Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
not in the child half IIRC.
as adults, Bill's wife is kidnapped by Bev's husband, taken down to the sewers and forced to look at It's true form. She's rendered unconscious just like Bev in the movie, only she doesn't ever recover. Bev's husband also looks at the lights, and immediately drops dead.
I don't think anyone is taken when they're kids, they all just decide as a group to go fight it?
Was considering who else in the group could have been taken that they'd all rally around, and I dunno... maybe Eddy or Ben?
Oh brilliant
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I'm currently reading IT again after so many years, so I'm a bit iffy on the details.
Book answer:
The adult part of the story includes a subplot where Bill's wife is kidnapped by Bev's abusive boyfriend (under It's aegis) and dragged down into the sewers; It intends to lure the Losers to their death, as well as throw Bill off his game.
This is still a trope, but there's a decent reason for it--the point is that she both represents Bill's adult life (the concerns and mentality that make him weak in the fight against It, now that he's grown up) and doesn't share in/understand Bill's childhood experiences. Her capture sets up the final chapter, where Bill wakes her from a coma not by a fairy tale kiss but by regaining, with her, some sense of his childhood through the symbolic act of riding his childhood bike.
The other reason this is better is simply that King creates a new character to be the damsel. Which means Beverly isn't diminished from badass protagonist to plot device and prize in someone else's story, the way she is in the film.
The adults get chased down by Henry or something similar. Like they were planning on going down to the sewers in the morning, but that plan falls apart. And they don't even know Bill's wife is in town, let alone It's prisoner.
All of that gross sex stuff is in the book too. I don't understand how changing it makes for a better movie.
Calling the film awful outside of the kid's roles is pants on heads out there.
I've laid out my reasons. An attractively-shot, well-acted film can still not be a good film.
A lot of your reasons don't really make a lot of sense outside of personal preference though. I can appreciate that you didn't like the movie but to say it's a bad film is a bit odd.
Also, I don't see how a person can say they'd have preferred the original Fukunaga film plan when the movie was never made to even be judged.
Again, you not liking the film is 100% fine. To say it's a bad movie is somewhat disingenuous.
"Preferred to see" and "preferred" are not the same thing
And I think that no matter how great a movie looks or some of the performances are, if a film doesn't have a cohesive narrative or adhere to any semblance of logic while indulging in worn-out cliches and misogynistic tropes, I'm gonna call those things out and label it a failure.
I wasn't scared or delighted, I was bored and annoyed.
I'll give you misogynistic tropes but there is definitely a strongly cohesive narrative present in this film. And a lot of the cliches I think you're faulting it for are literally things that Stephen King created with the original novel.
Even reading your original review I'm failing to understand how you're coming up with the idea that the film lacks a cohesive narrative. It's a horror take on the little worlds we all built as children over our summers growing up. I'd say it hit all of the right notes. That said, I'm not trying to change your mind or opinion of the film. I think your reaction to some of the elements of the film is understandable, I just don't think it merits the conclusion that in any way is this a bad film.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
All of that gross sex stuff is in the book too. I don't understand how changing it makes for a better movie.
Calling the film awful outside of the kid's roles is pants on heads out there.
I've laid out my reasons. An attractively-shot, well-acted film can still not be a good film.
A lot of your reasons don't really make a lot of sense outside of personal preference though. I can appreciate that you didn't like the movie but to say it's a bad film is a bit odd.
Also, I don't see how a person can say they'd have preferred the original Fukunaga film plan when the movie was never made to even be judged.
Again, you not liking the film is 100% fine. To say it's a bad movie is somewhat disingenuous.
"Preferred to see" and "preferred" are not the same thing
And I think that no matter how great a movie looks or some of the performances are, if a film doesn't have a cohesive narrative or adhere to any semblance of logic while indulging in worn-out cliches and misogynistic tropes, I'm gonna call those things out and label it a failure.
I wasn't scared or delighted, I was bored and annoyed.
I'll give you misogynistic tropes but there is definitely a strongly cohesive narrative present in this film. And a lot of the cliches I think you're faulting it for are literally things that Stephen King created with the original novel.
Even reading your original review I'm failing to understand how you're coming up with the idea that the film lacks a cohesive narrative. It's a horror take on the little worlds we all built as children over our summers growing up. I'd say it hit all of the right notes. That said, I'm not trying to change your mind or opinion of the film. I think your reaction to some of the elements of the film is understandable, I just don't think it merits the conclusion that in any way is this a bad film.
A setting isn't a narrative. Set props aren't a narrative. Iconic characters aren't a narrative.
At most, the unified narrative is "kids fight a monster," and that's still not all that well thought-out.
All of that gross sex stuff is in the book too. I don't understand how changing it makes for a better movie.
Calling the film awful outside of the kid's roles is pants on heads out there.
