|
Punch Drunk Drewsky posted:Because Bev was the one who dealt the most damaging blow to It in the house encounter. Recognize the strength, kill the strength, kill the group. It isn't a real thing, you know. Like I don't care, you can make up a bunch of interpretations of why IT would kidnap Bev, I'm glad that you enjoyed the movie that much. But at the end of the day, it's a bunch of movie execs writing that Bev gets kidnapped, despite not being in the source material, and thinking that there aren't any unfortunate implications.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:that's still not a response to what i said. Feel free to elaborate. If it's just a case of you disagreeing with my points, fine, then we're both wasting our time. Otherwise I legit don't see the case you're making. It's not "poor storytelling" to have Mike separated from the group considering the outsourcing of labor, and bring him into the fold when he demonstrates what knowledge he has.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Yeah, I think it is the same cat. it's a glitch in the Matrix, actually
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Punch Drunk Drewsky posted:It's not "poor storytelling" to have Mike separated from the group it very much is especially in this story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
They rewrote the Turtle into the Cat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:08
|
|
t
|
Tired Moritz posted:It isn't a real thing, you know. In as clear a shot as can be, Bev is the one able to hurt It, then stand up to her father, and It does its darndest to break her unsuccessfully. Cary Fukunaga and crew wrote those aspects as well. She's no more a damsel than Georgie, Stan, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it very much is especially in this story. This is a "nuh uh" answer. Please elaborate or stop wasting my time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
you keep comparing the kidnapping to georgie and stan and that comparison just does not hold up.Punch Drunk Drewsky posted:This is a "nuh uh" answer. Please elaborate or stop wasting my time. i dunno man read the book this is an adaptation of? you seem to be missing the most central aspect of the story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it very much is especially in this story. He was separated from the group until half way though the book, shithead. Literally Kermit posted:They rewrote the Turtle into the Cat. I don't know how I feel about this. I wonder if they're really going to change the spider as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Punch Drunk Drewsky posted:In as clear a shot as can be, Bev is the one able to hurt It, then stand up to her father, and It does its darndest to break her unsuccessfully. Cary Fukunaga and crew wrote those aspects as well. She's no more a damsel than Georgie, Stan, etc. come on, who actually thought Georgie was still alive? He's a plot device. Stan's thing was already in the book, Bev's dumb kidnapping plot was specifically written in and it's dumb and completely unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:I don't know how I feel about this. I wonder if they're really going to change the spider as well. the turtle was dumb so i hope it isn't in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:you keep comparing the kidnapping to georgie and stan and that comparison just does not hold up. The key to good adaptations is to know what works in the book won't work in the movie. I like The Sweet Hereafter in this regard, where the novel had a destruction derby ending and the movie has a more poetic shot of the ferris wheel going to the sky. Mystical god turtle didn't make it into the movie, at least not in the way the novel presented the turtle, and the way the turtle comes in is way more appropriate to the story. Mike working on a farm where the killing the town's capable of is outsourced, again, fitting more in with the movie's time period and how the north handles racism. The reason I keep comparing the kidnappings is because Stan and Georgie are both kidnapped. It isolates him from the rest of the crew and is about to feed before It is interrupted. You wanna say "snatched" or whatever, fine, but Stan is still kidnapped, same with Georgie. The bully, okay, that might not fit as well, but the bully is a paper tiger whose faux masculinity crumbles when faced with real danger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
clown shoes posted:It seems Pennywise took her because she was the strongest and knew the others, most of whom are terrified and reluctant, would come for her. This is what I got out of it. Does the book go into any  on how many kids It needs to feed on? Even if It can't eat her because she's not afraid, she'd be bait for six other kids with tasty kid meat with known fears. After offing/eating them, surely she'd be scared enough of It to be a tasty bite. She's not a damsel in distress, she's the loving tank of this little five-man raiding party.The real interesting nugget in this situation is that if you try to avoid something with awkward implications (a woman being kidnapped and the men have to save her), trying to avoid it feels just as awkward. When you make a dude the damsel in distress, you don't cancel out the damsel in distress. You're just applying that set of descriptions to a man, with all the negatives surrounding it. Kinda missed some of the discussion before, but I get the impression that on a meta level, something (or a whole lot of somethings) are gonna shake out differently than standard in Ep2. Maybe I'm just trying to find a positives way to look at it uncomfortable poo poo like Mike losing all his narrative hooks, but it feels like they are going to rejigger some roles and stuff around. I'm reasonably confident that, taken as two movies, we'll go "oh, X was done this way because they wanted to do Y instead of Z". e: oh, and it's a huge shame Anton Yelchin isn't with us anymore; I felt he'd be a perfect Adult Stan since he looks a lot like Wyatt Oleff. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
