Her mom is around in the book and flat out asks her if her Dad touches her. She doesn't understand what her mom is asking but the previous night her dad did hit her 3 times, including once in the stomach. There's a few other comments. It's not as explicitly gross as the movie was, but there's still a definite undercurrent of "this is gross."
My memory of it is honestly grosser from the book
spoilered for book spoilers and gross
he was convinced she was not his little girl any more, and there is a point where he wants to "check her" to see if the boys finished inside of her and started legitimately moving in to do that. I think that is when she kicked him in the balls and ran.
It has been 20 years since I read it though so the details are fuzzy.
It's pretty heavily implied that IT is making him do that in that scene--albeit IT is just inflaming existing grossness, as it usual does.
There are some great scenes in the movie, the kids are great, some stuff really works for me.
But I can't get over feeling like these characters were really hollow compared to the book ones. Granted, huge book vs 2 hour movie, but I kind of feel like a directors cut with 20 or 30 minutes more could go a along way to making this better.
Also, I kind of feel terrible saying this, but this movie needed to pull less punches. Yeah it's implied that Bowers is racist, but he is dropping the N word left and right in the book. Mike's dog
is maybe the most terrible thing I've ever read in a book but it put me in that characters shoes
. As I was explaining to my brother, the book is about child abuse and neglect, racism, small town violence, domestic violence, animal abuse and basically the evils of small town life. The movie is about a scary clown.
I don't want to ruin everyone's good time, but I also want to?
I think the best horror movies / films all make statements about society and take risks in showing the audience something that's may not really want to see. Aside from the opening scene, and some of the Bev stuff, I don't think this film really did that.
Jesus, like part of me is glad he is barely in the film, another part of me thinks they cut one of the most unsettling characters in a novel filled with them. Either way I was still cheering when they killed that fucker.
I think the main problem is that you could do a two hour movie on each of the Losers as kids. Getting all seven of them in the same two hour movie, there is just no time to expand on all the insane shit that happens to them. They can't go into the little details of how they become such good friends. Things like the rock fight got shrunk down and remade. It's just the nature of the beast.
There are some great scenes in the movie, the kids are great, some stuff really works for me.
But I can't get over feeling like these characters were really hollow compared to the book ones. Granted, huge book vs 2 hour movie, but I kind of feel like a directors cut with 20 or 30 minutes more could go a along way to making this better.
Also, I kind of feel terrible saying this, but this movie needed to pull less punches. Yeah it's implied that Bowers is racist, but he is dropping the N word left and right in the book. Mike's dog
is maybe the most terrible thing I've ever read in a book but it put me in that characters shoes
. As I was explaining to my brother, the book is about child abuse and neglect, racism, small town violence, domestic violence, animal abuse and basically the evils of small town life. The movie is about a scary clown.
I don't want to ruin everyone's good time, but I also want to?
I think the best horror movies / films all make statements about society and take risks in showing the audience something that's may not really want to see. Aside from the opening scene, and some of the Bev stuff, I don't think this film really did that.
It does, to a lesser degree. They wouldn't be able to do any of those things unless they wanted a hard R, or maybe a premium cable show? The more I think about it the more a premium tv mini-series would suit the material, even with two movies there's a lot which is being left out.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The Apocalyptic Rock Fight didn't even feel apocalyptic.
Thx to the succes IT will get a Director's Cut which adds back in 15 minutes of film,
probably focusing on Henries abusive dad, a supposedly hilarious scene involving the Loser Club trying to jump in the lake, Stan trying to warn the townsfolk during his bar mitzvah with an unexpected result and maybe an even more graphic Georgie kill.
Edit: added spoiler tags.
Alphagaia on
Wanna try my Mario Maker levels?
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09 P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359 Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
Thx to the succes IT will get a Director's Cut which adds back in 15 minutes of film,
probably focusing on Henries abusive dad, a supposedly hilarious scene involving the Loser Club trying to jump in the lake, Stan trying to warn the townsfolk during his bar mitzvah with an unexpected result and maybe an even more graphic Georgie kill.
Edit: added spoiler tags.
