|
Alan_Shore posted:It's literally textbook damsel in distress. Which makes it reductive nonsense.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
It's okay to damsel it up sometimes. I think every loser got saved once by each other at least once. So it's not like the baton wasn't passed around. CelticPredator fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that the reason they have bev kidnapped is just for convenience in a heavily compressed narrative, and the same goes for Ben acting as historian instead of Mike. Ben is already in the library in order to write the poem for Bev, so they save time by multipurposing the scene to also establish him as historian, also setting up a reason for his bedroom scene that allows a moment of silent affection with Bev to sustain their relationship. Someone had to get kidnapped to provide a simple reason for them to come back together after the falling out, where the falling out is inserted to give it a three act structure typical of movies but less clear in reasonably long novels like It. They need to be kidnapped at the end of a scene, and the running time is too tight to have a scene with no other purpose but to establish the kidnap, meaning it has to be one of two characters: Bev or Eddie, as they are the two with personal life conflict to resolve so must get a scene each. Eddie has already had one on one conflict with It and is already injured, and his scene ends with his parent still conscious and him out on the street in broad daylight, so it makes more sense to go with Bev. The kiss scene is there to provide payoff to Ben's side of the love triangle and provide the opportunity for Bev to realise who wrote the poem. Everything makes sense from a screenwriting perspective, where they had an extremely challenging task set to adapt half of a long and somewhat messy novel into a satisfying single movie. They accomplished it with an incredibly tight narrative where messing with an single thing could seriously compromise it. Still, they seemed to be very mindful of trying to avoid cliches with Bev. She serves as the bait in a damsel in distress situation, but it actually provides her with the opportunity to stand up to pennywise while completely alone (something no other character accomplishes). With Mike they try to make up for what they take from his novel characterisation by giving him a cleaner through line (the bolt gun scene is set up at the start and pays off with it being reversed and put to his head), and simpler emotional drive with his parents. However, I can't argue that they kind of fail him. They could probably have extended the movie by a couple of minutes and accomplished something better with his character, or at least given him one or two more lines of rapport with the other kids.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:It's okay to damsel it up sometimes. I think that's the main thing: yes it IS damsel in distress, but that doesn't make it outright bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
People saying that Bev is a strong, independent woman and therefore that invalidates the fact she becomes a damsel in distress at the end are missing the point that that's just how it works in modern movies. You have a female character who is often times far more competent than the male character(s) around her, and then the narrative thrust of the final act is that she's kidnapped and/or incapacitated so she doesn't upstage said male characters. Ignoring whether or not its problematic, its such a weak cliche to unite the boys and so that a wet rag of a character like Bill can lead the Losers to fight IT at the end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Bill's the only one who kind of has a really personal stake in this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Yeah, I got the impression that they were damseling it up with Bev a little, but i thought the no-sell of her not being afraid of Pennywise and his frustration at that was kind of the payoff. "So I'm down here. You're small potatoes compared to everything else I've seen." And he shoves her into the deadlights instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Daphnaie posted:People saying that Bev is a strong, independent woman and therefore that invalidates the fact she becomes a damsel in distress at the end are missing the point that that's just how it works in modern movies. You have a female character who is often times far more competent than the male character(s) around her, and then the narrative thrust of the final act is that she's kidnapped and/or incapacitated so she doesn't upstage said male characters. The reason why Pennywise captured her has zero-point-zero to do with the fact that she lacked a ding-a-ling between her nethers. She had already upstaged the male characters multiple times by then, the villain is not slain to 'save' Bev, and without Bev the threat is not defeatable. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Daphnaie posted:People saying that Bev is a strong, independent woman and therefore that invalidates the fact she becomes a damsel in distress at the end are missing the point that that's just how it works in modern movies. You have a female character who is often times far more competent than the male character(s) around her, and then the narrative thrust of the final act is that she's kidnapped and/or incapacitated so she doesn't upstage said male characters. I feel like you're gonna have to kind of expound on this one, because the only examples I can think of that particular idiocy is in Joss Whedon's screenwriting. quote:Ignoring whether or not its problematic, its such a weak cliche to unite the boys and so that a wet rag of a character like Bill can lead the Losers to fight IT at the end. Bull.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Beverly Marsh in IT 2017--------->Sonya Blade in Mortal Kombat 1995
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Beverly Marsh in IT 2017--------->Sonya Blade in Mortal Kombat 1995 *Beverly spears IT through the head* "Just how I like em, dumb and hungry."
