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 isn't a female needs to get rescued by male moment, it's a we all need to stick together moment. The same happens to Stan a scene earlier.
Unfortunately how the movie plays the situation the two are basically the same thing.
Why are we still at a point where a rescue cannot happen to a strong female character, especially when we have the rescue Stan scene right before?
Edit, since it was bottom of the paged: He actually succumbed to his fear and was being eaten by leachlady.
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
Yeah, and sadly it's still a sensitive subject, but I don't think this movie is an example of such. I actually think it's a good step in the right direction. Strong female, but not without faults and depending on friends just like the rest of the group instead of helpless woman who is just there to be pretty or I can do everything myself.
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
Why are we still at a point where a rescue cannot happen to a strong female character, especially when we have the rescue Stan scene right before?
Edit, since it was bottom of the paged: He actually succumbed to his fear and was being eaten by leachlady.
Because Stan's moment of weakness doesn't tie into a harmful cultural narrative that isn't anywhere near undone?
Stan is out of commission for all of thirty seconds, then they save him by beating It away. Bev is turned into an object for an important part of the film, and it sticks out more as a deliberate change from the novel.
This not only harms Bev's character, but the boys' as well. We're now gonna say that it's not enough for them to be scared for their lives, for It to have killed other kids and wounded some of them, etc--no, the only thing that finally motivates them to go try and kill It is that their girl gets kidnapped.
Then there's the rescue. We're gonna say now that the only way Ben gets the courage to show Bev how he feels is... to sexually assault her while she's unconscious.
So they took a strong female character from the novel and made a series of changes whose affect is to drag everybody into a toxic gender roles narrative where women are objects and men have to rescue them in order to claim them.
I mean, say what you will about
the sex scene in the novel, at least it's Beverly's fucking choice.
The point is that they made a movie in 2017 significantly less progressive than a book from the 1980s. No, we clearly haven't reached a point where this is okay. We've gone backwards.
I think you make some good points but are also assigning some meaning that is not the intention of the film nor the original book.
It's not meant to be progressive in any real way and to criticise it for not being something it never was is kind of ludicrous.
Also, characterizing the kiss as sexual assault is ignoring a whole lot of other meaning that was present in both mediums of the story to the point of that argument being borderline laughable.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I think you make some good points but are also assigning some meaning that is not the intention of the film nor the original book.
It's not meant to be progressive in any real way and to criticise it for not being something it never was is kind of ludicrous.
Also, characterizing the kiss as sexual assault is ignoring a whole lot of other meaning that was present in both mediums of the story to the point of that argument being borderline laughable.
IT the novel is explicitly anti-homophobia, anti-racism, and writes Beverly the way she is for a reason. (For example:)
The way the boys are surprised when Beverly turns out to be their best shot with the slingshot by far.
That's progressive to me. But the movie eschews just about all of that.
As for the kiss, this general trope (going back to fairy tales) is founded on the idea that if you kiss (read: have sex with) an unconscious person without their knowledge or consent, you're actually a hero and they'll wake up and thank you by falling in love with you. However the filmmakers wanted to portray it here, they're buying into a very old, very gross gender narrative.
0
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
I think you're projecting a little bit with your argument onto the film. Ben kissing Bev out of deadlights is an allegory of the frog prince novel that's shown in Bev's room earlier in the film. However, I agree that it could have been done differently all together to avoid gender stereotypes, fairy tale stuff, or whatever. For me either way would have worked, and they would have worked equally because I don't care about that type of thing. However, the opinion that they turned Bev into the damsel instead of any of the others, because of course they did is lame. It works out much better with the rest of the script because of Bev's situation and because she's the strongest of the seven.
