IT

[Derived Absurdity]

So I saw this movie last night, and I saw that it was good. I was sort of cynical about the new Pennywise, who I thought looked goofy and dumb, but when he actually showed up my fears were pretty much instantly displaced. He was genuinely creepy. The best thing about the movie, obviously, was the kids - as a movie which is just as much a coming-of-age drama as it is a horror flick, getting the kids right was important above all else, and they were great. The reviews all seem to agree that Richie was the best, but I thought Ben's more subtle performance was more impressive. They all seemed very authentic, which is as we know very rare for child actors.

I can't say it was very scary. The word I would use to sum up the movie would probably be "intense". It keeps your nerves frayed throughout the entire running time, and it never stops being exciting and engaging, but despite some random disturbing visuals it was never all that scary. I've never really seen anything like it before tbh - it's officially a horror, but unofficially-yet-still-officially a coming-of-age adventure story, yet the mood and pacing is more like a thriller (in that it's not scary, but it's always tense). Yes, there was some neat/creepy moments, but if you have a bunch of creepy moments tonally taken in isolation, that doesn't make a scary movie (or even a creepy one). The movie didn't really have a consistent underlying atmosphere of dread or brooding fear which I feel is essential for a horror movie.

Also many of the moments were really not that creepy. I've seen disturbing visuals done far better and more creatively a zillion times in other movies. Not to mention there were a lot of genuinely scary moments in the book that they didn't bother to use. The leper disguise and the bathroom scene in particular were pretty lame.

(Warning: hereafter be spoilers)

In addition, I was particularly disappointed with Henry Bowers and his gang. I realize now I may be asking too much, but in the book Henry Bowers was genuinely psychotic and disturbed. His character honestly disturbed me a lot as a kid. In the movie he's essentially just a hyper-aggressive, somewhat unstable punk. He didn't have nearly as much presence there as he did in the book, nor was he one-tenth as legitimately frightening or threatening as his book counterpart. In the book he really contributed to its disturbing undertones just as much as Pennywise himself did, and in the movie he was essentially neutered. There's no sign of the genuine mental instability, the inhumanity, which made him so threatening and chilling. So that was disappointing.

I was also pretty goddamn pissed off that they decided to make Pennywise kidnap Beverly and turn her into a damsel in distress. What the fuck was that shit about? In the book they all decide to go into the sewer together, as equals. It's honestly sort of beautiful and it's the whole goddamn emotional point of their story. Having them go in to rescue Beverly fucking ruins that. OBVIOUSLY. Also, Mike had a fairly large role in the book and here he has about ten lines and no personality at all. So they turn the only girl into a damsel in distress and they essentially erase the only black person. Way to go.

The climax was also fucking dumb. I thought the "we all float down here" thing was supposed to be a cryptic euphemism, but apparently it's completely literal. Well, that makes it a bit less scary, doesn't it. Also it's kind of stupid that the climax took place in basically a giant well-lit amphitheater, when part of the reason sewers are scary is that they're tight and pitch-black and claustrophobic. Duh. The climax itself was basically just a CGI boss fight. And I'm not even going to comment on all the nonsense with Beverly.

Other than all that, though, I liked it. + 1 for "Dear God" by XTC.

[Gendo]

Doug and Rob Walker said it wasn't very good, though they both liked parts of it. I often disagree with their tastes; though I respect their opinions on film a lot. Mostly, as I said in the other IT thread, I don't understand why this movie has more hype around it than any of the other remakes that are happening these days.

So question; is this supposed to just be the first part? I heard something about a sequel to come... is this the kids-only stuff, while the adult stuff will be in a different film? I know the book doesn't separate kid and adult stories into parts the way the miniseries did though.

[Derived Absurdity]

Yes. The second movie is going to be all adults. I'm not very excited about it, because the adult part was the weakest half of the book and I can't imagine it being all that good in movie form.

[Cassius Clay]

My girlfriend has a fear of clowns(she's fucking scared of Ronald McDonald) and I would love to watch this movie with her.

[Anakin McFly]

I haven't yet read the book, but what's this about it having a child group sex scene? People bring that up a lot whenever Stephen King criticises Trump on Twitter or says anything about sexual abuse being bad.