Of all the things IT needs...
more graphic violence in its horror scenes isn't one of them. The movie is already way too showy in the first half as it is.
Glad to hear there's a new cut coming, though. I hope they do something about that music.
The first scene sets a horrific tone I do wish was more prevalent in the movie, if even only once more. It kept one on edge expecting another gruesome kill, though. Granted, the hairy blood, the Lepper and puppet Georgie are gory in their own right so maybe I'm splitting (bloody) hairs.
I also hope IT tries to talk a victim into it's trap as the first scene stands alone because of this as well,
but I think that happened more to the adults as I remember he taunts them a lot more.
Wanna try my Mario Maker levels?
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09 P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359 Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
I wish Pennywise killed more people, he feels kind of toothless in the film.
Like why does he let Bill go in the basement? Bill is clearly very afraid. In the book they make a point that had the losers not had their talismans It would have killed them. In the movie it feels like Pennywise just can't kill them. For instance,
Stan first encounter in the book vs the movie. In the movie he just gets away from It because it is more interested in jump scares then actually killing anyone? In the book it's very clear he gets away because he fights back with his book of birds.
He actually kills quite a few kids, if the floating body parts and missing posters are a good indication. Most of them just happened ofscreen.
Wanna try my Mario Maker levels?
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09 P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359 Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
The kids always get away by leaving a bad area or running to a 'safe' place. Ben reaches the librarian, Stan runs out of his father's office, Bill leaves the basement, Eddie leaves the old lot, etc. Beverly gets nabbed because she doesn't see her home as a safe place anymore and had no protection from It. It's all about belief. It has to lure you out of the safe places either by scaring you out or luring you in.
The book makes it a lot more explicit that surviving an encounter with Pennywise requires a moment of bravery and belief.
Without making that clear distinction Pennywise just felt ineffectual.
They also lose some great character moments because they don't distinguish what causes each kid to be brave (ie, for Eddie it's medicine, Richie it's his humor, for Stan it's a belief in a logical world, etc).
would go further into the belief thing. Not a ton of time to get us invested in these characters and the town in a movie and also incorporate a lot of those elements. I think they did a good job hinting at it but the kids only really fight back in the film by standing together and not being afraid. They haven't realized the belief thing yet, even though it's clear to us. I think this works assuming the expand on the theme for the adult portion. As kids they never even thought about what they were doing but as adults they can see it with terrifying clarity and have to will themselves into believing things that their adult minds want to push away. In fact based on that article that I posted earlier, in the second film they want Mike to be a little crazy (which makes total sense reading the book again, Mike IS a little off his rocker) and he's the only one who realized the bolt gun wasn't loaded, but saw that it still worked. I imagine he'll go from there to figure out Chud and explain the idea to the Losers.
I thought the movie did a great job of showing the small town awfulness with the car driving by and people ignoring Ben getting carved up, the Pharmacist being a creepy lecher, all the parents being generally unsympathetic villains. The clown is clearly influencing people, but only to bring out more clearly what was already there.
I really did enjoy what they did with Pennywise's expression when people stopped being afraid of him.
im still convinced that the reason Beverley stopped being afraid of him was because
he did that weird Ashley Simpson SNL-style jig. (at the end when he is on the stage at the bottom of his tower of junk), I know he's the 'Pennywise the dancing clown' but dancing clowns aren't scary.
I really did enjoy what they did with Pennywise's expression when people stopped being afraid of him.
im still convinced that the reason Beverley stopped being afraid of him was because
he did that weird Ashley Simpson SNL-style jig. (at the end when he is on the stage at the bottom of his tower of junk), I know he's the 'Pennywise the dancing clown' but dancing clowns aren't scary.
There is a mash up of that scene with various songs playing in the background and it is hilarious.
I really did enjoy what they did with Pennywise's expression when people stopped being afraid of him.
im still convinced that the reason Beverley stopped being afraid of him was because
he did that weird Ashley Simpson SNL-style jig. (at the end when he is on the stage at the bottom of his tower of junk), I know he's the 'Pennywise the dancing clown' but dancing clowns aren't scary.