So, hypothetically we've written a script up to this point...We want It to capture someone to bring the rest of the kids together to go into the sewers since they're all split. It can't capture Bill because Bill's the kid who brings the rest of the group together and that would be like capturing the King in hopes of getting the rest of the pieces. It can't really capture Mike, Stan, or Ben because they aren't portrayed to have as strong a connection with the rest of the group in the script so far, they're all off being outsiders and don't keep up connections with the group after the split. It COULD capture Richie or Eddie because they're best buds (Eddie buys Richie Ice Cream, Eddie hugs Richie before leaving the group, the banter, etc...) and having one of them get captured could signal the other to rally the rest of the group. That might work if written right. But then again who's our main character from the start of the film... It's Bill. Who would affect Bill the most to go back into the sewer? Probably the girl he's been pining after since he saw her walking in slow motion down the street after helping him in the pharmacy. Thinking about it like this, I find Bev's character to just be a matter of circumstance.
And again, the whole script could have been rewritten to avoid all of this, but we got what we got and I think it's a pretty strong adaptation.
I think you're projecting a little bit with your argument onto the film. Ben kissing Bev out of deadlights is an allegory of the frog prince novel that's shown in Bev's room earlier in the film. However, I agree that it could have been done differently all together to avoid gender stereotypes, fairy tale stuff, or whatever. For me either way would have worked, and they would have worked equally because I don't care about that type of thing. However, the opinion that they turned Bev into the damsel instead of any of the others, because of course they did is lame. It works out much better with the rest of the script because of Bev's situation and because she's the strongest of the seven.
So, hypothetically we've written a script up to this point...We want It to capture someone to bring the rest of the kids together to go into the sewers since they're all split.
But they didn't have to do it that way. There are other ways to motivate that character behavior. If the one you want to use (capture and rescue) can't be accomplished without leaning into a problematic trope, do it some other way.
Why are we still at a point where a rescue cannot happen to a strong female character, especially when we have the rescue Stan scene right before?
Edit, since it was bottom of the paged: He actually succumbed to his fear and was being eaten by leachlady.
Because Stan's moment of weakness doesn't tie into a harmful cultural narrative that isn't anywhere near undone?
Stan is out of commission for all of thirty seconds, then they save him by beating It away. Bev is turned into an object for an important part of the film, and it sticks out more as a deliberate change from the novel.
This not only harms Bev's character, but the boys' as well. We're now gonna say that it's not enough for them to be scared for their lives, for It to have killed other kids and wounded some of them, etc--no, the only thing that finally motivates them to go try and kill It is that their girl gets kidnapped.
Then there's the rescue. We're gonna say now that the only way Ben gets the courage to show Bev how he feels is... to sexually assault her while she's unconscious.
So they took a strong female character from the novel and made a series of changes whose affect is to drag everybody into a toxic gender roles narrative where women are objects and men have to rescue them in order to claim them.
I mean, say what you will about
the sex scene in the novel, at least it's Beverly's fucking choice.
The point is that they made a movie in 2017 significantly less progressive than a book from the 1980s. No, we clearly haven't reached a point where this is okay. We've gone backwards.
Actually in the novel
There's a good chance it's the Turtle working through her and not really her choice. Plus she's eleven. This is far better than the book in this respect.
We don't see exactly how long Stan is taken but his face looked pretty hurt and they moved to rescue him as soon as they could too. I don't think they are finally motivated to go fight It because "their girl gets kidnapped" but because their circle was broken. One of the members was in danger and they had to save them, and would have done so for anyone in the group. They save each other frequently throughout the film. Bev wasn't turned into an object, she was still their friend and still fought back until the unearthly horror took away control completely. Again, unlike Stan, who let his fear overwhelm him and was about to get his face chewed off. Even while she was unconscious she set up events for the next film with her vision, so even then she was doing something useful for the group, acting as the catalyst to start the blood bond.
Plus there are thematic elements with her abusive and controlling father and adulthood crushing childhood innocence and whatnot and being taken by Pennywise after she stands up for herself. I found that very interesting. She stood up to two monsters back to back.
You can certainly reduce it down to "female character has to be rescued by male characters" but even when they get down there to save her they aren't done, they have to fight It together (the movie makes it clear that separated they are vulnerable) and she even deals the final blow, as It tries to be her father. But she's strong enough to have now overcome both of those monsters.
Dev was the glue that held the group together. Thats why they had to reunite to go after her.
She even had a ring in the shape of an anchor on her fingers.
