"It" floats to the top of nearly every horror movie box office record following $123 million opening - Sensationalist Headlines

What jump scares? Just got out of it.

[sp]Perhaps knowledge of the story in advance contributes to how people interpreted the film. I went with a friend who only knew about the story from trailers so they were absolutely crapping themselves when Georgie went down to get the paraffin wax. I wasn't too bothered cos I knew nothing was going to happen. I honestly feel like Pennywise was scarier when you knew he was lurking but he hadn't gone "BOO BITCH" yet. Also Stan almost dying was horrifying - this sets the scene for his unfortunate departure from the story, I think. That would be traumatising.[/sp] It wasn't a perfect film but I don't see why people are claiming it is the worst film of the year. But hey, [I]whatever floats your boat.[/I]

[sp]I dunno but I feel like despite knowing what was gonna happen that the only truly chilling scene is watching Georgie try to crawl away without an arm and getting sucked up unnoticed, and it all happens in the first 10 minutes. It's the only thing in the entire film that had any major effect on me, horror-wise. Not even chilling like, "damn what if that were me" like most people get scared of when watching shit like this but more like "what if that kid was one I cared about". and it's really not like I didn't expect it, I knew that this was gonna happen because its the most iconic scene of the story, and that in the book they find Georgie with his arms torn off[/sp]

I thought the jumpscares were ok. None of them felt in-your-face, but the accompanying sounds were definitely annoying to deal with. Infact, I couldn't take my eyes off of the leper, or the clown.

[QUOTE=Mr Anonymous;52670242][sp]So the bit where IT jumps out the water and chases Bill wasn't a jump scare? Or the bit where the demented flute woman chases Stanley? Or the bit where IT jumps out of the casket in the clown room with Richie?[/sp] I feel you're being way too critical, like others, and I really don't understand why. It doesn't make someone 'mucho' for not being scared of something and you certainly don't need to hide behind some ridiculous statement like "What jump scares?" when you blatantly are aware that it is a horror film and there are a few. I just don't get it man. [editline]11th September 2017[/editline] PS, you'll float too.[/QUOTE] Should spoiler tag those lol.

The most egregious bit cut from the Fukanaga drafts were Stan's bits. His arc worked better in that version than even the book imo. As far as I've read, the one scene that got Fukunaga booted was a scene where Penny possesses Bev's dad and rapes her. There is no nudity, but he does finger her. That likely concerned enough people to get Cary ejected.

[QUOTE=Furioso;52669034][sp]5.) Beverly is a damsel in distress now, but she manages to inadvertently reunite the others by getting abducted.[/sp][/QUOTE] I really don't understand where you're getting this since [sp]she along with Bill pushed the rest of the Losers to do anything and were repeatedly shown to not give a shit about their fears[/sp].

[QUOTE=Paramud;52671233]I really don't understand where you're getting this since [sp]she along with Bill pushed the rest of the Losers to do anything and were repeatedly shown to not give a shit about their fears[/sp].[/QUOTE] [sp]Dude, Bev was literally kidnapped by the monster. Bill and crew had to go save her because the singular female protagonist was rendered helpless. What part of "damsel-in-distress" is confusing you?[/sp]

[QUOTE=Mr Anonymous;52670242][SP]So the bit where IT jumps out the water and chases Bill wasn't a jump scare? Or the bit where the demented flute woman chases Stanley? Or the bit where IT jumps out of the casket in the clown room with Richie?[/SP] I feel you're being way too critical, like others, and I really don't understand why. It doesn't make someone 'mucho' for not being scared of something and you certainly don't need to hide behind some ridiculous statement like "What jump scares?" when you blatantly are aware that it is a horror film and there are a few. I just don't get it man. [editline]11th September 2017[/editline] PS, you'll float too.[/QUOTE] Had a but of a laugh after posting about jump scares because a bit afterward I had one when I was reading Stephen King wikia and a video auto played. Nothing scary just a picture of Wikipedia and a woman talking about how many views the trailer got. I thought it was funny this made me jump the same night when the movie didn't shake me up much aside from [sp]the way they showed Georgie die[/sp] The first two definitely aren't since you see it coming way in advance, not saying it was predictable but rather it was literally visible The third is getting close but not quite out of nowhere either. A jump scare for the character, but audience? Eh. They don't try to trick you into thinking he wasn't there. [sp]theres a slight misdirection with what is clearly the back of his head playing the piano behind the coffin, but him coming out of the coffin instead when you're expecting him to turn around isn't much of a jump scare[/sp] This movie was also nothing like most horror films, in a very good way.