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
One little thing I really liked near the end - I'm not going to spoiler block this because you know it happens: When Pennywise is dying at the end as he's holding onto that pipe/hole/whatever, his skin peels and floats away, revealing more red hair underneath (at least, I think it was, it was kinda dark in the theater). It reinforced how artificial It's appearance is; the only analogy I can come up with is looking too deep into a NPC model to find that his hair texture extends inside its face.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Beverly Marsh in IT 2017--------->Sonya Blade in Mortal Kombat 1995 Well, at least Pennywise didn't put her in a leather dress and a lot of hairspray.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
They really knocked it out of the park with Pennywise. He was drat perfect. I'm super excited for the sequel, and a potential directors) extended cut of this movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
The score to this film is pretty great. As much as I love 80's synthy tunes, I was glad It stayed away from that and stuck to something more modern. I love the random electronic sounds piercing through the film. But my favorite two tracks have to be "Paper Boat" and "Georgie, Meet Pennywise" simply for the amazing tone change they represent. The uplifting, adventurous music, as the boat moves down the water... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPNFCDTVoPc&t=56s which slowly becomes this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuCPaRbEuv8&t=159s I remember listening to this at 4 in the morning, and it was a bit unnerving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
Some of the music was great, but I think the score really held it back. It was very traditional horror. In fact some of it was like something out of Annabelle Creation (which was dumb and stupid). I think a lot of the scares would have worked better without any score at all, make it a bit more naturalistic, go in a different direction. But maybe the audience needs to be told what's scary with loud noises and strings?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
Pennywise should dance unceasingly in the next film. Even in scenes he shouldn't be in, just dancing away in the background. e:someone buy me a dancing Pennywise avatar tyvm
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
GoingPostal posted:Yeah, I got the impression that they were damseling it up with Bev a little, but i thought the no-sell of her not being afraid of Pennywise and his frustration at that was kind of the payoff. "So I'm down here. You're small potatoes compared to everything else I've seen." And he shoves her into the deadlights instead. Yeah. I didn't see any real issue with it because during that 20 minute stretch, she got four major wins. She wounded Pennywise at the house, smashed her dad's head in, no-sold Pennywise's attempts to scare her, then hit the most critical blow in the ending battle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
In the sequel the ritual of chud will be depicted as a You Got Served style dance off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
I kind of get the impression that movie pennywise needs to get victims worked up before it can really touch them. That's why it appears at a distance, when the kids are isolated. I'm not interested in getting into the whole bev kidnapping debate, but I do think if a character was going to be snatched out of their house by it, having it happen to her after she domes her father made the most sense. The situation was at such an emotional boiling point that it was able to appear at his most "real". She wasn't afraid of it anymore though, so he just took her instead of killing her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Moon Atari posted:
I think you point out the biggest problem with Bev getting kidnapped. One of the primary complaints people have with the Damsel in Distress is that it reduces women to a prize to be won by a male character. Bev getting captured provides the setup so that we can have a payoff to the love triangle between Ben, Bev and Bill. Both Ben and Bill help save her and they both get their reward. This all seems super problematic given the other really important part of her characterization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
PantsBandit posted:I kind of get the impression that movie pennywise needs to get victims worked up before it can really touch them. That's why it appears at a distance, when the kids are isolated. I don't know the mythology, but I prefer to think It regards a kid who isn't scared as really bland and unpalatable, like raw potatoes. You could eat raw potatoes if that was all you had but after a little while you'd be desperate for something that tastes good. It should just smoke weed, that makes food taste better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
Croisquessein posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRo3TmM4Ljw
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
I laughed/cringed pretty hard at the kiss at the end. It's not just that Bev is smearing her blood all over Bill's face, but her fingers form a super obvious V shape with a bunch of blood right at the base. She's basically metaphorically smearing her period blood all over his face and he's super into it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
Croisquessein posted:I don't know the mythology, but I prefer to think It regards a kid who isn't scared as really bland and unpalatable, like raw potatoes. You could eat raw potatoes if that was all you had but after a little while you'd be desperate for something that tastes good. That is also the case but it begs the question of why pennywise bothers to appear and terrify children out in the open, if he were capable of grabbing them and doing it in the safety of his cave like with Bev