Regarding the damsel in distress: Turning a kiss to safe her life into 'that's sexual assault' is just way too out there for me.
I know you mean well, and I'm all for correct/strong portayals of women in movies, but it feels you are misinterpretating things to find misogynist behavior where it is not.
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
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I'm not arguing it was sexual assault in the context of the movie. I'm saying the trope is a metaphor for sexual assault behavior; as a cultural vector, that is its direction. So creators should avoid reinforcing it.
I'm not arguing it was sexual assault in the context of the movie. I'm saying the trope is a metaphor for sexual assault behavior; as a cultural vector, that is its direction. So creators should avoid reinforcing it.
But it isn't always sexual assault. It can also be a metaphor for a pure expression of love, as it was here. Wholesome, good, happy love, in direct contrast to the vile gross sickening kind of love Bev's Dad had for her.
The kiss, the boltgun, IT itself is effective because they believe it's effective.
Don't try and give it another meaning.
The frog prince was not sexually assaulted by a princess.
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 don't think you can successfully combat the bad iterations of tropes merely by avoiding them entirely. I think you need to actively present instances where they are used positively. I feel very much this movie does that. Yes, a girl is kidnapped, but not because she's a girl--because she's one of the Losers. She isn't rendered helpless by that, nor does she sit around waiting to be rescued by the boys when it happens. She acts like any of the others in the group (except maybe Stan who is most easily paralyzed/affected by It) would be expected to act--searching for an escape, standing up for herself in the face of danger. Avoiding a story tool/trope because it's often been a big problem isn't the ultimate solution. It's one way to combat bad tropes, but it only goes so far. You have to have good instances as well to combat the bad, to show why the bad ones are bad, to be the proper contrast. The way I see it, to avoid capturing the character that makes the strongest sense to capture in the story just because she's a girl is it's own unhealthy problem.
I'm not arguing it was sexual assault in the context of the movie. I'm saying the trope is a metaphor for sexual assault behavior; as a cultural vector, that is its direction. So creators should avoid reinforcing it.
Huh
I don't deal with sexual assault cases in any active capacity, so now I'm wondering how many are inspired by Sleeping Beauty.
Anyway, I kinda wished they'd found a different reason for the kids to go down to the sewers as well.
But, like... the weird thing is, so many people see Bev as being badass, really the only badass, in the movie.
That her damsel moment was sandwiched between her being an asskicker and being an asskicker again, after having been an asskicker the whole movie kinda... confuses the issue for a lot of people. Also that she's unafraid during the kidnapping.
I get the complaint that the writers made the choice for it to be Bev. But she was, aside from Richie or mayyyyybe Eddie, also the character with the most love from the audience, and certainly the most development in the script. If it had been Ben or Mike, nobody would've cared that much.
And it certainly wouldn't have been as satisfying when they turned around and still gave Pennywise the axe like she did.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I mean, it wasn't even a real damsel in distress moment. In no way is she a shrinking violet at any point. She fights him tooth and nail until he lifts her up, peels his own face back, and causes her to stare into the lovecraftian terror that breaks minds. It's only then that she's effectively side-lined. Which is about 10 minutes in movie time before she comes back.
Relevant vid on this trope: https://youtu.be/_rLfENrnsoQ
I would agree with the assertion made that using this trope isn't automatic bad writing sexism, go to jail. The purpose of the use and how it plays out is important too.
I'm also mega cynical about the idea that it's preferable to invent a woman character purely to damsel instead. That's not better.
The book is far more about the fear of growing up and the flip side of that, the fear of forgetting your formative years.
But this is only one part of the book, told chronologically, those themes probably come into play in the second chapter.
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
O yeah, sorry for not being clear. I meant the missing themes.
Edit: the movie handles growing up.
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
I have seen hundreds of those videos by now.
I will see hundreds 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
You know, the IT thing is now bugging me even more because there should 100% be a Joker reference in there if it's 1989 and your evil villain is a fucking clown.
I hit agree and imma let you finish, but two things:
Real world explanation: they it was a basic mistake. They just plain forgot that Batmania was a Huge Fuckin Thing.
