[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Spoiler:

Just to pick up your point on Bev, as the only female character I have to admit that her only storyline was men, be that the love triangle, her husband and he abusive father, was slightly disappointing and annoying. It's something that female characters suffer from alot.

**although this is improving thankfully in film/TV in general

Spoiler:

I think that's also an issue in the book but I think I remember it being more about the cycle of abuse rather then her existence revolving around men. I do wish they did more to develop the characters as adults. Bev literally just got one scene with her husband and a line about her job and then the rest of the film her role consisted of making googly eyes with Ben and Bill. It's quite the disservice not only to the character but to Jessica Chastain and Sophia Lillis too.

I also disliked that Audra got sidelined in the film too, I could understand them cutting down the abusive husband's role since his presence in Derry in the book was basically just to be another threat and they already had Bowers for that but they could have really done with another major female character and Audra's a pretty good character in the books although Stephen King did end up fridging her in part.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Best Jump scare? for me it's

Spoiler:

Richie on the bench and the statue

Spoiler:

That one was really well done despite the CGI-ness of it all, mainly because it's a good twist on the book's version of that scene, which, if I remember right, just has the statue chasing Richie around. Making the statue more monstrous was a good touch to make a rather silly scene in the book more effective here.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Spoiler:

I think that's also an issue in the book but I think I remember it being more about the cycle of abuse rather then her existence revolving around men. I do wish they did more to develop the characters as adults. Bev literally just got one scene with her husband and a line about her job and then the rest of the film her role consisted of making googly eyes with Ben and Bill. It's quite the disservice not only to the character but to Jessica Chastain and Sophia Lillis too.

I also disliked that Audra got sidelined in the film too, I could understand them cutting down the abusive husband's role since his presence in Derry in the book was basically just to be another threat and they already had Bowers for that but they could have really done with another major female character and Audra's a pretty good character in the books although Stephen King did end up fridging her in part.

Spoiler:

Yeah i didn't read the book so I didn't have that to compare it with, I've only recently started reading Stephen Kings stuff, not sure I love how he deals with women characters in general. All I got from the film was that Audra was a bit annoying and looked kind of like Bev

Going back to Stephen King though and how he writes about women, have you read Sleeping Beauties? Not sure if he's had a bit of an ephiny or if it's his sons influence in that book but it's all about how men treat women and is not a bad reflection of r/l

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Spoiler:

Yeah i didn't read the book so I didn't have that to compare it with, I've only recently started reading Stephen Kings stuff, not sure I love how he deals with women characters in general. All I got from the film was that Audra was a bit annoying and looked kind of like Bev

Going back to Stephen King though and how he writes about women, have you read Sleeping Beauties? Not sure if he's had a bit of an ephiny or if it's his sons influence in that book but it's all about how men treat women and is not a bad reflection of r/l

Spoiler:

Yeah, he's not known for being great at writing female characters if I remember right.

Audra's a lot better in the book and the whole thing about Bill feeling guilty about faking his illness is something that's been put in place of his original storyline that involved Audra heavily.

I've not read Sleeping Beauties, no, I might have to though. I have a very love/hate relationship with the books of his that I've read though. I do love IT but it's so very flawed in parts and plus there's parts that are just straight up wrong.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Spoiler:

Yeah, he's not known for being great at writing female characters if I remember right.

Audra's a lot better in the book and the whole thing about Bill feeling guilty about faking his illness is something that's been put in place of his original storyline that involved Audra heavily.

I've not read Sleeping Beauties, no, I might have to though. I have a very love/hate relationship with the books of his that I've read though. I do love IT but it's so very flawed in parts and plus there's parts that are just straight up wrong.

Spoiler:

I did read about that one part in the first chapter (that thankfully any adaptations left out), about Bev having sex with all the Losers. that's just wrong on so many levels

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Spoiler:

I did read about that one part in the first chapter (that thankfully any adaptations left out), about Bev having sex with all the Losers. that's just wrong on so many levels

Spoiler:

I think the co-writer of that section was cocaine. Reading about someone being railroaded is bad enough, but why did it have to go into details about their sizes and how they each felt when they were bloody twelve?!

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Spoiler:

I think the co-writer of that section was cocaine. Reading about someone being railroaded is bad enough, but why did it have to go into details about their sizes and how they each felt when they were bloody twelve?!