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
Martman posted:I laughed/cringed pretty hard at the kiss at the end. It's not just that Bev is smearing her blood all over Bill's face, but her fingers form a super obvious V shape with a bunch of blood right at the base. She's basically metaphorically smearing her period blood all over his face and he's super into it. I'd take that over the gangbang
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
Speed, maybe? Like, if it drags a kid down to eat later, then that's time consuming and maybe not worth the meal. But IT is pretty egotistical, so maybe being able to just snatch kids off the street or out of the safety of their own homes adds a sense of smug superiority that acts like an apertif.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
i thought this poo poo was great, loved everything about it. i hope this leads to more horror movies with genuine characters, comic relief, and an actual plot in the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted: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!). lol yeah dude tvtropes invented that term.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:lol The reductive analysis and categorizing that leads to this pigeonholing is definitely all tvtropes, though. This "I checked this box, therefore" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
ChesterJT posted:Just saw it today and loved it. One of the best horror movies I've seen in years. The over the shoulder bit in the library was possibly my favorite part, along with the kids tv show. So many little parts like that made the atmosphere much more intense. Man, I won't belabor the point with you, since some people just can't and won't view media through a sociological lens. However, if you can't see how it's a bit racist to take a scholarly black character and turn him into a character who is given a choice between killing or being killed and whose defining characteristic is his physicality and ability to wield a gun-like implement, then you should probably at least try to fire up just a few of your neurons when you watch a movie. I'm not outraged. I'm just a fan of the book and the original miniseries and I'm disappointed they deliberately altered Mike's character in such a way and my well-founded observation is that it was racist to do so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
A lot of people need to realize that you can like something - even a whole lot - and still be extremely critical of it and that it's OK. Mike can be a racist caricature. Bev can be a damsel. You can still like the movie and think it was great despite these things. I do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:A lot of people need to realize that you can like something - even a whole lot - and still be extremely critical of it and that it's OK. Because there's no chance at all that you're read on things is incorrect, what with being a sociological mastermind. I even agree with you on the Mike stuff but you have got to reel it in a little with the assumptions that anyone who disagrees with you is a neanderthal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:Man, I won't belabor the point with you, since some people just can't and won't view media through a sociological lens. On that same note though, if the only way Mike's knowledge has value is if it's through scholarly study versus lived experience that carries racist connotations for disregarding black narratives via oral tradition and throws in a bit of classism by implying the knowledge has to come from a library. I'm not keen on our first image of Mike being him holding that silver pistol-ish euthanasia device. At the same time, it's a direct allusion to Killer of Sheep, and with our ongoing conversation about whether violence is an acceptable tactic against bigotry with this version of IT taking place a stone's throw away from the LA riots his cathartic (and lucky) victory over the most virulent bigot similarly can't be overlooked. Punch Drunk Drewsky fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Mike was the straight man of the group and he was the neatest and I loved how good him and his dad was and him being regulated to nothing and "the muscle" sucked.Punch Drunk Drewsky posted:On that same note though, if the only way Mike's knowledge has value is if it's through scholarly study versus lived experience that carries racist connotations for disregarding black narratives via oral tradition and throws in a bit of classism by implying the knowledge has to come from a library. ??? what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Saw it last night. It's Fine and I'd honestly give it a solid B rating but god drat it did this movie just not do it for me in so many ways. Pennywise was great, when he wasn't screaming and running at the screen with that awful digital effects poo poo behind him. That was more distracting than scary. Pennywise was at his best when he was talking poo poo. Eddie stole the show, he was a real stand out but I loved Bev and Ben. The rest of the kids were just sorta there, I didn't buy Bill as the leader of the group at all, and poor Mike just gets shunted off for most of the movie because reasons? That was really loving stupid, as was giving his entire "I know the history of town" bit to Ben because.....reasons? Richie was funny, but he didn't feel like Richie too me. I also felt like the whole movie was in a rush, like it never really gave any time to let the whole thing breath or to really get to know the kids. It feels like a lot was cut. Bowers and the rest of the bullies could have basically been cut out of the movie and you wouldn't have noticed because they basically don't do much other than "Get Ben to the group". The