Stephen King-style explanation (and this fits pretty well with all the connected works): Derry is fuckin weird. This place is like the Marvel universe- always on the edge of Armageddon. This week, it's a Lovecraftian horror consuming the town's children; next week, it's some random dipshit abusive husband crashing a singl-prop plane into the convention center; the week after, it's an actual-ass alien spaceship crashing a few miles down the road. People in Derry, ME don't react to events and cultural shifts like other towns. There's an Outer Being and a dimensional rift affecting the town's perceptions of everything.
Alternate answer: on this level of the Tower, Lethal Weapon 2 released a couple months earlier, and Batman, while successful, didn't make the same waves. It also had that weird car chase through the Flying Graysons' circus...
alternate potential real world explanation: they were trying to make the setting feel kind of timeless, even if it was set in the 80s, and so a bunch of references to one specific movie would've thrown things off
They definitely weren't trying for timeless, given all the New Kids on the Block references, shots of the movie theater marquee, etc. Not to mention all the prominent 80s songs on the soundtrack.
No, I think this is another casualty of adaptation--they took a book very grounded in the '50s and moved it up to the 80s without too much consideration for actually capturing that time.
Just saw this tonight. I really liked it. I hate modern horrors reliance on cheap jump scares, and while 'IT' has some, they aren't the central focus of the horror. The growing tension and sense of dread that permeate in a lot of the scenes is just great. The kids are fantastic, but then again I'm a pretty big fan of Finn Wolfhard because of Stranger Things.
I also really liked all the hints of Pennywise's influence over the adults in the town. The children's show playing in Beverly and Henry's house, the red balloon in the woman's car. It shows the creature is effecting everyone in Derry, not just its victims.
Not a big fan of Beverly being taken by Pennywise, I always liked in the miniseries (never read the book) of Beverly being the one to injure the creature by being the best shot with the slingshot. Plays well into the theme of the power of belief, the Losers believe that it was meant to be Beverly, they knew that silver would hurt it. Missed that thing in the movie, but overall it was great and I had a good time.
I actually didn't notice the absence of batmania, because from what I remember, neither I, nor any of my friends were freaking out about the movie. Yeah, we were hyped for it, but I don't think any of us had a batman shirt or would gab endlessly about it.
Just watched it and I liked it up until Pennywise became the main scare factor. I just couldn't take him seriously.
I'd have also preferred a bit of mythos to him, like some sort of supernatural weakness that the kids have to employ rather than just, you know, beating him to death with sticks.
Just watched it and I liked it up until Pennywise became the main scare factor. I just couldn't take him seriously.
I'd have also preferred a bit of mythos to him, like some sort of supernatural weakness that the kids have to employ rather than just, you know, beating him to death with sticks.
He does have this and they did employ it. The movie hints at it but doesn't make it super obvious.
It feeds on fear and when they aren't afraid of It, It is vulnerable. At least, when they're together. If they're separated their bond doesn't protect them as well and they can't be as brave in the face of the horror. When they're all together, they can shoot It with an unloaded bolt gun and still do damage. Presumably part 2 will expand further on this.
I dont like a lot of the things they did (Literally every change to Mike) and the rock fight was just as disappointing as the mini series version was. I wished they had played up the belief angle more, although that is probably going to be the big hurdle in the second movie.
Bookstuffs
Bill says in the movie they are safe as long as they are together. With Stan dead they are going to be vulnerable if that is what they believe.
But man I enjoyed the hell out of it and can't wait for part 2.
My only problem with the movie was the actor that played Pennywise - they chose someone with terrible, terrible teeth. Like honestly that guy needs dental work - it’s really more noticeable toward the end of the film. Really pulled me out of the film.
Posts
Edit, since it was bottom of the paged: He actually succumbed to his fear and was being eaten by leachlady.
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!
To be fair, it's because there's still a lot of deeply problematic material still being produced, with very little sign of stopping any time soon.
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!
Because Stan's moment of weakness doesn't tie into a harmful cultural narrative that isn't anywhere near undone?
