***SPOILER THREAD*** It Chapter Two | September 6, 2019 | Warner Bros./New Line ***SPOILER THREAD***

[JB33]

Discuss It Chapter Two openly here! Any and all spoilers allowed!

 

GO!

[dudalb]

Overall liked it, but not as good as the first part. 

A.First half dragged, you could have lost about half the flashbacks.

B. The Stephan King cameo was fun.

C. The roles of Bev and Bill's spouses really got sliced to next to nothing. Poor Audra (Bill's actress wife) went from a major role in the novel to a walkon that is so short you wonder why they even bothered. And with Audra gone they had to really cut Tom, Bev's abusive Husband role down.

In the novel, Audra goes to Derry, worried about the husband, and become a target for It. Tom follows Bev to Derry and it taken over by It he becomes a sort of partner to Henry Bowers, and he targets Audra.

I can see why they did that,but I missed the final scene of the novel, where Audra plays a major role. And it makes the whole bit with Mike and the bicycle sort of  leading to nowhere.

 

I just read about Andy Muschetti's cameo as a customer in the store where Stephen King is the owner.

Edited September 9, 2019 by dudalb

[75Live]

After seeing this twice, I still enjoy it.  Yes, I probably have hit a tad below chapter 1 but I feel it was a good ending to the series and continuation of the first film.

 

I have more in the grade the movie thread, but I like some of the changes they made, obviously, yes the book had much more detail and overall was better, but some of that couldn't be on screen.

 

Agreed with some characters like the spouses got cut severely but really, if they added even half of from that in the book, there would have had to be at least one more movie.

 

I liked the idea of using the time there were all separated due to the fight after the first time they fought Pennywise, as the place to put in all the flashbacks.  It makes sense since he could go after the kids more since they were "weak" due to being apart again.

 

They still found a way to do a ritual of chud which I'm sure they were scratching theirs heads on that from the get go on how to handle it.

 

Yes the Stephen King cameo was cool and I saw the director in the pharmacy the first time and was like, I know him and it took a minute to remember it was him 😛

 

I remember "fighting" with people that Henry wasn't dead in the first one, even on these boards.  But I guess some people didn't know the book.

 

I did like they brought in the clubhouse finally even if it was just for a little bit

 

The Ben fake out during his reveal was pretty funny too

 

I did have some issues with it of course.  The Eddie/Bowers scene came off as way too comedic.  I get Bowers was nuts so I get his side, but basically Eddie didn't take any of it seriously kind of took away from that scene.

 

So yeah overall, still a good movie to me.  I could go on and probably will if people start talking in this thread  

 

[JB33]

Not really a spoiler but I figured I'd discuss it in here anyway since spoilers could come up.

 

What are the chances of WB doing a sort of "Pennwise, the beginning" type prequel? I could definitely see it! Not only that, I think anyone who has read the novel knows the material is actually there to do more with the IT franchise. It wouldn't be milking the main films' success. It returns every 27 years, right? King wrote about the tragedies that happened every 27 years in Derry since the beginning. You could easily do a film about the events that happened every 27 years and it would still be fresh.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't want another 10 movies about It. I just think there's material there to tell more stories without it feeling forced or milked.

[AndyK]

Ending was a bit daft, just shout nasty things at it.

[Dbui8743]

1 hour ago, 75Live said:

 

I did have some issues with it of course.  The Eddie/Bowers scene came off as way too comedic.  I get Bowers was nuts so I get his side, but basically Eddie didn't take any of it seriously kind of took away from that scene.

 

So yeah overall, still a good movie to me.  I could go on and probably will if people start talking in this thread  

 

Agreed about Bower. Even though I read the book almost 10 years ago, I can still remember how tense it was when the book shifted to Bower (and Bev's husban, which has been taken out of the story here). But I guess, it is long enough already, so the change is warranted, just as how a lot of the story lines from the book are omitted here.

 

I understand the complaint that the movie feels long, and I was influenced by that while watching the movie, but if you are to fairly judge it, you cannot in my opinion cut anything down more than it has already been trimmed. Someone from the other thread mention Endgame as a comparison and it is a really good comparison. Despite It 1 being only 2 year's old, I would bet a lot of people would struggle to follow who is who if not the first act, and the intertwining of the past and present (my friends who watched the first, took sometime to realize all the characters). So that is essential to be that long. Endgame while being a good movie, feels pandering with a lot of their past scenes, but as MCU is a culture now, I guess it is a good thing, compared to it being slow and boring for It 2.

[Lucas]

It's frustrating that so much of the movie is just filler that never adds up to much. Why was this 3 hours long and still couldn't follow through on much that it seemed to set up?

