Thank you for clearing that up. We can now all sleep soundly in our beds.DefunctTheory said:EDIT: If it makes a difference, its not so much an orgy as it is a train. I mean, it's doesn't really make a difference, but it is what it is.
Thank you for clearing that up. We can now all sleep soundly in our beds.DefunctTheory said:EDIT: If it makes a difference, its not so much an orgy as it is a train. I mean, it's doesn't really make a difference, but it is what it is.
Yes, this. My wife and I saw a special early showing of it last night. We had assigned seats with reclining chairs that vibrate and everything. I'd never done that before and it was really cool.Baron_BJ said:Having seen it on release night (future land of Australia, so yesterday for me), I can say that I never found it scary, though the film was really well put together and I was never once bored. It's one of my favourite films of the year so far, but Pennywise had nothing to do with that. The Banter between the kids was consistent and hilarious, you really got attached to them. Genuinely one of the funniest movies I've seen all year and a lot of that comes from just how real and natural the kids' shit talk was.
Come on, though. You can't tell me you didn't see it coming. The Dark Tower series, whatever else it may be, is a colossal, complicated mess. It never had a prayer of being made into a good movie, unless they mutilated it to the point where it was an adaptions in name only.Kotaro said:I'm just glad we got at least one good King adaptation this year. The Dark Tower was abominable.
Just my luck, really: the King series I love gets a shitty movie, and the King book I don't like all that much gets a really good one.
What the actual fuckPsychedelicDiamond said:I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.
I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.
I can only imagine both King and his editor were flying high on the same heroin when that made its way into the manuscript and he has been bending over backwards to justify it since it hit print. It really is an example of something that maybe was not seen as being as bad in the 80s but there are actually obscenity laws in Canada that should make this print edition illegal but somehow it slipped through. I guess if you sell enough book copies there is all manner of shit you can get away with.shrekfan246 said:What the actual fuckPsychedelicDiamond said:I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.
I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.
To be fair to King, in the context of the book, it makes sense. It's not something that comes out of the left field.jklinders said:shrekfan246 said:What the actual fuckPsychedelicDiamond said:I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.
I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.
I can only imagine both King and his editor were flying high on the same heroin when that made its way into the manuscript and he has been bending over backwards to justify it since it hit print. It really is an example of something that maybe was not seen as being as bad in the 80s but there are actually obscenity laws in Canada that should make this print edition illegal but somehow it slipped through. I guess if you sell enough book copies there is all manner of shit you can get away with.
I would contend this, but I admittedly have not actually read the original book and thus can only use what I've read and what I've seen other people say in the wake of learning this. But I would argue that even from a position of common sense, any argument that defends the scene can be used to equally defend any alternative to the scene: why is "oh, let's have the one female character decide to let all the guys bang her" the automatic signifier of losing childhood innocence? Why is that the only thing that could bring the group together and "strengthen their bond"?DefunctTheory said:To be fair to King, in the context of the book, it makes sense. It's not something that comes out of the left field.jklinders said:shrekfan246 said:What the actual fuckPsychedelicDiamond said:I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.
I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.
I can only imagine both King and his editor were flying high on the same heroin when that made its way into the manuscript and he has been bending over backwards to justify it since it hit print. It really is an example of something that maybe was not seen as being as bad in the 80s but there are actually obscenity laws in Canada that should make this print edition illegal but somehow it slipped through. I guess if you sell enough book copies there is all manner of shit you can get away with.
Again, I don't have the context of the actual novel, but I'm assuming that's written by somebody who did, and if that's the best way they could portray it, I'm not convinced it was a necessary scene.When the Losers' travel into the sewer with the intent of destroying It, they momentarily find themselves hopelessly trapped. As the boys start to panic, Beverly comes up with the idea of having sex with the others in order to calm them down, as a result the other Losers take turns having sex with her. Because King didn't wish this to be viewed as a lewd scene, the narrative explicitly states that the act of intimacy with each of the boys' helps to further strengthen their friendship; and Beverly only experiences orgasm while having intercourse with Bill Denbrough and Ben Hanscom.
Your image doesn't appear to work, but yeah, Piers Anthony is a special brand of shitty writer on a level mostly inhabited by people who will never be nearly as (in)famous as he ever was.This sort of thing also isn't entirely unique. There's quite a few authors that have done worse - Ever read Piers Anthony's Firefly?
Snip
If you haven't, don't.