rock fight was a loving joke and I was legitimately thinking "Wait, THIS is the rock fight scene?" Neibolt Street. loving Neibolt Street. The first encounter with the leper was pretty effective, although the use of CGI was disappointing and I felt like would have been accomplished better with practical effects. The second run through the house was where it started to get a bit much for me. Sure we get a few more scares in, and Eddie's scene with Pennywise in the kitchen was really great, but the rest of it just didn't do much for me. How the gently caress do you make IT and put the entrance to the sewers in the loving Neibolt Street house? WHY? The visual of the kids walking into the pipe in the barrens was a much more effective entrance to the sewers, and that was super early on in the movie. Instead of we go to Neibolt for a third time to establish this well house idea? Literally floating. Jesus Christ. My exact thought was "Well, that's about as subtle as the rest of this movie I guess" That finale was also hot garbage, holy gently caress. "Lets just whack the ancient evil with whatever we have at hand and that will defeat it" and yes I get that they weren't afraid anymore, but it didn't even justify why they weren't afraid anymore. None of the kids had that distinct character they had in the book or even the mini-series, so it just turns into whatever that ending was. Maybe I've got too much attachment to the book, but this wasn't the IT I wanted for the big screen, and after the comments from Fukanaga about "The studio wanted to make a more traditional horror film" I have a feeling his vision might have been closer to what I was looking for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Tired Moritz posted:Mike was the straight man of the group and he was the neatest and I loved how good him and his dad was and him being regulated to nothing and "the muscle" sucked. His parents died in the fire, as Mike discussed in his long parade explanation. Bev was the muscle. Mike was the guy who, because of his past and knowledge of what the town can do to him (alluded to by his grandfather in the beginning), is able to provide lived-in examples and string a narrative for the other kids who only were able to think of this stuff as abstract before. To the rest, it's nuance taking into account how this horror movie uses black cinema history to situate its black lead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
I think that if a trope or story mechanic is handled in comparatively mature and thoughtful manner, that doesn't negate the fact that it IS that trope at work. That said, it's not so much that trope is always good or bad, it has it is used within the narrative and the themes of the work that matters. However, in the case of damseling, a lot of people are understandably frustrated about this trope because of its ubiquity in films, books, games etc, and introducing it into a narrative through an adaption where it was not present before doesn't suddenly become immune to criticism because the film makers/storytellers do interesting and compelling things within the narrative with the "damsel". There's not really a massively strong reason for that mechanic to be in this story. We are not seeing real life, we are seeing a construction, and the decision to have Bev kidnapped was a choice, there were a thousand ways to communicate Bev's strength and have the losers reconcile and go down into the sewer that weren't having Bev kidnapped but those routes weren't taken and the kidnapping route was. Does the plot-point make sense within the stories own terms? Yes. But there's an entire wider context here with that trope that needs to be appreciated - the idea that the lone female character is rendered helpless and without agency (and yes, although she exhibits strength when she tells Pennywise that "she's not afraid", his response "You will be" presents a ticking clock for the other characters to get down to her before he breaks her defenses or destroys her in some other fashion).. In it's defense, it's a far more mature take on the trope than many others, it's not Taken for example. But although the reason why Pennywise the film character took her is because she's the strongest, it's actual place in the narrative is due to the choices by the film makers, and I suspect they chose to have her kidnapped because she's the lone girl who all the male losers are fascinated and protective of. I think perhaps a better choice would simply have more kids go missing, have an assembly scene where the headteacher announce that another kid has disappeared, just like Georgie. The loser all look at each other and know that they have to stop the cycle or something, I dunno. Either way, I love this film, I've seen it twice and can't wait to see it again. But that's a flaw with it as far as I can see, just not one that breaks the experience for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I think that if a trope or story mechanic is handled in comparatively mature and thoughtful manner, that doesn't negate the fact that it IS that trope at work. That said, it's not so much that trope is always good or bad, it has it is used within the narrative and the themes of the work that matters. For what it's worth, I really appreciate everything you wrote here. I think my reaction would be a little less - I guess abrasive? - if more of the critiques had a holistic approach like this. Also I'm still dealing with the fact that my visceral reaction to IT has made it impossible for me to talk about. I can write without feeling overwhelmed, what with the distance of the screen and all, but I'm still scared of IT.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Remember when It used Audra to lure Bill to his lair? Total damsel in distress. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:48
|
|