Stan is out of commission for all of thirty seconds, then they save him by beating It away. Bev is turned into an object for an important part of the film, and it sticks out more as a deliberate change from the novel.
This not only harms Bev's character, but the boys' as well. We're now gonna say that it's not enough for them to be scared for their lives, for It to have killed other kids and wounded some of them, etc--no, the only thing that finally motivates them to go try and kill It is that their girl gets kidnapped.
Then there's the rescue. We're gonna say now that the only way Ben gets the courage to show Bev how he feels is... to sexually assault her while she's unconscious.
So they took a strong female character from the novel and made a series of changes whose affect is to drag everybody into a toxic gender roles narrative where women are objects and men have to rescue them in order to claim them.
I mean, say what you will about
The point is that they made a movie in 2017 significantly less progressive than a book from the 1980s. No, we clearly haven't reached a point where this is okay. We've gone backwards.
It's not meant to be progressive in any real way and to criticise it for not being something it never was is kind of ludicrous.
Also, characterizing the kiss as sexual assault is ignoring a whole lot of other meaning that was present in both mediums of the story to the point of that argument being borderline laughable.
IT the novel is explicitly anti-homophobia, anti-racism, and writes Beverly the way she is for a reason. (For example:)
That's progressive to me. But the movie eschews just about all of that.
As for the kiss, this general trope (going back to fairy tales) is founded on the idea that if you kiss (read: have sex with) an unconscious person without their knowledge or consent, you're actually a hero and they'll wake up and thank you by falling in love with you. However the filmmakers wanted to portray it here, they're buying into a very old, very gross gender narrative.
So, hypothetically we've written a script up to this point...We want It to capture someone to bring the rest of the kids together to go into the sewers since they're all split. It can't capture Bill because Bill's the kid who brings the rest of the group together and that would be like capturing the King in hopes of getting the rest of the pieces. It can't really capture Mike, Stan, or Ben because they aren't portrayed to have as strong a connection with the rest of the group in the script so far, they're all off being outsiders and don't keep up connections with the group after the split. It COULD capture Richie or Eddie because they're best buds (Eddie buys Richie Ice Cream, Eddie hugs Richie before leaving the group, the banter, etc...) and having one of them get captured could signal the other to rally the rest of the group. That might work if written right. But then again who's our main character from the start of the film... It's Bill. Who would affect Bill the most to go back into the sewer? Probably the girl he's been pining after since he saw her walking in slow motion down the street after helping him in the pharmacy. Thinking about it like this, I find Bev's character to just be a matter of circumstance.
And again, the whole script could have been rewritten to avoid all of this, but we got what we got and I think it's a pretty strong adaptation.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
But they didn't have to do it that way. There are other ways to motivate that character behavior. If the one you want to use (capture and rescue) can't be accomplished without leaning into a problematic trope, do it some other way.
Actually in the novel
We don't see exactly how long Stan is taken but his face looked pretty hurt and they moved to rescue him as soon as they could too. I don't think they are finally motivated to go fight It because "their girl gets kidnapped" but because their circle was broken. One of the members was in danger and they had to save them, and would have done so for anyone in the group. They save each other frequently throughout the film. Bev wasn't turned into an object, she was still their friend and still fought back until the unearthly horror took away control completely. Again, unlike Stan, who let his fear overwhelm him and was about to get his face chewed off. Even while she was unconscious she set up events for the next film with her vision, so even then she was doing something useful for the group, acting as the catalyst to start the blood bond.
Plus there are thematic elements with her abusive and controlling father and adulthood crushing childhood innocence and whatnot and being taken by Pennywise after she stands up for herself. I found that very interesting. She stood up to two monsters back to back.
You can certainly reduce it down to "female character has to be rescued by male characters" but even when they get down there to save her they aren't done, they have to fight It together (the movie makes it clear that separated they are vulnerable) and she even deals the final blow, as It tries to be her father. But she's strong enough to have now overcome both of those monsters.
She even had a ring in the shape of an anchor on her fingers.
Regarding the damsel in distress: Turning a kiss to safe her life into 'that's sexual assault' is just way too out there for me.
