I wish Hollywood would grow a set of balls and stick to the source

They're remaking Scarface in 2018 too. Can't wait to see how that'll turn out. :^)

>>745076664
Tell me this isn't true...

>>745076425
Rip Steven kings work

>>745076733
Look it up.

>>745077449
Nah I'm here to talk about IT

>so many people are actually falling for the child sex scene gag
>its honestly scary how stupid people have become

Hollywood doesn't want to sexualize minors? Fuckin SJWs
Movies with that kind of budget need to apply to as big a market as possible. Can't fault them for leaving out shit nobody but btards would wanna see.

Also still one of the standouts in the last decade

you realize they are trying to make money right? No one would have gone to see it if it got a nc17 rating

Well, in the Eddie/Pennywise sequence, they didn't go Pennywise in the boys shower, they went FULL LEPER- what more do u want, 12-14 year olds having intercourse?

File: YAY.gif (251KB, 390x269px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 390x269px

>>745076664
OF COURSE they FUCKING ARE-- say hello to the 2nd amendment.

>>745077641
What do u mean no one would have seen it-- would they even have let the kids act in it? Because that shit used to b called rated x.

>>745078650
It's actually an important scene within the book if you've actually read it. Steven King himself has explained it's importance and disappointment of it not being included.

Child sex orgies aside, I thought it was very good. Pretty faithful to the source material, but it could seem disjointed to people that haven't read the book. Decent scares too.
Oh, and Skarsgard as Pennywise stole the show.

File: download.png (6KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 224x225px

>>745076425
>hollywood movie doesn't a have a child sex scene
Yeah it's the because of SJWs, dipstick.

>>745078982
I have absolutely no clue why it wasn't in the movie. It's not like CP is illega- oh wait...

>>745079081
This... disregard this chomo. >>745078982 It will make your life a simpler place.

>>745079081
OP here. I did think the movie was very good and definitely superior to the mini series releases in 1990. My problem here is that they bragged about being so close to the source material and then copped out on one of the most pivotal end scenes of the first half. If you have read the book like you claim and do indeed understand it you should also realise the importance.

>>745079228
Thinking of it in the sexual way is just so telling of you. The scene is supposed to bridge the gap of being a kid and adult. The is important for the overarching theme of the story. The author of the fucking book says so himself.

>>745079082
You haven't read the book have you...
> No regard for the context and message

>>745078982
I'm currently reading it now aim about a quarter of the way through--- which is a good 400 pages. He expressed why the scene has been important to the writing, and why he even put it in there so people would stop speculating about his sexual interests, but the only person "disappointed" that that scene wasn't included if yourself and the other short-eyed suck fucks on this planet. Stay away from Stephen King, stay away from an author who means so much to so many.

>>745079461
It doesn't matter what the fucking scene is supposed to mean metaphorically. Any sort of sexualization whatsoever would be illegal, you dense motherfucker.

was it the gay guy getting killed?

>>745076425
>why isn't this theatrical movie not a scene for scene copy of a 1100 page book

>>745076664
Atleast they will cast a Mexican, and not an Italian to play a cuban.

>>745079319
I'm not denying its importance, at the end of the day they had to make a movie that they could market. If that scene was included, or implied to have taken place, it might've inferred an NC-17 rating. Which is essentially a death sentence to any non-pornographic film. They couldve made a movie that was incredibly faithful to the book, that would've included that orgy, Patrick Hockstetter killing his infant brother, the fridge full of dead animals and other stuff. They just wouldn't have made any money.

>>745079772
OP READ MY FUCKING COMMENT MAN

>>745079734
I'm not suggesting they film a porno, you thick cunt. The scene should be included so that the viewer can get the full understanding of the disturbing event that have taken place. These people feel that the only way to bond is through sex. The scene should be suggestive but not straight porn. Additionally to this one scene the film should have had a greater depth into the abusive home life of Beverly as it is much better in the book. On top of this the main bully *spoilers* who kills his dad should have been shown with torment.

>>745076425
op just wants to watch kids fuck

>>745077507
talk about what

>>745080263
That scene doesn't work without several hundred pages of character development and analysis beforehand. You're also forgetting that the film is an adaptation and not a 1:1 retelling of the book with a visual aspect. If you want the book read the book.

>>745080263
And then the fucking filmmakers die because everyone is yelling at them for making suggestive scenes because "muh metaphors"? Yeah, aiight man.

File: 1488025033768.jpg (36KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x501px

>>745076425
OP is shit tier bait and not even trying as the thread goes on.