Spoiler:

I didn't read it but yeah that is pretty warped. Stephen Kings argument was "Oh it's a book about children being murdered and everyone is outraged by the sex part".......... It's absolutely not that at all. The child murders were bad, they were depicted as being bad. As far as I've heard that weird child sex orgy was supposed to be some sort of coming of age marvellous moment........the implication was that Bev was a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of her father and this ****ing gang bang at age 12 was some how empowering? I mean..... it's pretty sick and I would imagine something that victims of paedophilia/sexual abuse would find really distasteful and offensive (and anyone who hasn't ltb but even more so victims

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Spoiler:

I didn't read it but yeah that is pretty warped. Stephen Kings argument was "Oh it's a book about children being murdered and everyone is outraged by the sex part".......... It's absolutely not that at all. The child murders were bad, they were depicted as being bad. As far as I've heard that weird child sex orgy was supposed to be some sort of coming of age marvellous moment........the implication was that Bev was a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of her father and this ****ing gang bang at age 12 was some how empowering? I mean..... it's pretty sick and I would imagine something that victims of paedophilia/sexual abuse would find really distasteful and offensive (and anyone who hasn't ltb but even more so victims

Spoiler:

In the book her father explicitly never actually abused her - there was a moment where he* demanded to know if Bev had been slutting around, and wanted to see if she was "intact".

When she was an adult IT took the form of ZombieDad and he creeped her out by saying he wanted to abuse her, but never did.

Her mum was also alive in the book, unlike both film versions. At one point she asked Bev if her dad had ever touched her, but he hadn't and the question confused her.

* at the time he was either really drunk, crazed by anger, influenced by IT, or actually a form of IT

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Spoiler:

In the book her father explicitly never actually abused her - there was a moment where he* demanded to know if Bev had been slutting around, and wanted to see if she was "intact".

When she was an adult IT took the form of ZombieDad and he creeped her out by saying he wanted to abuse her, but never did.

Her mum was also alive in the book, unlike both film versions. At one point she asked Bev if her dad had ever touched her, but he hadn't and the question confused her.

* at the time he was either really drunk, crazed by anger, influenced by IT, or actually a form of IT

Ah ok, like I said I didn't read the book, I thought that was what they were hinting at in the film though so assumed it was the same in the book

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Spoiler:

I did read about that one part in the first chapter (that thankfully any adaptations left out), about Bev having sex with all the Losers. that's just wrong on so many levels

Spoiler:

It's utterly grotesque and ultimately needless, their confrontation with IT as children in the books is completely philosophical for the most part and the reasoning for the sex scene is flimsy at best. He could have easily wrote it so that they find their way out of the sewers through the after effects of their battle with IT.

It's just... Ugh. It's something that completely taints the story for me. I pretty much have to pretend that chapter doesn't exist. It's just wrong.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Spoiler:

It's utterly grotesque and ultimately needless, their confrontation with IT as children in the books is completely philosophical for the most part and the reasoning for the sex scene is flimsy at best. He could have easily wrote it so that they find their way out of the sewers through the after effects of their battle with IT.

It's just... Ugh. It's something that completely taints the story for me. I pretty much have to pretend that chapter doesn't exist. It's just wrong.

Spoiler:

Not good with endings eh? maybe a dig at himself there?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Spoiler:

It's utterly grotesque and ultimately needless, their confrontation with IT as children in the books is completely philosophical for the most part and the reasoning for the sex scene is flimsy at best. He could have easily wrote it so that they find their way out of the sewers through the after effects of their battle with IT.

It's just... Ugh. It's something that completely taints the story for me. I pretty much have to pretend that chapter doesn't exist. It's just wrong.

Spoiler:

Weeeell, the reasoning was their magical connection was broken because IT was out of action, so I can see that it needed to be temporarily rebonded long enough for them to escape. That's sound. But the way it was resolved as clearly not.

The same thing could have been achieved by the blood pact thing they did with the broken glass tbh.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Spoiler:

Weeeell, the reasoning was their magical connection was broken because IT was out of action, so I can see that it needed to be temporarily rebonded long enough for them to escape. That's sound. But the way it was resolved as clearly not.

The same thing could have been achieved by the blood pact thing they did with the broken glass tbh.

Spoiler:

Exactly, there's so many ways he could have gone about achieving the same result without tainting the story like that.

[JerseyWins]

Ok in hindsight this movie is even better when you forget about sitting through it for 3 hours & remember all the great scenes & acting it had (also realizing a lot of the little things because I watched 1 when it first came out & forgot a lot of the little details etc.)

I’m going from “really solid” to “amazing” for this film

[JerseyWins]

I should’ve rewatched 1 before going into 2