[Faustus5]

I haven't yet read the book, but what's this about it having a child group sex scene? People bring that up a lot whenever Stephen King criticises Trump on Twitter or says anything about sexual abuse being bad.

Yep, there is indeed a kiddie gang bang in the book. I couldn't believe what I was reading.

[Anakin McFly]

i need more context than what Wikipedia gives

[Faustus5]

i need more context than what Wikipedia gives

The gang bang becomes a kind of ritual they use to try to neuter or defeat the creature. I don't remember much beyond that.

[Derived Absurdity]

The gang bang is actually used after they temporarily defeat IT in order to find their way out of the sewers. It was supposed to be a metaphor for growing up and losing your innocence and the bridge between childhood and adulthood, which is the theme of the book, although it was executed in the worst way possible. They needed to be bonded together in order to retain their power they used to defeat IT and find their way out of the sewers, so the best way to do that was to have sex with each other. It's extremely stupid no matter how you try to explain it. This was before King got sober. The last hundred pages or so of the book were written on a cocaine binge because none of it made any fucking sense.

Also it's a gang TRAIN just fyi

[Faustus5]

Ah, thanks for the clarification, DA.

[Derived Absurdity]

no problem

A lot of people actually consider that scene to be the heart of the book, the event where everything gets tied together. And I can definitely see where they're coming from. Stephen King definitely seemed to intend it as the emotional climax (lol) of the story. He certainly didn't write it just because he was a perv, or because he wanted to shock or offend people (as some people think). The intention was good, and it can (sort of) be defended if one tries (it was put there for a reason), but... yeah. It could have been done better.

[maz89]

The gang bang is actually used after they temporarily defeat IT in order to find their way out of the sewers. It was supposed to be a metaphor for growing up and losing your innocence and the bridge between childhood and adulthood, which is the theme of the book, although it was executed in the worst way possible. They needed to be bonded together in order to retain their power they used to defeat IT and find their way out of the sewers, so the best way to do that was to have sex with each other. It's extremely stupid no matter how you try to explain it. This was before King got sober. The last hundred pages or so of the book were written on a cocaine binge because none of it made any fucking sense.

Also it's a gang TRAIN just fyi

What the fuck.

[Derived Absurdity]

I know, right? People always confuse those two.

[Gendo]

I've never heard the term gang train, but I was trying to decide if I should reply to point out that it really wasn't a gang bang.

[BruceSmith78]

Well now I know why my mom never wanted me to read It. We had just about every Stephen King book and I read most of them, but I never read It, partly because I wasn't allowed to when I was younger, and partly because I tried reading it later and didn't get past the first few pages.

Also, this thread title always reminds me of the guys we call to fix shit in the office.

[maz89]

I know, right? People always confuse those two.

Well now I know why my mom never wanted me to read It. We had just about every Stephen King book and I read most of them, but I never read It, partly because I wasn't allowed to when I was younger, and partly because I tried reading it later and didn't get past the first few pages.

Carrie introduced me to what "that time of the month" means for women. I thought that was revelatory enough. Can't imagine how disturbed I might have been had my innocent mind been allowed to read about a prepubescent "gang train". (Thank you all for the necessary clarification, everyone.)

[Anakin McFly]

Thanks for the explanation!

This was before King got sober.

This also works as an explanation.

Yeah, I definitely don't think he wrote it because he's a perv (not to mention that even if he was, it's one thing to write about it and another to publish it in such a public fashion), but I didn't know what possible explanation there could be for that scene.

King seems to have a thing for portraying sexual violence against children (and adults), though, but using it as a way to intensify the horror, where the fact that it's wrong is the point. The Dark Tower had a young boy being raped by a demon, but was curiously not that disturbing given the context.

[Raxivace]

The only actual novel of King's I've ever read is The Shining, and the ending has an extended segment where the ghost dressed as a bear runs around trying to rape Danny, talking about sucking his dick and such.

King's The Shining doesn't work in a lot of ways but this was some of the most ridiculous nonsense I've ever read. That orgy in IT sounds weird and really bad in execution, but at least it isn't like the dumbest version of homophobia ever.

EDIT: The Shining at one point also has Halloran hallucinating that he's a slave and that Danny is his master and even starts talking like a ridiculous caricature. I dunno if that's necessarily racist in execution but it sure is stupid.