I've laid out my reasons. An attractively-shot, well-acted film can still not be a good film.
A lot of your reasons don't really make a lot of sense outside of personal preference though. I can appreciate that you didn't like the movie but to say it's a bad film is a bit odd.
Also, I don't see how a person can say they'd have preferred the original Fukunaga film plan when the movie was never made to even be judged.
Again, you not liking the film is 100% fine. To say it's a bad movie is somewhat disingenuous.
"Preferred to see" and "preferred" are not the same thing
And I think that no matter how great a movie looks or some of the performances are, if a film doesn't have a cohesive narrative or adhere to any semblance of logic while indulging in worn-out cliches and misogynistic tropes, I'm gonna call those things out and label it a failure.
I wasn't scared or delighted, I was bored and annoyed.
I'll give you misogynistic tropes but there is definitely a strongly cohesive narrative present in this film. And a lot of the cliches I think you're faulting it for are literally things that Stephen King created with the original novel.
Even reading your original review I'm failing to understand how you're coming up with the idea that the film lacks a cohesive narrative. It's a horror take on the little worlds we all built as children over our summers growing up. I'd say it hit all of the right notes. That said, I'm not trying to change your mind or opinion of the film. I think your reaction to some of the elements of the film is understandable, I just don't think it merits the conclusion that in any way is this a bad film.
A setting isn't a narrative. Set props aren't a narrative. Iconic characters aren't a narrative.
At most, the unified narrative is "kids fight a monster," and that's still not all that well thought-out.
Kids become friends, come of age, while fighting a monster. Part of the arc of the movie is Bill coming to terms with his Brother's death. There's absolutely a cohesive narrative throughout the whole thing. There are some awkward jumps around at the beginning, just "Okay now here's 5 scenes with the kids seeing the clown in their own way" that don't initially seem all that connected, but it serves to introduce us to characters and bring them together as a unit.
+7
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
The adults get chased down by Henry or something similar. Like they were planning on going down to the sewers in the morning, but that plan falls apart. And they don't even know Bill's wife is in town, let alone It's prisoner.
You're mixing the two book timelines.
In the kid timeline, after they injure It at Neibolt street, it starts acting through human agents to try to break them up and destroy them, including Butch, Eddie's mom, and Bev's dad. This culminates in an evening where a terrible storm breaks out, the kids suddenly notice every adult is inside and the streets are eerily quiet, and Butch has his brain completely scrambled by It and comes after them with intent to kill. He chases them into the sewers, and eventually they find their way to Its lair, avoiding Butch and his cronies.
In the adult timeline they have a late night meeting with Mike at the library and then everyone but him goes to a motel. The adult Butch, broken out of an insane asylum by It, attacks Mike and almost kills him. Butch then goes to the motel and attacks the others, but Eddie kills him in self defense. At this point they realize It is striking first and has successfully weakened them. Without Mike and Stan around they might not have the spiritual mojo to fight back. So at that point they all decide to go on the offensive immediately, before it weakens them further, and they all go to the sewer. Bill doesn't realize his wife is in town until he finds her purse discarded near an open manhole.
The adults get chased down by Henry or something similar. Like they were planning on going down to the sewers in the morning, but that plan falls apart. And they don't even know Bill's wife is in town, let alone It's prisoner.
You're mixing the two book timelines.
In the kid timeline, after they injure It at Neibolt street, it starts acting through human agents to try to break them up and destroy them, including Butch, Eddie's mom, and Bev's dad. This culminates in an evening where a terrible storm breaks out, the kids suddenly notice every adult is inside and the streets are eerily quiet, and Butch has his brain completely scrambled by It and comes after them with intent to kill. He chases them into the sewers, and eventually they find their way to Its lair, avoiding Butch and his cronies.
In the adult timeline they have a late night meeting with Mike at the library and then everyone but him goes to a motel. The adult Butch, broken out of an insane asylum by It, attacks Mike and almost kills him. Butch then goes to the motel and attacks the others, but Eddie kills him in self defense. At this point they realize It is striking first and has successfully weakened them. Without Mike and Stan around they might not have the spiritual mojo to fight back. So at that point they all decide to go on the offensive immediately, before it weakens them further, and they all go to the sewer. Bill doesn't realize his wife is in town until he finds her purse discarded near an open manhole.
I think you mean Henry Bowers. Butch is another character? There's Patrick and Belch and Victor and Henry. Maybe a butch too?
Her getting snapped up right then, on the heels of her victory against her father was, initially, kind of disappointing.
But then they came back from that by having her still be unafraid of Pennywise, and still more competent than the bots.
And then survive the deadlights.
And then strike the final blow against the creature, because she just isn't afraid of what he's got to say any more, and not even the spectre of the very real horror she's already faced can change that.