[OdinSon2k14]

Everyone seems to have missed the Freddy Kruger shared universe tease at the end 🙂?! The Stephen King cameo is gonna drive his fanboys nuts, but if you've seen Stan Lee cameo in every MCU movie, that was...just there. 

 

The major surprise was the shared universe tease...it could be a way to launch another Nightmare on Elms Street franchise, or a Freddy/IT one off.

 

It also could be just nothing 🙂. It would be strange for them to put that there, just to put it there...

 

The two villains basically have the same powers, messing with people's heads. But IT can do it without his victim being asleep in a dream state 🙂. It would be interesting to see the two join forces, and eventually clash!

Edited September 10, 2019 by OdinSon2k14

[75Live]

2 minutes ago, OdinSon2k14 said:

Everyone seems to have missed the Freddy Kruger shared universe tease at the end 🙂?! The Stephen King cameo is gonna drive his fanboys nuts, but if you've seen Stan Lee cameo in every MCU movie, that was...just there. 

 

The major surprise was the shared universe tease...it could be a way to launch another Nightmare on Elms Street franchise, or a Freddy/IT one off.

 

It also also could be just nothing 🙂. It would be strange for them to put that there, justvto put it there...

 

I'll bite. What tease? 

 

If you mean the theater marquee with the movie title, that was in the first one and it was just to show it was 1989.  Just like it showed Batman and Lethal Weapon 2

 

Now if you mean something else, please fill me in because maybe I'm forgetting something

[dudalb]

57 minutes ago, Lucas said:

It's frustrating that so much of the movie is just filler that never adds up to much. Why was this 3 hours long and still couldn't follow through on much that it seemed to set up?

Said this before but the novel is the same way, lots of filler that never really goes everywhere.

Still surprised they spent so much time on Mike and his bicycle, since the writing out of Audra as a character pretty much made that useless.

If you are wondering and have not read the novel....

Spoiler

Audra , Mike's wife, is driven into mad into a catonic state by It and in the final scene of the novel, she recovers when Mike takes her on a ride with his old bike.

I also note they limited the destruction during and after the final battle with it to the one House;in he novel a good deal of central Derry gets wrecked in the process;think something like what happened to Sunnydale in the final episode of "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" (though Derry is not totally destroyed like Sunnydale).

I thought that was overkill in the novel (one of King's problems as a writer is at times he does not know when enough is enough)  and think they were right to eliminate it (the TV miniseries did the same thing).

A few years back they did a TV symposium on horror and two of the partcipents were Josh Whedon and Stephan King and Josh admitted that his concept of Sunnydale ( a town founded on a source of supernatural evil) heavily borrowed from "It". King reply was great; after the he stole from Bram Stoker "Dracula" in "Salem's Lot" he wasn't going to criticize somebody for stealing from him paritcualy since he really liked what Whedon did with the stolen goods.

[Lucas]

5 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Said this before but the novel is the same way, lots of filler that never really goes everywhere.

Still surprised they spent so much time on Mike and his bicycle, since the writing out of Audra as a character pretty much made that useless.

If you are wondering and have not read the novel....

  Hide contents

Audra , Mike's wife, is driven into mad into a catonic state by It and in the final scene of the novel, she recovers when Mike takes her on a ride with his old bike.

I also note they limited the destruction during and after the final battle with it to the one House;in he novel a good deal of central Derry gets wrecked in the process;think something like what happened to Sunnydale in the final episode of "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" (though Derry is not totally destroyed like Sunnydale).

I thought that was overkill in the novel (one of King's problems as a writer is at times he does not know when enough is enough)  and think they were right to eliminate it (the TV miniseries did the same thing).

A few years back they did a TV symposium on horror and two of the partcipents were Josh Whedon and Stephan King and Josh admitted that his concept of Sunnydale ( a town founded on a source of supernatural evil) heavily borrowed from "It". King reply was great; after the he stole from Bram Stoker "Dracula" in "Salem's Lot" he wasn't going to criticize somebody for stealing from him paritcualy since he really liked what Whedon did with the stolen goods.

Yeah I saw what they did with the bike in the TV movie and assumed that was from the book. I'm really surprised they didn't have any of that here with such a gigantic runningtime. What I severly disliked in the TV movie was the bully coming after them, gets killed, the end. Completely useless and I thought the new movie would be either smart enough to not include it, or find a purpose. Instead it's there and somehow even more pointless than the TV movie.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Lucas

[dudalb]

16 minutes ago, 75Live said:

 

I'll bite. What tease? 