In the book
he also dances, but it's out in the street. He does the Peppermint Twist! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WIvZu4dPQQ
I found his hell dance very unsettling, but not particularly scary.
I really did enjoy what they did with Pennywise's expression when people stopped being afraid of him.
im still convinced that the reason Beverley stopped being afraid of him was because
he did that weird Ashley Simpson SNL-style jig. (at the end when he is on the stage at the bottom of his tower of junk), I know he's the 'Pennywise the dancing clown' but dancing clowns aren't scary.
In the book
he also dances, but it's out in the street. He does the Peppermint Twist! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WIvZu4dPQQ
I found his hell dance very unsettling, but not particularly scary.
I feel like his dance in the sewer was more an extension of his ever-present fuckery.
Something underlined in the book (from second-hand knowledge- it's 2spoopy5me) and in the original TV movie are that IT is extremely cocky. IT's got all this power and all the time in the world, so it's actually super lazy about everything other than being a complete fuckface.
The whole routine in the cistern was about showing off. IT had Bev where it wanted her, and could casually yuck it up, play a little game.
But it's not actually in an instant win situation. Without the fear and theatrics, IT has to rely on it's physical capability, which can still only take it so far.
In King's cosmology, wrapping yourself in a skinsuit of any kind is sort of a mixed bag for a cosmic entity. It lets you interact with the physical world and do all kinds of heinous shit. You'll notice that, across the worlds, you only ever see evil beings physically manifest and make personal appearances- IT, Dandelo, the Crimson King, Linoge, and the speaking demon. And it always works to their detriment.
Whatever their goals are, King's abstract demons and gods are always better off staying out of the physical realm and just using their indirect power. Which is why the Turtle remains a powerful figure throughout the cosmic stories; it works through Losers and Ka-Tets and old men who can't sleep, and retired L.A. detectives
Anyway, this all to say that the little show in the sewer was Pennywise showing off instead of getting down to business, because IT's evil and cunning, but also cocky and not nearly as clever as it thinks.
You figure when you're immortal your only goal is having fun, so showing off like that is about the only worthwhile thing to do with your endless time.
The arrogance only comes from the fact that it's not truly deathless, just won't die on its own.
one thin gI did like was the piles of junk IT had collected from all the kids it'd killed. The huge pile of toys and bikes gave some sense of scale.
We also get some closure on the mystery of where Betty Ripsoms legs went. As everything stops floating you can see a set of legs settle to the ground behind the kids.
The Apocalyptic Rock Fight didn't even feel apocalyptic.
It didn't, but i only think this is a ding if you consider changes from the book to be inherent evils. I feel the scene sold the coming together of the Losers just fine, which was its purpose, so I'm cool with it.
As to It letting the kids get away, it felt to me more like him playing with his food than him being ineffectual. Like, fuck it, I can eat anyone in this town whenever I want, no big, whatevs.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+3
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
Interesting thing about the rock fight: in the Fukunaga script (which is floating around online if you care to hunt for it) it was upgraded to an apocalyptic fireworks fight on the 4th of July.
+2
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Never read the book and never saw the Tim Curry movie
Hooooleeeee shit that was fucking great. The first half was goddamn terrifying and the back half was the best coming of age movie since the Goonies.
The kid from Stranger things and Eddie fucking made that movie.
Interesting thing about the rock fight: in the Fukunaga script (which is floating around online if you care to hunt for it) it was upgraded to an apocalyptic fireworks fight on the 4th of July.
In the book fireworks were also used, everyone was willing to start chucking rocks because Bowers and co started things off with M80's. I think the movie rock fight was missing that little bit of escalation after the knife incident.
Wasn't Pennywise supposed to be an actual person originally that IT took the form of later?
I must have missed that in the book.
One thing that is kind of interesting about Pennywise,
she could have easily out lasted the kids, all she had to do after they hurt her the first time was just go to sleep for a 60 years or so, which given the way the book describes her slumbers is like taking a slightly longer afternoon nap for It. But due to her ego she invites them all back to town and comes out of hiding because it really wants to kill these kids.