Honestly, while this movie dodges a lot of the themes of belief and childhood, it forces the kids to fight personal demons. But, while the boys mostly have deal with still-imaginary or esoteric horrors (one could say that Bill is dealing with failure to protect his brother and hold his family together), Bev is dealing with some really real shit. And she does! She's the only one who defeats her fears and Pennywise through personal strength and thus has an actual arc.
Yeah, her father is more actively pervy. She kills him, because she's bigger than him.
And, even in a movie with a six year old getting his arm ripped off, I honestly don't know if I could've sat through a scene of her getting beaten by a grown man. The implied molestation and the scenes involving her father are deeply uncomfortable, but they get you to where you know she's being/been victimized without forcing you to sit through them. Nobody in the theater was oblivious to what was going on.
Likewise, Mike and the racist bullies. I didn't really need to hear the n-word getting thrown around, and my experience with white audiences/people is that they tune out. People find that shit cartoonish, even though they think it's horrible. But there's enough subtext that everyone knew what was going on.
When Bev brained her old man, my theater cheered (and the next beat got a fine reaction). Same for Mike tackling Bowers into the well.
The deadlights/damselling is what put Beverly in the position to make the premonition about Chapter Two, and necessitate the pact.
Basically, while Bill is the culturally-mandated White Male Figurehead, Beverly is the protagonist.
FroThulhu on
+4
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
The adults get chased down by Henry or something similar. Like they were planning on going down to the sewers in the morning, but that plan falls apart. And they don't even know Bill's wife is in town, let alone It's prisoner.
You're mixing the two book timelines.
In the kid timeline, after they injure It at Neibolt street, it starts acting through human agents to try to break them up and destroy them, including Butch, Eddie's mom, and Bev's dad. This culminates in an evening where a terrible storm breaks out, the kids suddenly notice every adult is inside and the streets are eerily quiet, and Butch has his brain completely scrambled by It and comes after them with intent to kill. He chases them into the sewers, and eventually they find their way to Its lair, avoiding Butch and his cronies.
In the adult timeline they have a late night meeting with Mike at the library and then everyone but him goes to a motel. The adult Butch, broken out of an insane asylum by It, attacks Mike and almost kills him. Butch then goes to the motel and attacks the others, but Eddie kills him in self defense. At this point they realize It is striking first and has successfully weakened them. Without Mike and Stan around they might not have the spiritual mojo to fight back. So at that point they all decide to go on the offensive immediately, before it weakens them further, and they all go to the sewer. Bill doesn't realize his wife is in town until he finds her purse discarded near an open manhole.
I think you mean Henry Bowers. Butch is another character? There's Patrick and Belch and Victor and Henry. Maybe a butch too?
You're right, Butch is his dad.
+1
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
All of that gross sex stuff is in the book too. I don't understand how changing it makes for a better movie.
Calling the film awful outside of the kid's roles is pants on heads out there.
I've laid out my reasons. An attractively-shot, well-acted film can still not be a good film.
A lot of your reasons don't really make a lot of sense outside of personal preference though. I can appreciate that you didn't like the movie but to say it's a bad film is a bit odd.
Also, I don't see how a person can say they'd have preferred the original Fukunaga film plan when the movie was never made to even be judged.
Again, you not liking the film is 100% fine. To say it's a bad movie is somewhat disingenuous.
"Preferred to see" and "preferred" are not the same thing
And I think that no matter how great a movie looks or some of the performances are, if a film doesn't have a cohesive narrative or adhere to any semblance of logic while indulging in worn-out cliches and misogynistic tropes, I'm gonna call those things out and label it a failure.
I wasn't scared or delighted, I was bored and annoyed.
I'll give you misogynistic tropes but there is definitely a strongly cohesive narrative present in this film. And a lot of the cliches I think you're faulting it for are literally things that Stephen King created with the original novel.
Even reading your original review I'm failing to understand how you're coming up with the idea that the film lacks a cohesive narrative. It's a horror take on the little worlds we all built as children over our summers growing up. I'd say it hit all of the right notes. That said, I'm not trying to change your mind or opinion of the film. I think your reaction to some of the elements of the film is understandable, I just don't think it merits the conclusion that in any way is this a bad film.
A setting isn't a narrative. Set props aren't a narrative. Iconic characters aren't a narrative.
At most, the unified narrative is "kids fight a monster," and that's still not all that well thought-out.
*shrug* All I can really say is that it's your opinion that comes across as not all that well thought-out. You didn't like it. Whatever. That's not a failing of the movie if it's not to your taste.
All of that gross sex stuff is in the book too. I don't understand how changing it makes for a better movie.
Calling the film awful outside of the kid's roles is pants on heads out there.
I've laid out my reasons. An attractively-shot, well-acted film can still not be a good film.
A lot of your reasons don't really make a lot of sense outside of personal preference though. I can appreciate that you didn't like the movie but to say it's a bad film is a bit odd.