>>745080263
also >>745080364

>>745076425
I just don't think there will ever be a true adaptation of a King novel to film.

>>745080076
Do agree with me that due to the success of this movie in the box office that the bluray release should feature an unrated, uncensored cut of the film? I think this would keep the hard-core fans happy. The film is still great as it is though but to a long time fan I would appreciate that extra mile personally.

>>745079734
Some faggot never saw blue lagoon

>>745076425
Wait so u bitching about it now after the 40 years it been out? Fucking pedophile

>>745080461
Shawshank Redemption is the closest we've ever got...

>>745080541
You dense motherfucker. We're talking about the recent film adaptation.

>>745077329
SK approved this version of IT.

>>745077530
Well this nigga didn't read the book

You can see the large percentage of Americans in this thread. Thinking all intimate scenes are inherently erotic.

>>745080631
HEY! I used dense motherfucker first in this thread! Stop making it seem like you're me.

>>745080644
True but he has also mentioned that he would have appreciated a more accurate film

>>745080707
Weak bait

>>745080707
>me, an intellectual
and it's cause we got laws against this shit

>>745080749
No one is pretending to be you. You're not anyone special.

>>745076425
I don't know why you're so upset about this, I haven't seen the movie yet, but the scene wasn't in the TV miniseries either. It's a metaphor for becoming of age, which wasn't needed in the miniseries because, you know, it's fucking set in two different times, and I guess the second film will work in a similar way.

Chill out, it's not uncommon for directors to cut scenes when they're trying to cram the story into 1 hour and 40 minutes.

>>745080512
Laws changed idiot.

>>745080833
Uncut bluray edition for the win?

>>745080793
There are no laws against artistic purpose. You still think the scene would have been sexual... end yourself.

My favorite thing about this thread is OP got to see a preteen girl undress and remain half naked for a while but is still unhappy

>>745080904
This implies they ever shot and edited let alone wrote the child group sex scene.

I just want a scene where kids fuck. It doesn't need to have an underlying significance. Fuck you corporate America for appealing to the masses instead of me, an intellectual and renowned kid diddler.

>>745076425
Adding the sex scene just would have made the awkward beta interaction with a girl even worse.
Steven King has never been good.
The shining was great because of Stanley Kubrick.

>>745080999
nice trips. gimme the kiddie porn pls

>>745080904
They most likely never intended to include the scene, and I honestly don't give a fuck. It has zero importance for the story as portrayed in the miniseries (and I'm basing my assumption that the films are going to more or less follow the same story as the miniseries).

>>745081070
>the shining
>great
lmao

That movie was garbage compared to the book. They changed up the entire dynamic of it.

Fuck you plebe, remain illiterate.

File: 1503001499396.jpg (17KB, 604x340px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 604x340px

>>745077619

>Hollywood doesn't want to sexualize minors

AHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAH

AHAHAHAHA

AHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAH

HA

HA

>>745081125
They've already said they arent

>>745081070
>The shining was great because of Stanley Kubrick.
And Jack Nicholson's method acting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu3xxq5F3Gw

That sex scene in the book was awkward, cringey as fuck, and added nothing to the book.

So if you really wanted in there, you're just a perv and not some literary purist.

>>745081125
>more or less follow the same story as the mini series
Nigger are you retarded?
It's following the book.

Why would it follow the other trash movie?

>>745081228
This.

I remember reading it and feeling uncomfortable as fuck.

And I love loli hentai.

>>745081228
Yeah, Stephen King is a pervert. I still want to see the kids fuck though.

>>745081152
>That movie was garbage compared to the book. They changed up the entire dynamic of it.

It was completely different than the book, but it was still a great movie. Personally I'd rather have something different if its successful. Two good stories are better than one.

>>745080998
That's not what is wanted here. I don't give a flying fuck about actually seeing this stuff bit the scenes should still have been created to show the gritty reality of everything. The world isn't pretty bro.

>>745081349
You know what.

I'll give you that.

If it wasn't based on the book the movie would have been great.

But. The book was fantastic. The only book I've read that scared me.

The fucking hedge scene.

>>745081228
It's meant to make you feel awkward. - Steven King

>>745081359
>the world isn't pretty bro
But that preteen girl was, and OP wants to see those kids run a train on her. Dirty pedo.

>>745081359
Sure thing sport.

File: 1504925355734.png (132KB, 396x454px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 396x454px

Fucker has a good point, as well as the movie being shit tier compared to the original movie. Although there are a lot of movies that would benefit from an amazing re make. The mayority does not need it.