Not only that, but because she is pregnant she also puts all her unborn children's life on the line as well.
Interesting thing about the rock fight: in the Fukunaga script (which is floating around online if you care to hunt for it) it was upgraded to an apocalyptic fireworks fight on the 4th of July.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The Fukanaga script sounds significantly better in almost every way, including addressing the racial history, giving Mike's parents a voice, improving the lair, and not doing all that sexist bullshit to Beverly. It's a real shame they lowered the budget and drove him away, as he's a better director than the one we got to boot--and they needn't have worried, since It made bank and the sequel should do very well.
Wasn't Pennywise supposed to be an actual person originally that IT took the form of later?
I must have missed that in the book.
One thing that is kind of interesting about Pennywise,
she could have easily out lasted the kids, all she had to do after they hurt her the first time was just go to sleep for a 60 years or so, which given the way the book describes her slumbers is like taking a slightly longer afternoon nap for It. But due to her ego she invites them all back to town and comes out of hiding because it really wants to kill these kids.
Not only that, but because she is pregnant she also puts all her unborn children's life on the line as well.
About that.
I don't think IT can take a slightly longer nap. It comes back every 27 years. It has a cycle and the cycle always starts and ends with a big tragedy. Mike is watching for signs of it returning and after enough kids die and sightings of the clown are coming up again, he calls them and they return. It taunts them when they get back and threatens them with death if they don't leave. It doesn't really invite them back so much as return to doing what it does. They stopped the cycle early last time, ending the killing before any kind of final tragedy happened, but It recovered and came back just like it has done ever since it arrived.
You show a Hollywood producer a wide release good budget horror movie script with a serious look into the racism of small towns and they'll hiss and recoil like Dracula from a crucifix.
But they love those sexual harassment and implied rape scenes for exactly the reasons you'd think.
Wasn't Pennywise supposed to be an actual person originally that IT took the form of later?
I must have missed that in the book.
One thing that is kind of interesting about Pennywise,
she could have easily out lasted the kids, all she had to do after they hurt her the first time was just go to sleep for a 60 years or so, which given the way the book describes her slumbers is like taking a slightly longer afternoon nap for It. But due to her ego she invites them all back to town and comes out of hiding because it really wants to kill these kids.
Not only that, but because she is pregnant she also puts all her unborn children's life on the line as well.
About that.
I don't think IT can take a slightly longer nap. It comes back every 27 years. It has a cycle and the cycle always starts and ends with a big tragedy. Mike is watching for signs of it returning and after enough kids die and sightings of the clown are coming up again, he calls them and they return. It taunts them when they get back and threatens them with death if they don't leave. It doesn't really invite them back so much as return to doing what it does. They stopped the cycle early last time, ending the killing before any kind of final tragedy happened, but It recovered and came back just like it has done ever since it arrived.
It's the opposite, in fact.
IT writes "come home" in blood over one of it's victims. IT knows about the vow and wants to kill them.
Wasn't Pennywise supposed to be an actual person originally that IT took the form of later?
I must have missed that in the book.
One thing that is kind of interesting about Pennywise,
she could have easily out lasted the kids, all she had to do after they hurt her the first time was just go to sleep for a 60 years or so, which given the way the book describes her slumbers is like taking a slightly longer afternoon nap for It. But due to her ego she invites them all back to town and comes out of hiding because it really wants to kill these kids.
Not only that, but because she is pregnant she also puts all her unborn children's life on the line as well.
About that.
I don't think IT can take a slightly longer nap. It comes back every 27 years. It has a cycle and the cycle always starts and ends with a big tragedy. Mike is watching for signs of it returning and after enough kids die and sightings of the clown are coming up again, he calls them and they return. It taunts them when they get back and threatens them with death if they don't leave. It doesn't really invite them back so much as return to doing what it does. They stopped the cycle early last time, ending the killing before any kind of final tragedy happened, but It recovered and came back just like it has done ever since it arrived.
It's the opposite, in fact.
IT writes "come home" in blood over one of it's victims. IT knows about the vow and wants to kill them.