Also, I don't see how a person can say they'd have preferred the original Fukunaga film plan when the movie was never made to even be judged.
Again, you not liking the film is 100% fine. To say it's a bad movie is somewhat disingenuous.
"Preferred to see" and "preferred" are not the same thing
And I think that no matter how great a movie looks or some of the performances are, if a film doesn't have a cohesive narrative or adhere to any semblance of logic while indulging in worn-out cliches and misogynistic tropes, I'm gonna call those things out and label it a failure.
I wasn't scared or delighted, I was bored and annoyed.
I'll give you misogynistic tropes but there is definitely a strongly cohesive narrative present in this film. And a lot of the cliches I think you're faulting it for are literally things that Stephen King created with the original novel.
Even reading your original review I'm failing to understand how you're coming up with the idea that the film lacks a cohesive narrative. It's a horror take on the little worlds we all built as children over our summers growing up. I'd say it hit all of the right notes. That said, I'm not trying to change your mind or opinion of the film. I think your reaction to some of the elements of the film is understandable, I just don't think it merits the conclusion that in any way is this a bad film.
A setting isn't a narrative. Set props aren't a narrative. Iconic characters aren't a narrative.
At most, the unified narrative is "kids fight a monster," and that's still not all that well thought-out.
I didn't say the setting was the narrative? As said above, it's a coming of age story about a bunch of kids on their own (both metaphorically and in actuality) who are faced with overcoming their own fears - except their fears are presented to them via an extradimensional terror who will actually eat them instead of, you know, making fun of them on the playground. There's a narrative arc for almost all of the kids and a narrative through line for the entire plot.
You not liking something doesn't mean it doesn't exist and/or wasn't good.
My wife and I went to see the movie over the weekend and we both loved it. She lost it at the hamburger helper line, she was laughing so hard she was crying.
Yeah, saying Beverly is a damsel in distress is grossly selling the character short. I wish we moved on from those kind of tropes accusations. It's not as black and white as it used to be and follows the same storypoints as it did in the book. Keep in mind a sequel was not a given during the writing of the script, do it was nice to see a nod to this and the fact believing and friendship overcomes your fears.
The book
invented a helpless character for it
, here we have a fleshed out character finally getting grabbed, with the motivation of IT getting revenge on all the Losers from it's first defeat in the house. And she kicks ITs ass multiple times.
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
Speaking only in terms of the movie, Beverly was the strongest member of the group, it makes sense that IT would grab her and try to eat her to weaken the whole team.
If Beverly existed outside of the group solely as an object of desire and wasn't also a complex character, I think she would deserve the Damsel in Distress label.
I guess the real question becomes "Is it a misogynistic trope to have the villain capture a female character to spur the group into action?" Because of how often it is used, I tend to lean towards yes, but I also don't want to discount the writing in its entirety as misogynistic.
Steam: Spawnbroker
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Imagine if Iron Man got kidnapped in the third act and was in a coma for a while, and Pepper and Rhodey had to go rescue him. That would be pretty weird, because Tony is the protagonist of the movie, and for him to lose his agency in the plot for a significant period of time is pretty weird.
But Beverly does have this happen to her. For a portion of the film, she becomes an object and plot motivation. Even waking her up is about Ben, and his perspective, not hers.
+8
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I don't know if I have more to add here, I think this clearly a Not For Me situation, as I stated earlier.
I wasn't a fan, but I went into it with an open mind and left feeling mildly unsatisfied. I expect big things from the girl who played Bev down the road, she was great, as was the kid who played Eddie (one of the only characters with a real arc and internal characterization). I might see Part 2, I might not. Definitely not the worst horror movie I've ever seen, but not nearly competent enough holistically as a complete film to say it was "good," whatever that metric means.
Imagine if Iron Man got kidnapped in the third act and was in a coma for a while, and Pepper and Rhodey had to go rescue him. That would be pretty weird, because Tony is the protagonist of the movie, and for him to lose his agency in the plot for a significant period of time is pretty weird.
I would love to see that happen in the Iron Man movies. Because that would introduce Pepper's bad-ass 'Rescue' armor.
Imagine if Iron Man got kidnapped in the third act and was in a coma for a while, and Pepper and Rhodey had to go rescue him. That would be pretty weird, because Tony is the protagonist of the movie, and for him to lose his agency in the plot for a significant period of time is pretty weird.
But Beverly does have this happen to her. For a portion of the film, she becomes an object and plot motivation. Even waking her up is about Ben, and his perspective, not hers.
Iron Man gets kidnapped and rescued by a woman in Iron Man 3. Later, he loses the fight to the main villain and his girlfriend springs into action, defeating the main villain and saving his life.
Interesting. Also, you know, by setting it in the 80s and removing that scene, why do we have to have
5 white boys (1 Jewish)
1 AA boy
1 girl?