>>745081152
Stay mad.
Stephen King is the product of a fucked up childhood. His own followers hate half his books.

What are your thoughts on the IT book?
Most people can't even get through it

>>745076425
The book is like a 1000 pages so they left a ton of stuff out but you're upset about the child gangbang in the sewers?

File: 1500642236790.jpg (95KB, 807x820px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 807x820px

I liked the movie. The mini-series included more from the book but it wasn't executed very well of course. I will be bummed if the 2nd movie is just the adult phase because most of the book was the childhood years. I have mixed feelings about what was cut but it made me want to re-read it again which is fine. The book has so much more content that seeing the movie isn't too much of a spoiler.

>>745081566
>gang bang
not a gang bang, they all fucked her separately

Just a reminder that the films original script THAT WAS APPROVED BY STEVEN KING included the sex scene and also more of the darker themes of the book. There's a whole article about the directors disappointment in the studios cuts to the film.

>>745081247
>It's following the book.
That's not what the movie critics are saying though. They're saying that it's basically a remake, but the loser's club are set to the 80s rather than the 50s.

>>745081660
Thank fuck someone in this thread has actually read the book.

>>745081526
Read it years ago and it pissed me off because of the gay fucking alien spider.

It was way more terrifying when it was just an underlying evil that manifested.

But nope. Gay cosmic spider.

Aside from that, loved it. Especially the history of Derry.

Try coming at me again faggot, I was reading King when you were figuring out how your butthole worked.

Protip: The only books people hate are the ones he churned out while coked out as fuck.

>>745081613
They already said that the kids would be featured in flashbacks but if you think it's not going to be focused on the adulthood, I've got bad news

>>745081772
This. Can't believe the amount of people in this thread that haven't actually read the source material and think the scene is supposed to be some 50 shades shit.

>>745081772
How was the sex scene supposed to be a darker theme?

>>745081774
>listening to critics
False it's following the books aside from some minor changes, the only major gripe is featuring black kid a lot less.

And the reason it's set in the 80's so so the adulthood part will be set in modern day.

>>745082004
They escape the sewer system by unifying and everyone fucks Bev.

>>745082004
The sex scene
> and more of the darker themes
Learning to read is your first step

>>745081772
Sauce.

No director would be ballsy enough to try to pass an underage train and think it would be approved.

>>745082106
What darker themes, you fucking dipshit?

>>745082045
I don't believe you.

>>745076425
Beverly fucks every kid there. You seriously think Hollywood would show that shit?
Nigga, they couldn't even kill Captain America in Civil War.

>>745082154
The abusive home life of Beverly for starters... The killing of an infant and several dead animal carcasses.
> Read the source material faggot

>>745082216
Literally on the internet, also fun fact.

If the kids part is in the 80's then what's 27 plus 1980?

Fucking idiot.

>>745082134
Here. Please read the entire article don't cherry pick.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2017/09/11/original-scripts-gross-creepy-sex-scenes-horrified-parents-ofchild/amp/

>>745082253
I've read the book, haven't seen the movie.

>The abusive home life of Beverly for starters... The killing of an infant and several dead animal carcasses.
This is even in the miniseries, but I guess they needed to cut stuff in order to condense it down to two films.

>>745082237
Because he dies after CW you fucking retard.

>>745078982
King is a pedo and made up how they will all get connected BS. He was fucked up on drugs when he wrote it. He knows they will not out that in a movie. Hell no one will go see it. Making $20 is going to cut it. Most parents would pull their kids out of the movie. It was stupid. But go enjoy.

>>745076425
The blood oath at the end was all that was necessary to show how the kids bonds had strengthened, the sex scene would have served literally no purpose

In addition
>The film would have gotten a much higher rating as such it would have sold less tickets
>People wouldn't walk away from the film talking about how good it was, instead everyone would be talking about this jarring as fuck scene and most people would refuse to see it
>after word got out of this scene anyone who went and saw it would be labelled a pedo
>Most cinemas would refuse to show the film to anyone in fear of the labelling
>King's reputation would be ruined (The only reason it isn't ruined is because it is a couple of pages out of a 1200 page novel which most wouldn't read all of)
>Most people only know of the miniseries which also had no sex scene

>>745082357
It's not the part about being set in the 80s I didn't believe, you fucking moron.

It's the part about not trying to be a remake of the miniseries, which it clearly is.