I know you mean well, and I'm all for correct/strong portayals of women in movies, but it feels you are misinterpretating things to find misogynist behavior where it is not.
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!
But it isn't always sexual assault. It can also be a metaphor for a pure expression of love, as it was here. Wholesome, good, happy love, in direct contrast to the vile gross sickening kind of love Bev's Dad had for her.
The kiss, the boltgun, IT itself is effective because they believe it's effective.
Don't try and give it another meaning.
The frog prince was not sexually assaulted by a princess.
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!
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Huh
I don't deal with sexual assault cases in any active capacity, so now I'm wondering how many are inspired by Sleeping Beauty.
Anyway, I kinda wished they'd found a different reason for the kids to go down to the sewers as well.
But, like... the weird thing is, so many people see Bev as being badass, really the only badass, in the movie.
That her damsel moment was sandwiched between her being an asskicker and being an asskicker again, after having been an asskicker the whole movie kinda... confuses the issue for a lot of people. Also that she's unafraid during the kidnapping.
I get the complaint that the writers made the choice for it to be Bev. But she was, aside from Richie or mayyyyybe Eddie, also the character with the most love from the audience, and certainly the most development in the script. If it had been Ben or Mike, nobody would've cared that much.
And it certainly wouldn't have been as satisfying when they turned around and still gave Pennywise the axe like she did.
The book is far more about the fear of growing up and the flip side of that, the fear of forgetting your formative years.
I would agree with the assertion made that using this trope isn't automatic bad writing sexism, go to jail. The purpose of the use and how it plays out is important too.
I'm also mega cynical about the idea that it's preferable to invent a woman character purely to damsel instead. That's not better.
But this is only one part of the book, told chronologically, those themes probably come into play in the second chapter.
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!
I'd say the fear of growing up especially dominates the kid section.
Edit: the movie handles growing up.
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!
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
I will see hundreds more.
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!
Pulling this discussion into the It thread where it belongs...
They definitely weren't trying for timeless, given all the New Kids on the Block references, shots of the movie theater marquee, etc. Not to mention all the prominent 80s songs on the soundtrack.
No, I think this is another casualty of adaptation--they took a book very grounded in the '50s and moved it up to the 80s without too much consideration for actually capturing that time.
I also really liked all the hints of Pennywise's influence over the adults in the town. The children's show playing in Beverly and Henry's house, the red balloon in the woman's car. It shows the creature is effecting everyone in Derry, not just its victims.
Not a big fan of Beverly being taken by Pennywise, I always liked in the miniseries (never read the book) of Beverly being the one to injure the creature by being the best shot with the slingshot. Plays well into the theme of the power of belief, the Losers believe that it was meant to be Beverly, they knew that silver would hurt it. Missed that thing in the movie, but overall it was great and I had a good time.
I'd have also preferred a bit of mythos to him, like some sort of supernatural weakness that the kids have to employ rather than just, you know, beating him to death with sticks.
The woman talking so loud on the floor below that it sounds like dying screams echoing from the shadows probably isn't helping.
He does have this and they did employ it. The movie hints at it but doesn't make it super obvious.
Just watched a clip, and is The Pharmacist (who is uncredited on IMDB despite having lines) actually Stephen King?
Its kinda a tradition that King in almost every (or every other) movie has a cameo. For example he was the band conductor in The Shining mini-series.
Bookstuffs
But man I enjoyed the hell out of it and can't wait for part 2.
Loved the garage projector scene.. just wow, I knew there was a jump scare coming but damn that was intense.
I am sure I am not the only one who saw it but in the clown room there was a Tim Curry Pennywise doll in one of the shots.
I thought that was Bill's actor from the 90's miniseries.
Richard Thomas aka John-Boy from the Waltons
My only problem with the movie was the actor that played Pennywise - they chose someone with terrible, terrible teeth. Like honestly that guy needs dental work - it’s really more noticeable toward the end of the film. Really pulled me out of the film.
But other than that, really good stuff.
I thought I should say that. Because it probably isn’t totally obvious. Because it’s very poorly written.)