altering the flashback structure of the book was a mistake, but I get that they didnt know if there would be two movies, so they had to make the tough decisions. I can't wait for the extended home release...a lot of stuff felt rushed/glossed over/unfocussed etc. A little more footage may solve that gripe. Overall I loved it though. I'm a huge horror fan, and King nut, but my kids had never seen a horror movie in the theater (though they've read King/seen King movies), so this was great family bonding stuff. Also, the parents in the movie make me look like an awesome dad :lol
 
Going to agree with this...nitpicking about why a kid in the 80s would name a bike after anything is nitpicking just for the sake of nitpicking.

Why do do kids do half the things they do? When I was young I had a lizard named Carlos. I didn't know any Hispanic people with that name, no characters with that name, I just thought it was a cool name.

Also, just because something wasn't huge when someone was a child doesn't mean that child won't, can't, or shouldn't like something. I was born in 1979. My favorite film growing up was "Planet of the Apes," simply because I have fond memories of watching it when I was young with my father.

I also had a distinct knowledge of The Lone Ranger, because, you know...there weren't 300 channels playing 3,000 programs a day...so you watched what was on, and The Lone Ranger was pretty regularly on.

I feel like people complaining about the bike being named Silver because of the era would also be complaining if they changed the name to a more era appropriate interest, such as Optimus or Duke, because that would have been too much of a departure from the source material.

I'm just pointing out that a kid in 1989 naming his bike after The Lone Ranger's horse, with no explanation, stands out as weird. Naming the bike after a Transformer would make more sense, just like it made sense to put "Batman" and "Lethal Weapon 2" on the movie marquee vs. "I Was a Teenage Werewolf".

Having the werewolf appear on Niebolt street (or having any of the other '50's "creature-feature" monsters that appeared in the book) wouldn't have made sense in this film and its time frame, and they rightfully excised them. Shifting the time frame to 1989 will require some narrative changes to make sense and not strain credulity.

Is it impossible that a kid in 1989 would name his bike "Silver"? Of course not. Again, if they want to toss in a line of dialogue about how the Bike was Bill's dad's, or how Bill watched TLR with his Grandpa on Sunday mornings, fine. But, absent an explanation, it sticks out.

I can't wait for the extended home release...a lot of stuff felt rushed/glossed over/unfocussed etc. A little more footage may solve that gripe. Overall I loved it though.

My thoughts exactly. I really liked it, but I felt like it suffered (slightly) from editing problems. They did an admirable job cramming what they did into 2:15, but I think an additional few minutes of footage might have sanded down some rough edges.
 
Last edited:
As a big fan of the book, and a critic of the first movie, I have to say it speaks to the film's strengths that they can change so much and not totally irk me. I was able to see it as more INSPIRED by King's book and enjoy it for what it was on its own terms. I even hate the 80s nostalgia industry that keeps mining my childhood, but I didn't find it off-putting here at all. I guess when something basically works, it's easy to forgive the flaws.
 
I do worry about how well Chapter 2 can really be done without the charm of the kids. I'm afraid it could easily turn into every other modern horror movie with a monster chasing adults around.

And being in 1989, it was a bit weird that every kid an an ANCIENT bike. Not a single Huffy?

It also felt a little weird that they didnt go looking for Georgie among the floating kids who were coming down, even if he was dead.

I really liked when Pennywise would start getting into his "frenzy" and his eyes would start going out of alignment. He almost always had one lazy eye going on, but in particular right before he almost had someone.
 
Last edited:
And being in 1989, it was a bit weird that every kid an an ANCIENT bike. Not a single Huffy?
Being a true Midwestern kid I was rocking ancient bikes that my parents would get from garage sales. I don't really find it too entirely crazy for the kids to have bikes like that especially if they live in a small town like Derry.
 
I went into this expecting to hate Pennywise, because I was simply not impressed with the design. But the drooling and the deadlights were really well done, and by the end of the film I was on board with the look. They did make him creepy in all the ways I needed him to be creepy to be something kids might fear. The first interaction with Georgie was effective.

I hope we hear the name "Bob Gray" in the sequel. It was something I was hoping for in the first film, but if it was there I missed it. Obviously he didn't introduce himself to Georgie that way.
 
Is there any significance to the circus car in the sewer where all the children are piled up? Was that an actual circus car the creature found and thats where it took its form of Pennywise from?
 
Just saw it, I mean IT, yesterday with my wife and 10 year old grandson. Having not read the book and only having seen the miniseries years ago, I enjoyed it very much. Having read this thread I know a lot was left out and all the complaints about this and the miniseries not following the book I still enjoyed it for what it was, 2 hours of fun scares that didn't involve stupid teenagers running around the woods getting slashed by a serial killer!
 
I read the book when it first came out, one of my favorite King stories. I have the mini-series on DVD but was always disappointed in it. Like most of King's work, It is an incredibly difficult story to tell in a visual medium. That being said my daughter convinced me to spend the money on this....it was"meh". I'm not a horror movie fan but It was OK. There's potential to make the story better with a sequel but it won't make it great.
Penny wise was a bit too scary right from the start for my taste, I thought Curry played it better (and closer to the book), by starting out"creepy" and only going to"scary" after it was too late for the kids to escape.
If they make a sequel I'll be watching it at home.
 
[/QUOTE]
I meant railroad/horse drawn wagon car

Pennywise is an ancient, extradimensional elemental entity, and arrived on Earth millions of years ago in the area that eventually became Derry. It hibernated until the arrival of humans to feed upon.

There was no circus wagon in the book, nor was there any “stockpiling” of floating children. He caught you, he ate you, and he simply discarded your remains to float and rot in the Derry sewers, like you or I might carelessly toss away a piece of fried chicken.

The book never states that he was inspired by anything in particular to adopt his clown form. Rather, the book describes it more as if It deduced that the clown form was most effective for luring children.
 
Last edited:
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top