stan is grabbed after they've already gone down to confront it. you probably wouldn't have had complaints about bev if it had happened after she led them down there to kill it.MisterBibs posted:Even if It can't eat her because she's not afraid it doesn't need to scare anyone to eat them. it's just people taste better when they're afraid and kids are easier to scare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Tired Moritz posted:come on, who actually thought Georgie was still alive? He's a plot device. Your main complaint seems to be that Bev being able to resist It is somehow reductive because it wasn't in the book despite the movie going out of its way to repeatedly present her as stronger than any of the boys. And as far as who thought Georgie was alive? Well, Bill did. Kidnappings in broad daylight are still kidnappings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:stan is grabbed after they've already gone down to confront it. you probably wouldn't have had complaints about bev if it had happened then. He's still kidnapped and a proper feast. Therefore, a damsel. Same with Georgie. Kidnapped in broad daylight. Therefore, a damsel. It doesn't want to consume empty calories, so Bev won't do compared as the others are damsels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
that isn't what that means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Punch Drunk Drewsky posted:Your main complaint seems to be that Bev being able to resist It is somehow reductive because it wasn't in the book despite the movie going out of its way to repeatedly present her as stronger than any of the boys. And yet despite Bev being the strongest/bravest loser of the group, she is still very much in distress and serves as the reason the rest of the gang rally to go back into the sewers. Like, I'm glad she wasn't written as helpless or weak and that is a good thing, but let's not pretend that her kidnapping didn't have shades of "damsel in distress." I mean for christ's sake she literally gets saved from the deadlight coma with a kiss a la Sleeping Beauty. Can't get much more damsel-y than that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Eh, you get into reductive nonsense when you start thinking that every woman character being stolen by the enemy is a Damsel In Distress. That's dumb. If Bev only existed to be the Girl Who Gets Kidnapped So That The Heroes Can Save Her, it'd be one thing. But she's not, she's a character that another character has legitimate story-based reasons for trying to take off the chessboard.Groovelord Neato posted:it doesn't need to scare anyone to eat them. it's just people taste better when they're afraid and kids are easier to scare. That's what I thought too, but I don't think that's textually the case in this adaptation's universe. It felt to me that Pennywise's smelling of Beverly and grumbling once he realizes she's not afraid of him was a clear rule-defining scene. poo poo, even if you factor in the "scared folks taste better" aspect of it, hey, food is food, and she's just as good bait, alive or dead. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:that isn't what that means. A nuanced look at the differences between Bev's situation compared to Georgie and Stan's shows otherwise. The latter two hit way more "damsel" tropes than the girl who overcomes just about all of them. That's about it. Hope you're able to pull something from this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
we're not talking about literal kidnappings, jesus.Punch Drunk Drewsky posted:Your main complaint seems to be that Bev being able to resist It is somehow reductive because it wasn't in the book despite the movie going out of its way to repeatedly present her as stronger than any of the boys. why are you so obsessed with the idea that IT kidnapped Bev because she's so strong as if it is an important part of its lore? it's really not, considering that it's not even part of its MO
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Bev is strong independent woman.mov. Sure, she's strong and such a badass, look how she defends herself, so cool! but she's still needed to be saved by ddudes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Serious post: if I was an ancient killing machine and one of my prey suddenly started fighting back I'd probably study it over, too. Was It attempting to goad the Losers into saving her? Or was it just trying to scare them away, because there was a kind of growing desperation to Its behavior. thats how I interpreted Its weird dance sequence, It was just throwing poo poo at her and see if anything stuck It doesn't understand bravery, or love, or friendship. It's a lone predator who eats fear and likes the primal fears of children best. What would you expect It to do when confronted with a kid who is not only unafraid of It any more, but outright defiant? Besides activate the Mulletcherian Canadate, that is
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