[Derived Absurdity]

Lmao, I don't remember either of those. Gawd. I can easily believe it, though. Stephen King is weird.

That reminded me of this actual excerpt from It, which is also about some creepy thing threatening someone with sexual violence:

"I worry about you, Bevvie... I worry a LOT!"

She turned, swirls of red hair floating around her face, to see her father staggering toward her down the hallway, wearing the witch's black dress and skull cameo; her father's face hung with doughy, running flesh, his eyes as black as obsidian, his hands clenching and unclenching, his mouth grinning with soupy fervor.

"I beat you because I wanted to FUCK you, Bevvie, that's all I wanted to do, I wanted to FUCK you, I wanted to EAT you, I wanted to eat your PUSSY, I wanted to SUCK your CLIT up between my teeth, YUM-YUM, Bevvie, oooohhhhh, YUMMY IN MY TUMMY, I wanted to put you in the cage... and get the oven hot... and feel your CUNT... your plump CUNT... and when it was plump enough to eat... to eat... EAT..."

Yep, that happened. He wrote that.

[Gendo]

Lmao, I don't remember either of those. Gawd. I can easily believe it, though. Stephen King is weird.

That reminded me of this actual excerpt from It, which is also about some creepy thing threatening someone with sexual violence:

"I worry about you, Bevvie... I worry a LOT!"

She turned, swirls of red hair floating around her face, to see her father staggering toward her down the hallway, wearing the witch's black dress and skull cameo; her father's face hung with doughy, running flesh, his eyes as black as obsidian, his hands clenching and unclenching, his mouth grinning with soupy fervor.

"I beat you because I wanted to FUCK you, Bevvie, that's all I wanted to do, I wanted to FUCK you, I wanted to EAT you, I wanted to eat your PUSSY, I wanted to SUCK your CLIT up between my teeth, YUM-YUM, Bevvie, oooohhhhh, YUMMY IN MY TUMMY, I wanted to put you in the cage... and get the oven hot... and feel your CUNT... your plump CUNT... and when it was plump enough to eat... to eat... EAT..."

Yep, that happened. He wrote that.

I knew that passage quite well as a young school boy.

[maz89]

The only actual novel of King's I've ever read is The Shining, and the ending has an extended segment where the ghost dressed as a bear runs around trying to rape Danny, talking about sucking his dick and such.

King's The Shining doesn't work in a lot of ways but this was some of the most ridiculous nonsense I've ever read. That orgy in IT sounds weird and really bad in execution, but at least it isn't like the dumbest version of homophobia ever.

EDIT: The Shining at one point also has Halloran hallucinating that he's a slave and that Danny is his master and even starts talking like a ridiculous caricature. I dunno if that's necessarily racist in execution but it sure is stupid.

I read The Shining more than 15 years ago so I can't remember anything about those ghost bears trying to rape Danny. You're exaggerating, right? I have fond memories of being quite rattled while reading that book. The only way I can convince myself "it didn't work" is if I hold it up against Kubrick's masterpiece, which takes the story and themes in a far more disturbing direction... and refuses to give us that traditional final moment of heroic self-sacrifice.

[maz89]

Lmao, I don't remember either of those. Gawd. I can easily believe it, though. Stephen King is weird.

That reminded me of this actual excerpt from It, which is also about some creepy thing threatening someone with sexual violence:

"I worry about you, Bevvie... I worry a LOT!"

She turned, swirls of red hair floating around her face, to see her father staggering toward her down the hallway, wearing the witch's black dress and skull cameo; her father's face hung with doughy, running flesh, his eyes as black as obsidian, his hands clenching and unclenching, his mouth grinning with soupy fervor.

"I beat you because I wanted to FUCK you, Bevvie, that's all I wanted to do, I wanted to FUCK you, I wanted to EAT you, I wanted to eat your PUSSY, I wanted to SUCK your CLIT up between my teeth, YUM-YUM, Bevvie, oooohhhhh, YUMMY IN MY TUMMY, I wanted to put you in the cage... and get the oven hot... and feel your CUNT... your plump CUNT... and when it was plump enough to eat... to eat... EAT..."

Yep, that happened. He wrote that.

I had to google that to make sure you guys here were not all in on some inside joke that I didn't get.

...Still can't believe King actually put that down on paper.