I'm not saying it was necessary, only that it makes sense. All the kids in the Losers Club come from heavily dysfunctional families, and most of them turn their fucked up lives and notions into weapons against it (They can make what they truly believe real). Eddie, for example, has a mother that's constantly insisting he's sick and weak, forcing him to use an aspirator for asthma he doesn't have. He's able to twist this up enough to use it as a weapon against It.shrekfan246 said:I would contend this, but I admittedly have not actually read the original book and thus can only use what I've read and what I've seen other people say in the wake of learning this. But I would argue that even from a position of common sense, any argument that defends the scene can be used to equally defend any alternative to the scene: why is "oh, let's have the one female character decide to let all the guys bang her" the automatic signifier of losing childhood innocence? Why is that the only thing that could bring the group together and "strengthen their bond"?DefunctTheory said:To be fair to King, in the context of the book, it makes sense. It's not something that comes out of the left field.jklinders said:shrekfan246 said:What the actual fuckPsychedelicDiamond said:I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.
I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.
I can only imagine both King and his editor were flying high on the same heroin when that made its way into the manuscript and he has been bending over backwards to justify it since it hit print. It really is an example of something that maybe was not seen as being as bad in the 80s but there are actually obscenity laws in Canada that should make this print edition illegal but somehow it slipped through. I guess if you sell enough book copies there is all manner of shit you can get away with.
In a way I do get it, because sex is some mysterious nebulous thing that adults do when you're a child, but having sex doesn't make someone more mature or kill their innocence any more than witnessing any of the horrific things from It would. And it certainly wouldn't magically make one of the kids know how to leave the sewer they're trapped in, even allowing for a bit of suspension of disbelief because of the setting and knowing who you're reading. Shit, even the description for the scene on the Stephen King Wiki makes it sound awful:
Again, I don't have the context of the actual novel, but I'm assuming that's written by somebody who did, and if that's the best way they could portray it, I'm not convinced it was a necessary scene.When the Losers' travel into the sewer with the intent of destroying It, they momentarily find themselves hopelessly trapped. As the boys start to panic, Beverly comes up with the idea of having sex with the others in order to calm them down, as a result the other Losers take turns having sex with her. Because King didn't wish this to be viewed as a lewd scene, the narrative explicitly states that the act of intimacy with each of the boys' helps to further strengthen their friendship; and Beverly only experiences orgasm while having intercourse with Bill Denbrough and Ben Hanscom.
Weird. That's the third 'broken' image I've pulled off of Google in 24 hours.Your image doesn't appear to work, but yeah, Piers Anthony is a special brand of shitty writer on a level mostly inhabited by people who will never be nearly as (in)famous as he ever was.Ever read Piers Anthony's Firefly?
Snip
If you haven't, don't.
The demonic clown is kind of self defeating. By making him look straight-up evil and ghoulish you take away what makes a clown creepy; the uncanniness. Clowns look fake and unnatural, like a doll, and it's in that where the creepiness lies.stroopwafel said:Yeah. I like how Pennywise's expression could change on a dime. That was the biggest strength of the original. One moment he looked like this harmless doofus and then the next moment he could look like something genuinely terrifying crept into him.
The new It looks way too stylized and slick to be even remotely scary in my opinion. Pennywise looks like the cliche scary clown. There is no mystery or ambiguity to the character anymore or anything that gave the original It such an atmosphere of lingering dread and anxiety.
Yeah, but that's where him just showing up comes into play. You take the scene with Georgie, and what makes it really creepy and off is that there's what appears to be just a regular clown peering out of a storm drain. You take the new movie and his eyes are glowing, he's got sharp, yellow front teeth, he's got and evil grin -- it's like, why bother even being a clown?undeadsuitor said:It goes to say though, that pennywise is never supposed to -pass- as a normal person. He's never not creepy, though he can be disarming when he wants (Like his jokes with Georgie before he kills him)
King was clearly writing with this in mind. He really did not have to though. To be honest, him being on a heroin binge is more charitable than me contending he was going for soft core child porn, which by every definition I have read this is. It made sense in context. it making sense in context does not pass any smell check in making it defensible.DefunctTheory said:To be fair to King, in the context of the book, it makes sense. It's not something that comes out of the left field.jklinders said:shrekfan246 said:What the actual fuckPsychedelicDiamond said:I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.
I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.
I can only imagine both King and his editor were flying high on the same heroin when that made its way into the manuscript and he has been bending over backwards to justify it since it hit print. It really is an example of something that maybe was not seen as being as bad in the 80s but there are actually obscenity laws in Canada that should make this print edition illegal but somehow it slipped through. I guess if you sell enough book copies there is all manner of shit you can get away with.
To be fair to reason, King's the author, and while the road that led to that scene may have made sense, he didn't have to build it that way.
This sort of thing also isn't entirely unique. There's quite a few authors that have done worse - Ever read Piers Anthony's Firefly?
If you haven't, don't.