Oh right
Forgot about the "come home." He also leaves that photo of Georgie near a victim. So yeah, a bit of taunting. I don't think it could wait them out though. I think it has to come back on schedule, like a force of nature.
The Fukanaga script sounds significantly better in almost every way, including addressing the racial history, giving Mike's parents a voice, improving the lair, and not doing all that sexist bullshit to Beverly. It's a real shame they lowered the budget and drove him away, as he's a better director than the one we got to boot--and they needn't have worried, since It made bank and the sequel should do very well.
I dunno. For starters, it was never obvious this film would make bank. From the word go, it was being treated with more skepticism than Dark Tower, and up until initial reviews came in i think a lot of people had written it off. "Coming of age horror movie about an evil clown" is not a slam dunk.
As well, I'm hesitant to say what would have made for a better film based on a screenplay. What works on paper doesn't always work on film, budgetary issues aside, and I'm just going to be content with the very good movie we got rather than pine for the great movie that hypothetically might have been. The idea of "fleshing out more characters and also addressing racism in a nuanced, thoughtful manner" sounds fine, but it could also have been "expand an already huge cast past the point of manageability and tack on a hamfisted message about race."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Also, having never read the book or seen the original miniseries, the race stuff came through for me loud and clear. I thought the omission of ... certain words was a bit weird considering the story that was being told, but I feel like I understand why they decided to do that.
In the book, Patrick is a super racist, which was inherited from his horrible dad. In the movie version, his dad's a cop. So that's interesting...
I also think criticizing the movie over much for sexism because Bev gets in distress is some bs. In the book, she is the girl. The movie gives that treatment much more shading. She's the most experienced and rebellious of them and has moments where she insists on action more so than Bill.
And speaking of Bill, I kind of hate him in the book as an obvious author insert annoying character who everyone idolizes to a RIDICULOUS degree. They actually did better in the movie making him a brave, admirable kid who was nevertheless capable of making mistakes and being doubted.
Hopefully Part 2 doesn't drop the ball, this shot up to the top of King adaptations that were good imo.
Posts
There are some great scenes in the movie, the kids are great, some stuff really works for me.
But I can't get over feeling like these characters were really hollow compared to the book ones. Granted, huge book vs 2 hour movie, but I kind of feel like a directors cut with 20 or 30 minutes more could go a along way to making this better.
Also, I kind of feel terrible saying this, but this movie needed to pull less punches. Yeah it's implied that Bowers is racist, but he is dropping the N word left and right in the book. Mike's dog
I don't want to ruin everyone's good time, but I also want to?
I think the best horror movies / films all make statements about society and take risks in showing the audience something that's may not really want to see. Aside from the opening scene, and some of the Bev stuff, I don't think this film really did that.
Jesus, like part of me is glad he is barely in the film, another part of me thinks they cut one of the most unsettling characters in a novel filled with them. Either way I was still cheering when they killed that fucker.
It does, to a lesser degree. They wouldn't be able to do any of those things unless they wanted a hard R, or maybe a premium cable show? The more I think about it the more a premium tv mini-series would suit the material, even with two movies there's a lot which is being left out.
Edit: added spoiler tags.
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09
P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359
Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E
I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
See my profile here!
Of all the things IT needs...
Glad to hear there's a new cut coming, though. I hope they do something about that music.
I also hope IT tries to talk a victim into it's trap as the first scene stands alone because of this as well,
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09
P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359
Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E
I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
See my profile here!
Like why does he let Bill go in the basement? Bill is clearly very afraid. In the book they make a point that had the losers not had their talismans It would have killed them. In the movie it feels like Pennywise just can't kill them. For instance,
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09
P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359
Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E
I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
See my profile here!
Without making that clear distinction Pennywise just felt ineffectual.
They also lose some great character moments because they don't distinguish what causes each kid to be brave (ie, for Eddie it's medicine, Richie it's his humor, for Stan it's a belief in a logical world, etc).