[Raxivace]

I read The Shining more than 15 years ago so I can't remember anything about those ghost bears trying to rape Danny. You're exaggerating, right? I have fond memories of being quite rattled while reading that book. The only way I can convince myself "it didn't work" is if I hold it up against Kubrick's masterpiece, which takes the story and themes in a far more disturbing direction... and refuses to give us that traditional final moment of heroic self-sacrifice.

Nope I'm not exaggerating. It's just kind an "eugh" book to read nowadays IMO.

I'll admit that part of why I don't like the novel so much is that Kubrick just does the same concept way better. I have a feeling that in general King might be a guy that inspired better work than he actually made himself.

[Derived Absurdity]

I just saw Deliverance. I want those two hours of my life back.

On the other hand I also saw Trick 'r Treat a few days ago, which was pretty great. Best Halloween movie ever made. Anyone who doesn't have this on their annual schedule is missing out.

[Derived Absurdity]

I just read Pet Sematary and saw the movie in preparation for the upcoming remake. My God.

I have a lot of history with Pet Sematary. That book was not only the first Stephen King book I ever read, it was the very first "grown up" book I ever read in general. Maybe when I was eleven or twelve or some shit like that. It scared the absolute fucking shit out of me. I'm still seriously somewhat traumatized by it. Even today I can't think of it or hear the words "pet cemetery" without getting extremely creeped out, that's how fucking nightmare-inducing it was. Well, I reread it and it's still good. Obviously not as scary as when I was twelve, but still good.

The movie was complete crap. The guy who played Jud Crandall was good and the Zelda bits were scary, but everything else was amateurish nonsense. Can't wait for the remake.

[Derived Absurdity]

The only actual novel of King's I've ever read is The Shining, and the ending has an extended segment where the ghost dressed as a bear runs around trying to rape Danny, talking about sucking his dick and such.

King's The Shining doesn't work in a lot of ways but this was some of the most ridiculous nonsense I've ever read. That orgy in IT sounds weird and really bad in execution, but at least it isn't like the dumbest version of homophobia ever.

EDIT: The Shining at one point also has Halloran hallucinating that he's a slave and that Danny is his master and even starts talking like a ridiculous caricature. I dunno if that's necessarily racist in execution but it sure is stupid.

So I just re-read The Shining and I came across neither of those two things. Not even really anything remotely similar to them. Did we read the same book?

[Faustus5]

So I just re-read The Shining and I came across neither of those two things. Not even really anything remotely similar to them. Did we read the same book?

I read the book a bunch of times and don't remember either of those scenes, either, but that was decades ago so I didn't trust my memory much.

[Raxivace]

So I just re-read The Shining and I came across neither of those two things. Not even really anything remotely similar to them. Did we read the same book?

Looking at it again it was a guy dressed as a dog, not a bear. Other than though there's a pretty blatant sexual overtone to that encounter.

“I'm going to eat you, little boy," the dogman answered, and suddenly a fusillade of barks came from
his grinning mouth. They were human imitations, but the savagery in them was real. The man's hair was
dark, greased with sweat from his confining costume. There was a mixture of scotch and champagne on
his breath.


Danny flinched back but didn't run. “Let me by."

“Not by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin," the dogman replied. His small red eyes were fixed attentively
on Danny's face. He continued to grin. “I'm going to eat you up, little boy. And I think I'll start with your
plump little cock." He began to prance skittishly forward, making little leaps and snarling.

Danny's nerve broke. He fled back into the short hallway that led to their quarters, looking back over
his shoulder. There was a series of mixed howls and barks and growls, broken by slurred mutterings and
giggles.

Danny stood in the hallway, trembling.

“Get it up!" the drunken dogman cried out from around the corner. His voice was both violent and
despairing. “Get it up, Harry you bitch-bastard! I don't care how many casinos and airlines and movie
companies you own! I know what you like in the privacy of your own h-home! Get it up! I'll huff. . . and
I'll puff. . . until Harry Derwent's all bloowwwwn down!" He ended with a long, chilling howl that
seemed to turn into a scream of rage and pain just before it dwindled off.

Here's the Hallorann thing. I slightly misremembered that in that he only hallucinates Danny referring to him as a slave (And that it wasn't Hallorann repeating the line himself), but I still maintain its not a good addition to the book.