With the time adjustment, why not an Asian kid? And why not gender-swap a kid?
Well
It's still a small town in Maine. Suddenly having each kid have their own diverse backgrounds and ethnicities would be pretty jarring. Bev's the only girl because she hangs out with boys and is seen as weird for that. She's not hanging out with boys and girls, she's hanging out with a group of boys (which many characters assume is evidence of her impropriety)
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Imagine if Iron Man got kidnapped in the third act and was in a coma for a while, and Pepper and Rhodey had to go rescue him. That would be pretty weird, because Tony is the protagonist of the movie, and for him to lose his agency in the plot for a significant period of time is pretty weird.
But Beverly does have this happen to her. For a portion of the film, she becomes an object and plot motivation. Even waking her up is about Ben, and his perspective, not hers.
Iron Man gets kidnapped and rescued by a woman in Iron Man 3. Later, he loses the fight to the main villain and his girlfriend springs into action, defeating the main villain and saving his life.
So... no?
It's been a while since I saw IM3 but I don't think Tony is sidelined. Unlike Pepper, who is literally kidnapped by the bad guy!
I don't think Bev comes off poorly in the final sequence. It sees her as the biggest threat given that she was the one who put a spike through It's head in the first encounter at the house. And it couldn't intimidate her normally, so it had to deadlight her.
I don't think Bev comes off poorly in the final sequence. It sees her as the biggest threat given that she was the one who put a spike through It's head in the first encounter at the house. And it couldn't intimidate her normally, so it had to deadlight her.
I can see the damsel arguments but IT literally used her father to abuse her, she managed to fight him off, but was then in a pretty bad emotional state, as anyone would be. That left her vulnerable for IT, and even then when she woke up in the sewer she fought back, told it she wasn't afraid, etc. Even after being rescued she isn't a blubbering mess, she ends up dealing the final blow to the bad guy!
And all of that is a much better change from the book where
they get lost after fighting IT and Bev starts taking off all her clothes and pressures the boys into having sex with her to restore their bond.
You could swap it to Ben or someone, but then how are they left vulnerable enough to get taken? Ben doesn't really have notable parent characters to conflict with and none except maybe Eddie are really abused like Beverly is. Also I don't think Beverly kissing Ben would have worked! With the other changes they made to the structure of the story, I think this change worked out well.
In other news, almost done with my re-read and
I hope we get cool visuals in a part 2. The "outside" where the Turtle and IT were and the Turtle still is. I want to see that, I want to see the massive endless latticework of bone and straw and strange gray materials holding back a sick malevolent light that seems to grasp and pull and seek.
+3
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
watched this a second time with Lady Raven's mom. Wasn't as spooky, naturally. Buuut. Still loved it.
Favourite moment is when Bev stabs Pennywise right in the fucking face, blood starts floating up and he freezes in place and groooooans. So good
I rewatched It with some family, and man. Ben's gut takes a serious pounding in this movie. And those floating kids are definitely dead at the end, there were a bunch of body parts doing orbits up there. Also when Richie is playing Street Fighter and says he's imagining the other guy is Bill, his guy gets popped in the face.
Yeah, saying Beverly is a damsel in distress is grossly selling the character short. I wish we moved on from those kind of tropes accusations. It's not as black and white as it used to be and follows the same storypoints as it did in the book. Keep in mind a sequel was not a given during the writing of the script, do it was nice to see a nod to this and the fact believing and friendship overcomes your fears.
The book
invented a helpless character for it
, here we have a fleshed out character finally getting grabbed, with the motivation of IT getting revenge on all the Losers from it's first defeat in the house. And she kicks ITs ass multiple times.
None of this changes the fact that
she was made into a damsel by IT. Until the boys rescue her, she was powerless against it - and couldn't escape on her own. The fact that she fought it afterward doesn't dismiss that this went on, and now I'm wondering since she is this physical badass why she didn't try doing anything alone.
Imagine if Iron Man got kidnapped in the third act and was in a coma for a while, and Pepper and Rhodey had to go rescue him. That would be pretty weird, because Tony is the protagonist of the movie, and for him to lose his agency in the plot for a significant period of time is pretty weird.
But Beverly does have this happen to her. For a portion of the film, she becomes an object and plot motivation. Even waking her up is about Ben, and his perspective, not hers.
Iron Man gets kidnapped and rescued by a woman in Iron Man 3. Later, he loses the fight to the main villain and his girlfriend springs into action, defeating the main villain and saving his life.
So... no?
Before that Tony spends a huge sequence fighting said villain to the death, he is never completely helpless.
Bev is helpless whenever IT shows up in that sequence.
Also I don't think Beverly kissing Ben would have worked! With the other changes they made to the structure of the story, I think this change worked out well.