I agree with the anon about potentially releasing extra scenes for the home movie release. That being said, I read IT in like the 6th grade. I've read it several times since, and taken something spooky from it each time. The miniseries was good when it came out, but there were some glaring discrepancies that I can't overlook. I refuse to see the new one, simply because I saw The Gunslinger abortion and refuse to give Mr. King anymore money until he learns to read a fucking script. The sex scene in the sewer is supposed to be disturbing, and without the context of Bev's thoughts, it's hard to even imply it's non-erotic. I don't want it in there for pedo reasons, I want it in there to show how the kids were desperate for a way to survive. I also want Patrick's sickness to be shown, if only to testify to the depths of his character. He's supposed to be overweight and functionally retarded, not look like the lead singer from a punk band.

File: impressive.jpg (37KB, 598x418px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 598x418px

The biggest issue with the source material is just that it doesn't resonate with a modern audience very well. IT's story comes from a time when clowns were considered genuinely friendly and happy things. That was the whole reason It took that form, to lure children into a false sense of security. Making that clown image itself scary is just totally misunderstanding that whole point.

That said, they just shat out that Dark Tower travesty and that hurt me way more than this will.

>>745082154
Beverly was sexually abused by her dad, and they go into detail about how she felt and how it impacts her mentally.

Henry Bowers gets a handjob from one of his goons, whose name I forget.(kid with long black hair in the new movie)

That same give offers to give Bowers head, he also admits to killing his infant brother because he was more human than him. He also explains how he's the only human and sees everyone as things.

Bowers family abuse is explained fully to shed light on why the kid is so fucked.

The nigger boy and his nigger family have a feud with the bowers family.

Pennywise has actual inner monologues to show his point of view, which is dark.

EVERY child taken is dead and miserably tortured

The bowers gang gets shredded by pennywise.


shit like that is what I think they mean about dark tone.


Oh, and when Bev fucks the entire losers club she explains how "its to strengthen their bond and to calm then down" They are like 14 at the time.

>>745082522
And finally an anon that is educated about the source. I agree with you, mate.

>>745082416
Hey, cocksucker, it's part of the goddamn storyline for him to die in CW. shit got cut out.
Eat a dick.

>>745082391
The home abuse is in there but subtle.

Like the way she reacts to him when he does shit signifies he's done shit.

>>745082388
FUCK
Yeah that guy was ballsy to try to pass that script.

>>745082474
I can tell you haven't seen the movie.

>>745082678
I can tell you haven't read the book.

>>745080706
Neither did you or anyone else here, rhey read online that the scene exist in the book cringe boys

>>745082673
Sure bud, try reading the source material sometime.

He dies after the events of Civil War.

>>745082771
Read it ten years ago bitch tits.

>>745082597
plus:
IT's original ending was out of fucking nowhere and did nothing to improve the story so losing that is no great crime. Also, obligatory reminder most of King's stories adapted to film/tv are bad or worse, so who is surprised by this?

>>745082678
Told you bro. The original script while not bringing in as big of an audience would have created one of the most accurate portrayals of a novel I've ever seen.

>>745082613
Except for the bowers gang getting shredded, and the handjob thing, and the inner monologue (and explicitly showing bev to fuck everyone, it's only hinted to) all of these themes are shown in the miniseries IIRC?

Or maybe I'm confusing it with the book, since I haven't seen the miniseries in like 15 years.

It's not social justice warriors, it's the MPAA rating system. If the movie contained all that it would be well beyond an R rating most movie theaters don't play unrated, nc17 or x

No, x doesn't necessarily mean porn. Iearn the rating system.

>>745082828
Pull more shit out of your ass. I read the book when moot was still shitting himself

>>745082597
>Making that clown image itself scary is just totally misunderstanding that whole point.
This. Tim Curry nailed it by being friendly and jolly.

>implying people know who moot is

>>745076425
>due to sjws
Because King himself saying he regretted writing the scene must mean sjws

>>745082928
Total accuracy to the book isn't necessarily for the best though. The Shining being the most prominent example.

>>745083191
Forget to include my post number in your bad bait?

>>745083335
Can we just agree the home release should offer extra scenes

>>745081660
They watch though right?

>>745083507
No. In the book it's too dark for them to see farther than a few feet. They listen to each other's voices to find each other.

>>745083507
Doesn't say, but probably

>>745083596
fuck that is right

>>745083494
If the scenes are legitimately good and make the movie more interesting, sure. But not just because "muh source material" no. Maybe at least having directors/writers discuss the differences would be appropriate and neat.

>>745076425

Sex scenes are stupid.

>>745083094
You mean 2 years ago?