“Come back as quick as you can," Danny whispered. “Please." Hallorann nodded. He had trained the
headlamp on the door and now he floundered through the snow, casting a long shadow in front of himself.
He pushed the equipment shed door open and stepped in. The horseblankets were still in the corner, by the
rogue set. He picked up four of them-they smelled musty and old and the moths certainly had been having
a free lunch-and then he paused.

One of the rogue mallets was gone.

(Was that what he hit me with?) Well, it didn't matter what he'd been hit with, did it? Still, his fingers
went to the side of his face and began to explore the huge lump there. Six hundred dollars' worth of dental
work undone at a single blow. And after all (maybe he didn't hit me with one of those. Maybe one got lost. Or stolen. Or took for a souvenir. After all) it didn't really matter. No one was going to be playing
rogue here next summer. Or any summer in the foreseeable future.

No, it didn't really matter, except that looking at the racked mallets with the single missing member had
a kind of fascination. He found himself thinking of the hard wooden whack! of the mallet head striking the
round wooden ball. A nice summery sound. Watching it skitter across the (bone, blood.) gravel. It
conjured up images of (bone, blood.) iced tea, porch swings, ladies in white straw hats, the hum of
mosquitoes, and (bad lithe boys who don't play by the rules.) all that stuff. Sure. Nice game. Out of style
now, but... nice.

“Dick?" The voice was thin, frantic, and, he thought, rather unpleasant. “Are you all right, Dick? Come
out now. Please!" (“Come on out now nigguh de massa callin you all.") His hand closed tightly around
one of the mallet handles, liking its feel.

(pare the rod, spoil the child.) His eyes went blank in the flickering, fire-shot darkness. Really, it
would be doing them both a favor. She was messed up. . . in pain. . . and most of it (all of it) was that damn
boy's fault. Sure. He had left his own daddy in there to burn.

When you thought of it, it was damn close to murder. Patricide was what they called it. Pretty goddam
low.

“Mr. Hallorann?" Her voice was low, weak, querulous. He didn't much like the sound of it.

“Dick!" The boy was sobbing now, in terror.

Hallorann drew the mallet horn the rack and turned toward the flood of white light from the
snowmobile headlamp. His feet scratched unevenly over the boards of the equipment shed, like the feet of
a clockwork toy that has been wound up and set in motion.

Suddenly he stopped, looked wonderingly at the mallet in his hands, and asked himself with rising
horror what it was he had been thinking of doing. Murder?

Had he been thinking of murder?

[Derived Absurdity]

I mean, I agree the book could have done without them, but I think your original comment clearly exaggerated what they were by a lot.

What do you think didn't work about it?

[Raxivace]

Perhaps a bit exaggerated (It's been about five years now since I last read the book, I chalk any errors to failures of my memory), but I think both of those segments are meant to evoke what I said they were.

Hallorann just runs so close to a Magical Negro kind of stereotype already that literally bringing up slavery with him and then having the worst thing he could do being murdering a white child is perhaps a bit tasteless. The dogman is just homophobic.

[Derived Absurdity]

Yeah, I agree the book would improve if those two lines were just cut.

I didn't really read Hallorann as a Magical Negro trope. The "magic" he has is a very specific objective magic which a bunch of other characters also have, including the main one, and narratively it was necessary to have so that he could explain to Danny (and us) what it was, and so he could rescue them at the end. He's also not particularly wise or spiritual, nor is his entire motivation/arc focused on helping the white characters. He does help them, but that's because they specifically called for his help and he's a good person. And he didn't even want to help them; he said to himself multiple times that it was probably a bad idea to. His character was pretty well fleshed out. I mean, he's much more of a Magical Negro in the movie than in the book; in the movie he just comes to their aid and dies.

I think it's open to interpretation whether or not the dogman thing was homophobic. I just read the inclusion of that word as Stephen King being obscene and gross to try to be scary and unnerving. He does that often. It didn't really work, but I think it's debatable whether it was meant to be sexual.

But Kubrick's version has both of these things, only worse. Doesn't the dog guy literally suck someone off in the movie? Not sure how you could say Kubrick's version improves on the book on that score.

[Raxivace]

This post ended up being longer than I thought it was going to get and took more editing than I expected, and that caused me to sit on it for a bit.