Bev is the only person he has the strongest bond with, and he's literally the only person in the movie that's legit competition to Bill for her affection. There's definitively positive feedback from her that's she's into him.
Yeah, saying Beverly is a damsel in distress is grossly selling the character short. I wish we moved on from those kind of tropes accusations. It's not as black and white as it used to be and follows the same storypoints as it did in the book. Keep in mind a sequel was not a given during the writing of the script, do it was nice to see a nod to this and the fact believing and friendship overcomes your fears.
The book
invented a helpless character for it
, here we have a fleshed out character finally getting grabbed, with the motivation of IT getting revenge on all the Losers from it's first defeat in the house. And she kicks ITs ass multiple times.
None of this changes the fact that
she was made into a damsel by IT. Until the boys rescue her, she was powerless against it - and couldn't escape on her own. The fact that she fought it afterward doesn't dismiss that this went on, and now I'm wondering since she is this physical badass why she didn't try doing anything alone.
None of that changes that she was the most effectual character in the story at every turn, tho, so.
Yeah, saying Beverly is a damsel in distress is grossly selling the character short. I wish we moved on from those kind of tropes accusations. It's not as black and white as it used to be and follows the same storypoints as it did in the book. Keep in mind a sequel was not a given during the writing of the script, do it was nice to see a nod to this and the fact believing and friendship overcomes your fears.
The book
invented a helpless character for it
, here we have a fleshed out character finally getting grabbed, with the motivation of IT getting revenge on all the Losers from it's first defeat in the house. And she kicks ITs ass multiple times.
None of this changes the fact that
she was made into a damsel by IT. Until the boys rescue her, she was powerless against it - and couldn't escape on her own. The fact that she fought it afterward doesn't dismiss that this went on, and now I'm wondering since she is this physical badass why she didn't try doing anything alone.
None of that changes that she was the most effectual character in the story at every turn, tho, so.
Every other turn, yeah - at that stage in the movie, suddenly it all vanished.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I think it's much worse to take a character that is really cool and a strong portrayal and then turn her into a trope object than it is to just have a character whose sole purpose is to get troped. Character as plot device is often defensible; character who becomes plot device is rarely so.
Yeah, saying Beverly is a damsel in distress is grossly selling the character short. I wish we moved on from those kind of tropes accusations. It's not as black and white as it used to be and follows the same storypoints as it did in the book. Keep in mind a sequel was not a given during the writing of the script, do it was nice to see a nod to this and the fact believing and friendship overcomes your fears.
The book
invented a helpless character for it
, here we have a fleshed out character finally getting grabbed, with the motivation of IT getting revenge on all the Losers from it's first defeat in the house. And she kicks ITs ass multiple times.
None of this changes the fact that
she was made into a damsel by IT. Until the boys rescue her, she was powerless against it - and couldn't escape on her own. The fact that she fought it afterward doesn't dismiss that this went on, and now I'm wondering since she is this physical badass why she didn't try doing anything alone.
None of that changes that she was the most effectual character in the story at every turn, tho, so.
Every other turn, yeah - at that stage in the movie, suddenly it all vanished.
It wasn't very sudden. She was made vulnerable by It controlling her father and then being isolated from her friends. Even then she stood up to It, to the point where the lights came out.
Yeah, saying Beverly is a damsel in distress is grossly selling the character short. I wish we moved on from those kind of tropes accusations. It's not as black and white as it used to be and follows the same storypoints as it did in the book. Keep in mind a sequel was not a given during the writing of the script, do it was nice to see a nod to this and the fact believing and friendship overcomes your fears.
The book
invented a helpless character for it
, here we have a fleshed out character finally getting grabbed, with the motivation of IT getting revenge on all the Losers from it's first defeat in the house. And she kicks ITs ass multiple times.
None of this changes the fact that
she was made into a damsel by IT. Until the boys rescue her, she was powerless against it - and couldn't escape on her own. The fact that she fought it afterward doesn't dismiss that this went on, and now I'm wondering since she is this physical badass why she didn't try doing anything alone.
None of that changes that she was the most effectual character in the story at every turn, tho, so.
Every other turn, yeah - at that stage in the movie, suddenly it all vanished.
It wasn't very sudden. She was made vulnerable by It controlling her father and then being isolated from her friends. Even then she stood up to It, to the point where the lights came out.
I don't recall her getting physical with IT at any point during that sequence, though. That's why she's vulnerable - she doesn't fight back. She attempts to run away, but of course doesn't go very far considering the environment.
Then after some talking she's put into a coma, and need Ben to get her out of that trance.
I think it's much worse to take a character that is really cool and a strong portrayal and then turn her into a trope object than it is to just have a character whose sole purpose is to get troped. Character as plot device is often defensible; character who becomes plot device is rarely so.
I certainly saw what happened and had my apprehensions.