I thought the movie did a great job of showing the small town awfulness with the car driving by and people ignoring Ben getting carved up, the Pharmacist being a creepy lecher, all the parents being generally unsympathetic villains. The clown is clearly influencing people, but only to bring out more clearly what was already there.
im still convinced that the reason Beverley stopped being afraid of him was because
There is a mash up of that scene with various songs playing in the background and it is hilarious.
In the book
I found his hell dance very unsettling, but not particularly scary.
You almost feel bad for him when he starts reciting Bill's stammer-therapy phrase.
Something underlined in the book (from second-hand knowledge- it's 2spoopy5me) and in the original TV movie are that IT is extremely cocky. IT's got all this power and all the time in the world, so it's actually super lazy about everything other than being a complete fuckface.
The whole routine in the cistern was about showing off. IT had Bev where it wanted her, and could casually yuck it up, play a little game.
But it's not actually in an instant win situation. Without the fear and theatrics, IT has to rely on it's physical capability, which can still only take it so far.
In King's cosmology, wrapping yourself in a skinsuit of any kind is sort of a mixed bag for a cosmic entity. It lets you interact with the physical world and do all kinds of heinous shit. You'll notice that, across the worlds, you only ever see evil beings physically manifest and make personal appearances- IT, Dandelo, the Crimson King, Linoge, and the speaking demon. And it always works to their detriment.
Whatever their goals are, King's abstract demons and gods are always better off staying out of the physical realm and just using their indirect power. Which is why the Turtle remains a powerful figure throughout the cosmic stories; it works through Losers and Ka-Tets and old men who can't sleep, and retired L.A. detectives
Anyway, this all to say that the little show in the sewer was Pennywise showing off instead of getting down to business, because IT's evil and cunning, but also cocky and not nearly as clever as it thinks.
The arrogance only comes from the fact that it's not truly deathless, just won't die on its own.
It didn't, but i only think this is a ding if you consider changes from the book to be inherent evils. I feel the scene sold the coming together of the Losers just fine, which was its purpose, so I'm cool with it.
As to It letting the kids get away, it felt to me more like him playing with his food than him being ineffectual. Like, fuck it, I can eat anyone in this town whenever I want, no big, whatevs.
Hooooleeeee shit that was fucking great. The first half was goddamn terrifying and the back half was the best coming of age movie since the Goonies.
The kid from Stranger things and Eddie fucking made that movie.
Eddie was a damn delight
I must have missed that in the book.
One thing that is kind of interesting about Pennywise,
Not only that, but because she is pregnant she also puts all her unborn children's life on the line as well.
Stole multiple scenes. That kid has a promising career ahead of him.
Article that calls out differences in the scripts, http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/cary-fukunaga-it-script-what-the-movie-changes.html.
Another good one: http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2017/09/everything-it-was-right-and-wrong-to-cut-from-cary-fukunagas-script.
The cut Mike and Stan scenes sound really good.
About that.
But they love those sexual harassment and implied rape scenes for exactly the reasons you'd think.
It's the opposite, in fact.
Oh right
I dunno. For starters, it was never obvious this film would make bank. From the word go, it was being treated with more skepticism than Dark Tower, and up until initial reviews came in i think a lot of people had written it off. "Coming of age horror movie about an evil clown" is not a slam dunk.
As well, I'm hesitant to say what would have made for a better film based on a screenplay. What works on paper doesn't always work on film, budgetary issues aside, and I'm just going to be content with the very good movie we got rather than pine for the great movie that hypothetically might have been. The idea of "fleshing out more characters and also addressing racism in a nuanced, thoughtful manner" sounds fine, but it could also have been "expand an already huge cast past the point of manageability and tack on a hamfisted message about race."
I also think criticizing the movie over much for sexism because Bev gets in distress is some bs. In the book, she is the girl. The movie gives that treatment much more shading. She's the most experienced and rebellious of them and has moments where she insists on action more so than Bill.
And speaking of Bill, I kind of hate him in the book as an obvious author insert annoying character who everyone idolizes to a RIDICULOUS degree. They actually did better in the movie making him a brave, admirable kid who was nevertheless capable of making mistakes and being doubted.
Hopefully Part 2 doesn't drop the ball, this shot up to the top of King adaptations that were good imo.