 

If you mean the theater marquee with the movie title, that was in the first one and it was just to show it was 1989.  Just like it showed Batman and Lethal Weapon 2

 

Now if you mean something else, please fill me in because maybe I'm forgetting something

Yeah, I think the Elm Street bit on the marquee was just a bit of a homage to Elm Street;nothing more then that.

People really read WAY too much in stuff like this and let their imaginations get away with them.

 

[dudalb]

1 minute ago, Lucas said:

Yeah I saw what they did with the bike in the TV movie and assumed that was from the book. I'm really surprised they didn't have any of that here with such a gigantic runningtime. What I severly disliked in the TV movie was the bully coning after them, gets killed, the end. Completely useless and I thought the new movie would be either smart enough to not include it, or find a purpose. Instead it's there and somehow even more pointless than the TV movie.

The final scene in the TV miniseries is taken directly from the novel.

[OdinSon2k14]

One negative was the overuse of the "undead zombie". When you saw the first one, it was a scare. It kept getting used, then it became a joke 🙂. 

 

Also the fact that it was used a lot in del Toro's Scary Movies to Tell in the Dark. 

 

The violent deaths of defenseless 7-8 year olds...that's a disturbing staple of this two parter 🙂...maybe they coulda bumped the age up a little, to the teens? 

Edited September 10, 2019 by OdinSon2k14

[dudalb]

41 minutes ago, OdinSon2k14 said:

One negative was the overuse of the "undead zombie". When you saw the first one, it was a scare. It kept getting used, then it became a joke 🙂. 

 

Also the fact that it was used a lot in del Toro's Scary Movies to Tell in the Dark. 

 

The violent deaths of defenseless 7-8 year olds...that's a disturbing staple of this two parter 🙂...maybe they coulda bumped the age up a little, to the teens? 

Uh,young kids being killed is a standard of the horror genre, all the way back to the fairy tales.

Frankly, it disturbs you, don't go to horror movies or read horror books.

[dudalb]

"Stand By Me"(based on a Stpehan King short novel called "The Body") remains,IMHO the best film ever made from a King story, and the irony is it's not really a horror story......

 

And, yeah, I think King did borrow a bit from "The Body" for it; the bullies in It could have been lifted straight from The Body.

[filmlover]

I kinda wished they had used the foresight this was gonna be a two-parter and shot the flashback sequences while they were making the first movie cause it was sorta distracting here that the kid actors had obviously aged up a bit since making the first even though the flashbacks were supposed to have taken place around the same time as that film's events. Especially the return of Ghost Georgie. Felt like the decision to cloak him almost entirely in dark lighting was to not call attention to the fact that boy is clearly older now.

[dudalb]

25 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I kinda wished they had used the foresight this was gonna be a two-parter and shot the flashback sequences while they were making the first movie cause it was sorta distracting here that the kid actors had obviously aged up a bit since making the first even though the flashbacks were supposed to have taken place around the same time as that film's events. Especially the return of Ghost Georgie. Felt like the decision to cloak him almost entirely in dark lighting was to not call attention to the fact that boy is clearly older now.

Spraking of Ghost Georgie, see the gag reel for the scene where Georgie was taken by Pennywise on the It CHapter one BLu Ray. Pretty damn funny.

[OdinSon2k14]

1 hour ago, dudalb said:

Uh,young kids being killed is a standard of the horror genre, all the way back to the fairy tales.

Frankly, it disturbs you, don't go to horror movies or read horror books.

Little condescending, but okay 🙂.

 

It doesnt happen often in movies...let me spell this out...a teen is not a kid. A young adult is not a kid. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about an actual KID. 

 

The worst thing that happens to them is POSSESSION. They aren't GRAPHICALLY murdered. 

 

A recent example was the Halloween movie. Micheal kills the babysitter, the kid ran away...Michael approaches and actual BABY in a crib, and thinks for a second, then WALKS WAY.

I forget the name of the recent movie...the kid is possessed by a serial killer. The mother is about to shoot and kill him. SHE's shot and killed by a police officer, the possesed kid lives.

 

The Sinister movies may have had something, I didnt see the first one. 

 

Give me some recent examples of KIDS being brutally dismembered and killed. They're used as tools to frighten the audience.

 

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by OdinSon2k14

[MOVIEGUY]

I AGREE, I'm sick and tired of all these horror movies not brutally dismembering and killing these bratty, useless kids and thank god the It series is here to correct that. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO SAY IT BY GOD. Enough with all this "only teens and young adults can meet their gruesome end, no kids" nonsense. I say that little punk Danny had what was coming to him and it should've been him instead of Scatman Crothers, riding his little scooter around thinking he was the shit.