[QUOTE=Mr Anonymous;52670242][SP]So the bit where IT jumps out the water and chases Bill wasn't a jump scare? Or the bit where the demented flute woman chases Stanley? Or the bit where IT jumps out of the casket in the clown room with Richie?[/SP] I feel you're being way too critical, like others, and I really don't understand why. It doesn't make someone '[b]mucho[/b]' for not being scared of something and you certainly don't need to hide behind some ridiculous statement like "What jump scares?" when you blatantly are aware that it is a horror film and there are a few. I just don't get it man. [editline]11th September 2017[/editline] PS, you'll float too.[/QUOTE] The word you're looking for is "macho". "Mucho" means "much" or "many". Anyway, saw it Saturday, and while I'm not generally a fan of horror films, I thought it was pretty good. Jump-scares, yeah, but you get that in all horror films. Generally, things are more terrifying when you know they're there, just not when they're going to appear, and though I've seen enough horror films that I've developed a pretty good sense for when a jump-scare is about to occur (it's such an over-used trope, like I've said), delivery and presentation matter, and I think IT did a pretty decent job of it in this case. There was also a decent enough use of "body horror" (which I personally find more disturbing than a murderous clown-demon-thing). It wasn't scary per-se (I've gone through sleep paralysis before, no horror film is going to frighten me after that shit), but I think over-all it was well done for what it set out to do. Hopefully, as far as character development goes, we'll see more in the second chapter, as IIRC one of the themes of the book was how you don't remember much about your childhood once you reach adulthood, which may be why they didn't focus too much on character development in the first chapter, but we'll see.

[QUOTE=Furioso;52671356][sp]Dude, Bev was literally kidnapped by the monster. Bill and crew had to go save her because the singular female protagonist was rendered helpless. What part of "damsel-in-distress" is confusing you?[/sp][/QUOTE] [sp]A damsel in distress is a hopeless, clueless, and helpless female character who serves no purpose other than to give the protagonist a love interest to rescue. Bev was none of those things.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Paramud;52671416][sp]A damsel in distress is a hopeless, clueless, and helpless female character who serves no purpose other than to give the protagonist a love interest to rescue. Bev was none of those things.[/sp][/QUOTE] I think you're confusing damsel-in-distress with Mary Sue.

[QUOTE=Furioso;52671434]I think you're confusing damsel-in-distress with Mary Sue.[/QUOTE] No, Mary-Sue is a character that is perfect in every way and seemingly has no weaknesses or faults to speak of.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52671485]No, Mary-Sue is a character that is perfect in every way and seemingly has no weaknesses or faults to speak of.[/QUOTE] Oh, that's my mistake then.

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52671399]Had a but of a laugh after posting about jump scares because a bit afterward I had one when I was reading Stephen King wikia and a video auto played. Nothing scary just a picture of Wikipedia and a woman talking about how many views the trailer got. I thought it was funny this made me jump the same night when the movie didn't shake me up much aside from [sp]the way they showed Georgie die[/sp] The first two definitely aren't since you see it coming way in advance, not saying it was predictable but rather it was literally visible The third is getting close but not quite out of nowhere either. A jump scare for the character, but audience? Eh. They don't try to trick you into thinking he wasn't there. [sp]theres a slight misdirection with what is clearly the back of his head playing the piano behind the coffin, but him coming out of the coffin instead when you're expecting him to turn around isn't much of a jump scare[/sp] This movie was also nothing like most horror films, in a very good way.[/QUOTE] [sp]what about the one where Bev gets taken hostage? She hits her dad with the toilet thing and then suddenly right next to her is IT[/sp]