Then she kicked as again.
It's like she wasn't infallible, but still effective.
Unlike the boys, who mostly wet their pants and moped unless they were grouped up. Which was actually kinda neat?
Yeah, saying Beverly is a damsel in distress is grossly selling the character short. I wish we moved on from those kind of tropes accusations. It's not as black and white as it used to be and follows the same storypoints as it did in the book. Keep in mind a sequel was not a given during the writing of the script, do it was nice to see a nod to this and the fact believing and friendship overcomes your fears.
The book
invented a helpless character for it
, here we have a fleshed out character finally getting grabbed, with the motivation of IT getting revenge on all the Losers from it's first defeat in the house. And she kicks ITs ass multiple times.
None of this changes the fact that
she was made into a damsel by IT. Until the boys rescue her, she was powerless against it - and couldn't escape on her own. The fact that she fought it afterward doesn't dismiss that this went on, and now I'm wondering since she is this physical badass why she didn't try doing anything alone.
Yeah, but it isn't a female needs to get rescued by male moment, it's a we all need to stick together moment. Only when they are together they can win. The movie explains this.
The same happens to Stan a scene earlier as he is alone, only he is weaker and afraid and IT starts to eat him before the gang rescues him.
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
Posts
I don't think anyone is taken when they're kids, they all just decide as a group to go fight it?
Was considering who else in the group could have been taken that they'd all rally around, and I dunno... maybe Eddy or Ben?
Book answer:
This is still a trope, but there's a decent reason for it--the point is that she both represents Bill's adult life (the concerns and mentality that make him weak in the fight against It, now that he's grown up) and doesn't share in/understand Bill's childhood experiences. Her capture sets up the final chapter, where Bill wakes her from a coma not by a fairy tale kiss but by regaining, with her, some sense of his childhood through the symbolic act of riding his childhood bike.
The other reason this is better is simply that King creates a new character to be the damsel. Which means Beverly isn't diminished from badass protagonist to plot device and prize in someone else's story, the way she is in the film.
I'll give you misogynistic tropes but there is definitely a strongly cohesive narrative present in this film. And a lot of the cliches I think you're faulting it for are literally things that Stephen King created with the original novel.
Even reading your original review I'm failing to understand how you're coming up with the idea that the film lacks a cohesive narrative. It's a horror take on the little worlds we all built as children over our summers growing up. I'd say it hit all of the right notes. That said, I'm not trying to change your mind or opinion of the film. I think your reaction to some of the elements of the film is understandable, I just don't think it merits the conclusion that in any way is this a bad film.
A setting isn't a narrative. Set props aren't a narrative. Iconic characters aren't a narrative.
At most, the unified narrative is "kids fight a monster," and that's still not all that well thought-out.
Kids become friends, come of age, while fighting a monster. Part of the arc of the movie is Bill coming to terms with his Brother's death. There's absolutely a cohesive narrative throughout the whole thing. There are some awkward jumps around at the beginning, just "Okay now here's 5 scenes with the kids seeing the clown in their own way" that don't initially seem all that connected, but it serves to introduce us to characters and bring them together as a unit.
You're mixing the two book timelines.
In the adult timeline they have a late night meeting with Mike at the library and then everyone but him goes to a motel. The adult Butch, broken out of an insane asylum by It, attacks Mike and almost kills him. Butch then goes to the motel and attacks the others, but Eddie kills him in self defense. At this point they realize It is striking first and has successfully weakened them. Without Mike and Stan around they might not have the spiritual mojo to fight back. So at that point they all decide to go on the offensive immediately, before it weakens them further, and they all go to the sewer. Bill doesn't realize his wife is in town until he finds her purse discarded near an open manhole.
Of course, in the book
I think you mean Henry Bowers. Butch is another character? There's Patrick and Belch and Victor and Henry. Maybe a butch too?
But then they came back from that by having her still be unafraid of Pennywise, and still more competent than the bots.
And then survive the deadlights.
And then strike the final blow against the creature, because she just isn't afraid of what he's got to say any more, and not even the spectre of the very real horror she's already faced can change that.
Honestly, while this movie dodges a lot of the themes of belief and childhood, it forces the kids to fight personal demons. But, while the boys mostly have deal with still-imaginary or esoteric horrors (one could say that Bill is dealing with failure to protect his brother and hold his family together), Bev is dealing with some really real shit. And she does! She's the only one who defeats her fears and Pennywise through personal strength and thus has an actual arc.
Yeah, her father is more actively pervy. She kills him, because she's bigger than him.
And, even in a movie with a six year old getting his arm ripped off, I honestly don't know if I could've sat through a scene of her getting beaten by a grown man. The implied molestation and the scenes involving her father are deeply uncomfortable, but they get you to where you know she's being/been victimized without forcing you to sit through them. Nobody in the theater was oblivious to what was going on.