I didn't really read Hallorann as a Magical Negro trope. The "magic" he has is a very specific objective magic which a bunch of other characters also have, including the main one, and narratively it was necessary to have so that he could explain to Danny (and us) what it was, and so he could rescue them at the end.

Hallorann actually having magical powers (Even if other characters also have) is only partially related to the trope but is not actually the most significant part. The larger point of contention is these characters only existing to serve or save white characters, who are usually the actual main characters of the story.

He's also not particularly wise or spiritual, nor is his entire motivation/arc focused on helping the white characters. He does help them, but that's because they specifically called for his help and he's a good person. And he didn't even want to help them; he said to himself multiple times that it was probably a bad idea to. His character was pretty well fleshed out.

I mean you can say he's fleshed out but all you've listed here are characteristics of the MN stereotype. He helps the white characters, even though he doesn't want to, but because he's this good person who was asked to he traveled many miles to come to the rescue anyways. Tbh that's exactly what I would expect a idealized version of a black character written by a white person who doesn't know any better to come up with, even if it was done with good intentions- the character still being almost solely defined by how he relates to the white protagonists.

I think you're meant to think Hallorann is wise and spiritual to some degree too since he does take a mentor or perhaps a fatherly kind of role to Danny and teaches him about his powers.

I mean, he's much more of a Magical Negro in the movie than in the book; in the movie he just comes to their aid and dies.

FWIW the Wikipedia page listing examples lists both his film incarnation and hit literary one.

That being said I think Kubrick's film functions by specifically setting Hallorann up as one to subvert those expectations about those kinds of characters when he's killed (And rather importantly, he's killed by Jack, part of the film's stand-in for White America). It's part of both Kubrick's larger subversion of King's novel and also part of the film's larger theme on how white America specifically antagonizes and seeks to destroy anyone perceived as different from them. It's why all of those Native American references are inserted into the film ("The Hotel is built on an Indian burial ground" and so on).

I think it's open to interpretation whether or not the dogman thing was homophobic. I just read the inclusion of that word as Stephen King being obscene and gross to try to be scary and unnerving. He does that often. It didn't really work, but I think it's debatable whether it was meant to be sexual.

I'm not sure how debatable it really is. I'm going to try and list out my thought process exactly that lead to me determining he was a homophobic representation.

1. When the the dog-man character is first introduced in the novel (I had to look up his name to be sure, but its Roger), he's strongly implied to be gay for the Harry character in the party scene.

2. We then later have the dog-man talking about Danny's genitals directly in that larger section I quoted above, and also making other references to the character of Harry's genitals ("Get it up!" and "I'll huff. . . and I'll puff. . . until Harry Derwent's all bloowwwwn down!"")...Like this isn't subtle innuendo, he's not actually talking about houses in those quotes here.

So if we can agree that the character is coded as gay to begin with, and if we have a part of the text where where he's talking about genitals and making threatening statements involving genitals too and also trying to harm Danny, I'm not sure what other conclusion there is to come to here than his gayness being used to make him more scary. And if this all follows, is that not literally what homophobia means?

But Kubrick's version has both of these things, only worse. Doesn't the dog guy literally suck someone off in the movie? Not sure how you could say Kubrick's version improves on the book on that score.

The context of the dogman in Kubrick's movie is different. In the movie its just another part of the Hotel's past that Wendy sees and doesn't understand. I'm not arguing he's any kind of progressive representation in the movie, but he's not an actively antagonist force (To the best of my recollection anyways, perhaps there's a scene I'm forgetting) either like in the novel. If anything this homosexual act of the movie is just another aspect of American history that White America is trying to suppress and deny the existence of, while its own idealized facade of what families should be (Husband, wife, child as represented by the Torrance family) is falling apart.

Or at least that's my reading of different elements in King's novel and Kubrick's adaptation. Is it it weird that I kind of want to read Dr. Sleep now?

[Derived Absurdity]

Yeah, you're probably right about all of that. Especially about the homophobia. That's unfortunate. King doesn't really deserve the benefit of the doubt that I'm giving him here, I've been researching him recently and his history on this subject seems really bad.

When you said the novel "doesn't work", I was thinking you were referring more to its artistic merits rather than its ethical problems. I was wondering about your thoughts on that. Personally when I re-read I was pretty underwhelmed.