I'm sure it's been discussed, but was anybody else very disappointed that the [sp]"weapons of faith" used to defeat It were removed? Like, in the book the Losers were able to drive It off as children because of their intense imaginations and belief of "movie monster magic." In essence, the very fears that It was preying on are what gave them the strength to defeat it. They were able to injure Pennywise to the point of retreat even though they were (in some instances) fighting with completely harmless weapons, such as an inhaler imagined to be full of "battery acid."[/sp] I thought that was a pretty damn cool "gimmick" in the books, and was a bit confused as to why they decided to nix that. It would have taken almost no time to establish, and cutting it didn't do anything to improve the story. Even still, I loved this adaptation. Extremely cool movie.

EW was talking about the sequel and it sounds like things like the [sp]ritual and shit are being held off for the second movie, whether in flashbacks somehow or in adulthood or something. The Chud thing is being held off for sure, not sure if they'll bring back the imaginary weapons[/sp] [url]http://ew.com/movies/2017/09/11/stephen-king-it-sequel-details/[/url] [editline]12th September 2017[/editline] I'm kinda curious what "flashbacks to kid times with new footage" will be? They aren't gonna be like "oh by the way this happened and we didn't show it in the first one" are they?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52672811]I'm sure it's been discussed, but was anybody else very disappointed that the [sp]"weapons of faith" used to defeat It were removed? Like, in the book the Losers were able to drive It off as children because of their intense imaginations and belief of "movie monster magic." In essence, the very fears that It was preying on are what gave them the strength to defeat it. They were able to injure Pennywise to the point of retreat even though they were (in some instances) fighting with completely harmless weapons, such as an inhaler imagined to be full of "battery acid."[/sp] I thought that was a pretty damn cool "gimmick" in the books, and was a bit confused as to why they decided to nix that. It would have taken almost no time to establish, and cutting it didn't do anything to improve the story. Even still, I loved this adaptation. Extremely cool movie.[/QUOTE] [sp]There was that bit where they shoot and wound It with the cattle gun even though it's out of ammo[/sp]

[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;52672936][sp]There was that bit where they shoot and wound It with the cattle gun even though it's out of ammo[/sp][/QUOTE] [sp]Yeah, I thought that might have been a nod to the whole "imaginary weapons" thing, but my fiancee said that It laughed at them right after they fired. She thought that he was just mocking them by pretending like it hurt him. If it WAS a nod to the weapons of faith, then it was totally without context and likely would require some exposition in the sequel.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52672940][sp]Yeah, I thought that might have been a nod to the whole "imaginary weapons" thing, but my fiancee said that It laughed at them right after they fired. She thought that he was just mocking them by pretending like it hurt him. If it WAS a nod to the weapons of faith, then it was totally without context and likely would require some exposition in the sequel.[/sp][/QUOTE] i've seen it twice now and it was definitely just mocking them. his reaction is completely silly

Favourite scene for this version was [sp]When mike as getting his ass whooped in the river and he see pennywise looking at him at a distance then waved suddenly at him with a ripped off arm[/sp] me and my brother just died at that part

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52673069]i've seen it twice now and it was definitely just mocking them. his reaction is completely silly[/QUOTE] Ah, I must have missed that.

The fact that turtles were a motif in the first film makes me so happy. The sillier aspects of the original's lore were sorely missing in the tv version.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcMRRlbHmDo[/url] This video has a lot of information about what was cut out of the movie and why Apparently the bully had humanizing scenes but test audiences really did not care, and I suppose since King's bully characters are always one-dimensional by default the director decided including a new backstory wasn't worth it. There was also meant to be a full scene of Pennywise's first interaction with people in the 17th century, and a full scene of what happened to the black kid's parents, both scenes axed for budget and time. Both of which are apparently planned to be shown in chapter two somehow.

I really liked how the comedy really offset the horror in the movie. It was done really well.