Likewise, Mike and the racist bullies. I didn't really need to hear the n-word getting thrown around, and my experience with white audiences/people is that they tune out. People find that shit cartoonish, even though they think it's horrible. But there's enough subtext that everyone knew what was going on.
When Bev brained her old man, my theater cheered (and the next beat got a fine reaction). Same for Mike tackling Bowers into the well.
The deadlights/damselling is what put Beverly in the position to make the premonition about Chapter Two, and necessitate the pact.
Basically, while Bill is the culturally-mandated White Male Figurehead, Beverly is the protagonist.
You're right, Butch is his dad.
*shrug* All I can really say is that it's your opinion that comes across as not all that well thought-out. You didn't like it. Whatever. That's not a failing of the movie if it's not to your taste.
I didn't say the setting was the narrative? As said above, it's a coming of age story about a bunch of kids on their own (both metaphorically and in actuality) who are faced with overcoming their own fears - except their fears are presented to them via an extradimensional terror who will actually eat them instead of, you know, making fun of them on the playground. There's a narrative arc for almost all of the kids and a narrative through line for the entire plot.
You not liking something doesn't mean it doesn't exist and/or wasn't good.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
The book
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!
If Beverly existed outside of the group solely as an object of desire and wasn't also a complex character, I think she would deserve the Damsel in Distress label.
I guess the real question becomes "Is it a misogynistic trope to have the villain capture a female character to spur the group into action?" Because of how often it is used, I tend to lean towards yes, but I also don't want to discount the writing in its entirety as misogynistic.
But Beverly does have this happen to her. For a portion of the film, she becomes an object and plot motivation. Even waking her up is about Ben, and his perspective, not hers.
I wasn't a fan, but I went into it with an open mind and left feeling mildly unsatisfied. I expect big things from the girl who played Bev down the road, she was great, as was the kid who played Eddie (one of the only characters with a real arc and internal characterization). I might see Part 2, I might not. Definitely not the worst horror movie I've ever seen, but not nearly competent enough holistically as a complete film to say it was "good," whatever that metric means.
I would love to see that happen in the Iron Man movies. Because that would introduce Pepper's bad-ass 'Rescue' armor.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
I actually think the film would have worked better if they had Ben become captured by IT and had Beverly kiss him to wake him up from the deadlights.
And now I'm sad that's not the version of the film we got.
1 AA boy
1 girl?
With the time adjustment, why not an Asian kid? And why not gender-swap a kid?
Iron Man gets kidnapped and rescued by a woman in Iron Man 3. Later, he loses the fight to the main villain and his girlfriend springs into action, defeating the main villain and saving his life.
So... no?
Well
It's been a while since I saw IM3 but I don't think Tony is sidelined. Unlike Pepper, who is literally kidnapped by the bad guy!
I can see the damsel arguments but IT literally used her father to abuse her, she managed to fight him off, but was then in a pretty bad emotional state, as anyone would be. That left her vulnerable for IT, and even then when she woke up in the sewer she fought back, told it she wasn't afraid, etc. Even after being rescued she isn't a blubbering mess, she ends up dealing the final blow to the bad guy!
And all of that is a much better change from the book where
You could swap it to Ben or someone, but then how are they left vulnerable enough to get taken? Ben doesn't really have notable parent characters to conflict with and none except maybe Eddie are really abused like Beverly is. Also I don't think Beverly kissing Ben would have worked! With the other changes they made to the structure of the story, I think this change worked out well.
In other news, almost done with my re-read and
Favourite moment is when Bev stabs Pennywise right in the fucking face, blood starts floating up and he freezes in place and groooooans. So good
None of this changes the fact that
Before that Tony spends a huge sequence fighting said villain to the death, he is never completely helpless.
None of that changes that she was the most effectual character in the story at every turn, tho, so.
Every other turn, yeah - at that stage in the movie, suddenly it all vanished.
It wasn't very sudden. She was made vulnerable by It controlling her father and then being isolated from her friends. Even then she stood up to It, to the point where the lights came out.
I don't recall her getting physical with IT at any point during that sequence, though. That's why she's vulnerable - she doesn't fight back. She attempts to run away, but of course doesn't go very far considering the environment.
I certainly saw what happened and had my apprehensions.
Then she kicked as again.
It's like she wasn't infallible, but still effective.
Unlike the boys, who mostly wet their pants and moped unless they were grouped up. Which was actually kinda neat?
I am willing to bet cash money that it is a setup for an inversion on the trope in Part 2 where she has to rescue Bill.
Yeah, but it isn't a female needs to get rescued by male moment, it's a we all need to stick together moment. Only when they are together they can win. The movie explains this.
The same happens to Stan a scene earlier as he is alone, only he is weaker and afraid and IT starts to eat him before the gang rescues him.
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!