PopZeus posted:I mean for christ's sake she literally gets saved from the deadlight coma with a kiss a la Sleeping Beauty. Can't get much more damsel-y than that. This I totally agree with. There's enough contrast with the other kidnappings / killings and how Bev responds to resist a lot of the "damsel" tropes, but one of the things I didn't like was how Fukunaga and co. snapped her out of it. We could make some kind of metaphor about it (like, say, the kiss was bringing her into an idea of a healthy adult relationship) but because of her previous experiences with her father and her story about her first and only other kiss that doesn't wash either. So, yeah, that was definitely damsel-y.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Tired Moritz posted:we're not talking about literal kidnappings, jesus. Tired Moritz posted:Bev is strong independent woman.mov. Sure, she's strong and such a badass, look how she defends herself, so cool! but she's still needed to be saved by ddudes. This isn't some Whedon-esque watered down feminist thing. Bill was obsessed with the idea Georgie was still alive in It's lair. Stan similarly needed to be saved. Bev wasn't scared so she wasn't eaten. There's hints that this version of It is petty and vindictive, from his impatience with Georgie at the beginning, to the annoyed look he gives when Bill and Ritchie realize they can break the fear (at least temporarily), and so on. It trying to eat Bev and failing is just another extension of his retributive actions throughout the movie version. Edit: Literally Kermit posted:Was It attempting to goad the Losers into saving her? Or was it just trying to scare them away, because there was a kind of growing desperation to Its behavior. thats how I interpreted Its weird dance sequence, It was just throwing poo poo at her and see if anything stuck Also this is really loving good. Especially when you take into account It's very last threat against the group. Punch Drunk Drewsky fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
The expression on Pennywise when he did that goofy dance was hilarious. Also Derry Cat has seen some poo poo. But Derry cat don't give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
The whole end is Pennywise throwing every it has at the Losers in a desperate attempt to freak them out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Tired Moritz posted:we're not talking about literal kidnappings, jesus. Because that's how it was presented in the movie? You're way too wrapped up in THE BOOK and don't seem to understand you watched a movie which wasn't a literal retelling of the book. The only people who care that the kidnapped one of the group happened to be a girl are the ones bending over backwards to say damsel at every breath. She was strong, he took her and made her float. I'm not sure how some people get through life when everything is a conspiracy. Seems like an exhausting way to live. ChesterJT fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
One thing I dug that hasn't been mentioned (I don't think) is how practically brutal the final Pennywise/Losers fight is. Gone is the standing-around-and-hoping-Bev-Makes-A-Shot stuff from the earlier adaptation, this is a bunch of kids wailing on a clown-shaped monster with whatever they can get their hands on. I don't care if you're actually a bright orange light that likes eating children, getting a face full of rusty chain will gently caress your assorted poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:One thing I dug that hasn't been mentioned (I don't think) is how practically brutal the final Pennywise/Losers fight is. Gone is the standing-around-and-hoping-Bev-Makes-A-Shot stuff from the earlier adaptation, this is a bunch of kids wailing on a clown-shaped monster with whatever they can get their hands on. I don't care if you're actually a bright orange light that likes eating children, getting a face full of rusty chain will gently caress your assorted poo poo up. Yeah, it felt a lot more natural than the kinda RPG turn-based fight that happened in the mini-series
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:One thing I dug that hasn't been mentioned (I don't think) is how practically brutal the final Pennywise/Losers fight is. Gone is the standing-around-and-hoping-Bev-Makes-A-Shot stuff from the earlier adaptation, this is a bunch of kids wailing on a clown-shaped monster with whatever they can get their hands on. I don't care if you're actually a bright orange light that likes eating children, getting a face full of rusty chain will gently caress your assorted poo poo up. I got over the change pretty quickly because if you hit Pennywise with a pipe and you think that hitting him with a pipe will gently caress him up, then all that slingshot and battery acid stuff is just overthinking it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Thinking about that opening sequence with Georgie, I've heard a lot of people question why he would stay and talk to the creepy clown in the drain rather than running away. Even aside from the violence I knew was going to happen, that scene is disturbing to me specifically because it recalls a lot of situations I was in at that age. At that age, you're constantly being told to do things that make you uncomfortable. Sit still, give this person a kiss, eat something gross, say thank you. You depend on grownups for everything, and your whole life is about pleasing them, so you learn to resist your instincts and do as you are told. Put that together with the exaggerated sense of importance that everything takes on when you're little, and you have the perfect recipe for a compulsion to stay and talk to someone you are afraid of. "You have to get it back, Georgie. Bill's gonna kill you." I said that so many times as a young kid after I'd done some minor damage. "Oh no, mom's gonna kill me." I wasn't really afraid of punishment, rather at the thought of disappointing someone. As an adult viewer it's obvious that Bill would not be upset at the loss of a paper toy, but by saying that, IT made it impossible for Georgie to leave without the boat. The threat of upsetting somebody overrides the sense of discomfort. I think this kind of obedience conditioning leads us to put up with a lot of awful poo poo, and it only gets worse as we get older. The habit of tamping down the rising fear of another person because it wouldn't be polite to just leave makes us vulnerable to the traps of predators.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
