itt: it

Reminds me of a similar moment in twin peaks s3 where shit's getting crazy and there's a sudden cut to a master shot that just hilariously deflates the scene

― scrüt (wins), Thursday, February 1, 2018 9:32 AM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Ha, okay, the TP scene you're referring to is hilarious and I think you've sold me on this for all the wrong reasons.

iirc from the book, the pharmacist was not a bad dude at all.

In the book it's suggested that even tho he's "doing the right thing" he takes a sadistic pleasure in upending eddie's world

Ha, okay, the TP scene you're referring to is hilarious and I think you've sold me on this for all the wrong reasons.

If you go in for the comedy those are prob the right reasons! It's what this film does well

yeah the pharmacist was certainly mean, at the very least. he was also very involved in the 1930 murder of the gangsters in the book.

Oh yeah, I remember that now.

i haven't watched this one yet but is it actually any good?

it got a lot of mixed reviews

maybe if you haven't read the book

i actually haven't

so a classic case of book is better?

worth watching for sure, prob better if you haven't read the book

FUCK THIS MOVIE

well then

lol

yeah i mean there isn't really any way to adapt a 1,100+ page novel into a two or even three hour movie. should've been another miniseries. but i can't emphasize enough how badly they fucked up the movie by altering the structure of the book. one of the central ideas/qualities of 'it' is that it is eternal & cyclical, and by flipping back and forth between the 50s and the 80s in the book, demonstrating how nothing has changed in the future even as the kids struggle and fight and do their best in teh 50s, the book really successfully conveys an omnipresent evil that is so much larger and more vague and scarier than its main avatar, a scary clown. the book is about childhood trauma and how it reverberates into adulthood. the movie is about killing an evil clown. dud

unfortunately i think w/the way Hollywood tries to maximize their product, dividing IT into two separate parts in this way was the most palatable way for the films to reach a wider audience. they can easily say, oh sure the kids in Pt 1 and the adults in Pt 2 and be done with it, they don't even have to be structurally clever or interesting.

obviously a weird decision but i mean this is an industry that turned a 300 page kids' book into a 9 hour trilogy just to get the most bang for their buck.

maybe not "weird" per se, it makes perfect sense, but it's the easy way out.

THIS STUPID MOVIE HAS CGI BLOOD IN LIKE THE FIRST 5 MINUTES. JUST USE REAL FAKE BLOOD, FUCKING IDIOTS. ALSO EVERYTHING DOESN'T HAVE TO BE STRANGER THINGS, DICKHEADS!

when that diaper baby "every one floats down here bobby" or whatever scene the baby boy gets dragged and it's like the worst cgi blood in the history of the medium fuck fyck fuckfyewhfoi

it's like the worst cgi blood in the history of the medium

why is this bad tho

because it look stup and dumb and not goopy and drippy

and like filmmakers that dont just drag a baby boy and use real fake blood in a fuckin HORROR MOVIE in a scene where a boy is dragged and blood is there are just shitty filmmakers by default and they should just kill themselves. also that stupid clown dance was stupid and for idiots.

https://media.giphy.com/media/XyAGm96eUIPsc/giphy.gif

WOW REAL SCARY

https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/pennywise-dancing.gif?w=650

I MEAN WOW REAL SCARY

kurt, did you miss the part in the book where he's a russian cossack dancer pumping up a bicycle tire and kinda angry sad about it?

I have no opinions about cgi blood but I agree that the dance is scary

lol, what are those props back there anyway? Like the thing he kicks?

one of the central ideas/qualities of 'it' is that it is eternal & cyclical, and by flipping back and forth between the 50s and the 80s in the book, demonstrating how nothing has changed in the future even as the kids struggle and fight and do their best in teh 50s

someone said in an interview that the kids are gonna return for flashbacks in part 2. but yes, even though the adult story is less interesting imo, the cutting back and forth was super disorienting and helped build up that sense of dread.

Don't most productions these days use CGI blood, since it's a lot cheaper than resetting with freshly cleaned up actors and new squibs?

cgi blood is not cheaper than just dumping some liquid on the floor and filming it. it's done out of laziness.

the most drippy goopy scary movies ever made are the lowest of the low budgets.

and cgi blood does have its place i guess, but this particular instance just looked so BAD

cgi blood was used v effectively and beautifully in the tv series hannibal

https://media.giphy.com/media/ZSdirlR9iUm6Q/giphy.gif

Things were certainly gloopier back then

https://findingfaeries.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/itbloodinsink.gif

the fake blood in the chinese detective series WHEN A SNAIL FALLS IN LOVE (which everyone shd be watching as it is interesting) is a mysterious orange colour
luxury, criminal decadence, martial-arts cops and profiling on the streets of the people's republic of china: WHEN A SNAIL FALLS IN LOVE

https://findingfaeries.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/itbloodinsink.gif

Wow things were also drippy back then kurt I think you're into something

https://78.media.tumblr.com/5748cb55a0b4b34ec90f917618a95b94/tumblr_ogqb8yvplN1r2lmkgo3_400.gif

Should have been that image, my beautiful joke is ruined

the ponytails were longer back then

Re Jon Boy and his drippiness the 1990 version has one of my favourite unintentionally funny moments when bill is furiously tapping out his latest novel, obviously meant to be a Stephen King stand-in, and you hear the words in v.o. as he types them and it's complete fucking flannel, and then he leans back and whispers to himself "yeah. yeah."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE1oX0A-qKk

It's exactly 1 minute in here

the pile of cocaine must have been just offscreen

The only other good thing in the adults part of that miniseries is ben the architect's apartment

"hampstead heath, england"

s/b "west england"" iirc

xp: he's got a french horn or something up here, right?

Also, love the phrase "complete fucking flannel".

Yeah the horn is hung on the wall! He also has some crazy chairs iirc and the headboard on his bed is adorned with i) pictures of pies and ii) the letter π

It's an amazing idea of what a hotshot architect's apartment might look like

Can't find a pic ☹️

Schwitterz makes compelling case itt folks

There's a chapter in the book that says

chapter x

Nothing much happened for the rest of the summer

In always liked that

it's a rip from a chapter in something wicked this way comes: "Nothing much else happened, all the rest of that night." king book v indebted to something wicked in general imo. needful things too prob.

I've never actually read the books, but I watched the 90s miniseries A LOT as a kid and still have a soft spot for it despite it being mostly terrible (I think I told this story on ILX before, about being around age 9 and climbing into the fridge to scare my younger cousins, right after we first watched it lol). I feel like kids today might feel the same way about this film eventually.

Anyway, Tim Curry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skarsgard. And in both the film and the miniseries, the kid actors are the best (RIP Jonathan Brandis <3). Finn Wolfhard does seem like he's destined for a Seth Green-esque career, too.

I liked the first "chapter" for the engaging performances from the child actors and because it hit my 80s nostalgia sweet spot. Chapter 2 is three hours of expensive-looking CGI.

Otm

Yep. Tried watching the second one twice, fell asleep both times.

I stand by most of what I wrote (while buzzed) above but have no desire to ever watch it again, to be clear.

Ok, I did laugh at the King and Bogdanovich cameos.

Chapter 2 was definitely a chore

it was an assload of fuck