The movie was rarely scary and the characters were excruciatingly one dimensional (Hi, Mike). Also, relying on jump scares ad nauseam is a lazy way to make a horror movie, and this movie has them in spades. A giant Pennywise leaping off a projector and scaring the kids is no more terrifying than the antics of the space clowns in Killer Klowns From Outer Space, which surprisingly holds its own when compared to this film, especially in terms of "terror." In fact, Killer Klowns From Outer Space might be the more sincere and genuine film. A lot of my complaints about It can definitely be traced to the source material. Call me crazy, but I would have rather seen something that was substantially different from the book, similar to what Kubrick did with The Shining. I did laugh when I found out the director made Mama, since he apparently used some of the leftover F/X from that film in this one. C+ (King sucks, but I have also gotten older and my taste has changed).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Eh, you get into reductive nonsense when you start thinking that every woman character being stolen by the enemy is a Damsel In Distress. That's dumb. If Bev only existed to be the Girl Who Gets Kidnapped So That The Heroes Can Save Her, it'd be one thing. But she's not, she's a character that another character has legitimate story-based reasons for trying to take off the chessboard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:That's fair, but she is saved from the Deadlights by True Love's Kiss....Friendship is transformative I'm not sure how you can realize the latter but take issue with the former. It takes her because she's strong as hell, but it takes a greater power from those explicitly less strong to rescue her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Punch Drunk Drewsky posted:This I totally agree with. There's enough contrast with the other kidnappings / killings and how Bev responds to resist a lot of the "damsel" tropes, but one of the things I didn't like was how Fukunaga and co. snapped her out of it. We could make some kind of metaphor about it (like, say, the kiss was bringing her into an idea of a healthy adult relationship) but because of her previous experiences with her father and her story about her first and only other kiss that doesn't wash either. The kiss was the best part of the situation, and one of the few pure examples in the movie of their belief manifesting itself as a power that could be used against IT, instead of just by IT. She has a copy of 'the frog prince' in her room, and its so perfectly the kind of thing a kid like Ben or Bev would believe in because why not? A kiss always wakes them up in the movies and fairy tales. I think though theres a bigger issue with Bev being captured thats at play, at least I suspect so. In the book theres such a point made about how similar Bill's wife Audra is to Beverly, and how the events keep repeating themselves between adults and children. They might have simply changed her to being captured so when Audra gets captured in part two, you can draw a parallel between the two timelines even stronger. Otherwise Audra getting kidnapped as adults has no parallel to their childhood adventure, unlike almost every other aspect right down to Ed's broken arm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I'm not sure how you can realize the latter but take issue with the former. It takes her because she's strong as hell, but it takes a greater power from those explicitly less strong to rescue her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I'm not taking issue with it. I'm saying that it's disingenuous to imply that people are being reductive when they say Bev is a damsel in distress. The film is purposefully using the language of the damsel in distress. I'm not implying it, I'm directly stating that it's reductive nonsense. They ignore everything else (the fact that Bev is consistently shown to be the greatest threat to It, that It is aware of that, and that It's goals are best accomplished by removing her from the story) but the fact that she has a vagina and that the Bad Guy takes her. Beverly is not an object to be stolen by a villain or saved by a hero, she's an active character whose success is vital to defeat the enemy in the setting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
Bev can be the strongest most bad rear end character and still be a damsel in distress, because she was kidnapped and had to be saved by a bunch of dudes. It's literally textbook damsel in distress. I thought it was unnecessary, but I really enjoyed the movie! Might watch it again this week. Great cast and humour, too many loud music cues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:Bev can be the strongest most bad rear end character and still be a damsel in distress, because she was kidnapped and had to be saved by a bunch of dudes. I already mentioned the reductive nonsense, you didn't need to edify it. Like, I get it, I too used to spend way too much time on tvtropes (A fee-male throws a punch at some point, she's an Action Girl!). Yes, Bev is a damsel in distress, if you ignore basically everything that makes her not one. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 05:47
|
|