Anyway the only reason why that stuff isn't included is our ratings system. Also the possibility of going to trial after the far right had a fucking stroke over it. A movie where kids have an orgy? One episode of a TV show implied that teens had a drug fuelled orgy and it would up getting yanked from tv over potential action by the FCC. People are really sensitive about that shit. It was brave when the leftovers had that handjob scene between teens at a party and that was for HBO which doesn't have to worry about FCC sensors. This movie has to eventually be shown on television if it's to get all the money it can

Someone post the pages with the scene just so that these fucking idiots can get a full understanding of the act.

>>745083507
>>745083596
This.

People forget that part of the reason they fuck Bev is because after wounding/killing Pennywise they lose their "powers"

One of the kids was able to navigate his way around the sewer but couldn't do it so Bev was like hey I have an idea, rail me.

This reformed their bond.

Or the kid's just really fucking clever.

Reminder that fat kid had the biggest dick.

Name ONE Film that was released in theatres and had a child sex train in it
No studio would ever greenlight that

Damm, I had some good faps while reading about Bev gang bang, that shit was hot.

>>745083448
Nah. Just couldn't be bothered, honestly.

File: 1495657184669.jpg (13KB, 400x331px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 400x331px

>>745081950
yeah i knew about the adulthood but the flashbacks could help the missed childhood scenes tho.
sophia that played Bev made the movie for me tho. cute as fuck.

File: IMG_0035.gif (367KB, 186x234px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 186x234px

>>745079461
You seem to be a pedo sir

>>745083806
https://youtu.be/xDP6TEXGUb4

>>745083884
What these guys don't understand is that this scene in the film could be put into use through a dark screen with creative lighting, panting and dialogue. It is genuinely important to the story.

>>745082597
Not true. It was actually based on a really creepy clown and it was written after Gacy.

>>745084174
It's not OP you just want to see kids fuck.

The story in book or movie form seems so fucking boring. What am I missing? I don't get why people like this one.

>>745084290
Oh and it was 1986. That was in my lifetime and creepy clowns we're already a trope.

>>745084293
> Dark screen
Kill yourself

>>745076425
ITT
Dude is upset he didn't get to see kids fucking.

no normal person would see that movie if they put the child sex scene in at the end.

>>745084409
There's some merit to that point for sure. But I still think it's fair to say we're much more removed from the setting the book took place now, and thus a modern audience would struggle more to connect to the earlier pop culture. Doesn't It's new visage demonstrate that?
I'm not saying it's impossible to sell to a fresh market (I only read IT a year ago, and I'm <30, so I'm proof it can reach new people) but the movie doesn't impress that it's tackling the job well.

It'd be a nice surprise if it does.

>>745076425
Nigger you are literally asking for hollywood to produce actual child pornography for a movie with a plot so drawn out and convoluted it takes almost 1100 pages to write out in book form.

Face it fags. It will never make a satisfying movie.

>>745076425
>IT was supposed to have a sex scene and even more disturbing themes as does the book but due to sjws we will never get to see that creation.

So let me get this straight - SJW's are supposedly to blame both for the sexualization of children AND preventing you from seeing the sexualization of children at the same time?

>>745079820
He played a good Cuban. I know Cubans that can pass for Italians as well.

>>745079659
>cringe, the post

>>745077619
Bev was super sexualized

File: MV5BMTc2MjAxMzU5MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNzQ1NzMzMzI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1502,1000_AL_.jpg (146KB, 1502x1000px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1502x1000px

>>745076425
op just wants to see cute under-aged girl in a sex scene

>>745084174

and you'd still have people trying to burn down SK and the directors houses

>but you don't see anything!

File: AptSmallAmericanbulldog-size_restricted.gif (932KB, 398x250px) Image search: [Google]

932KB, 398x250px

>>745076425
Here's your (you)

>>745083854

It's not an orgy though

>>745076425
You are just a fucking pedo who wants to see a kid orgy... The more important scene left out was the battle with the spider in the sewers..the child orgy scene was completely unnecessary in the book as well.. Oh we forgot where we're going... oh hey guys if you all fuck me we will remember.... And IT is one of my all time favorite books.. And I'm old and shit even...

>>745087852
>>745087534

>>745077530
If it is not in the book then What did i read?

>>745079082
He is not just on about that. the book had more shit then a sex scene retard.

>>745088028
Right forgot my terms... A kiddie train.. is that better?

>>745079772
That happens during one of the adult segments

People seem to forget that when you edit a 1200 page book into a 2 hour movie.. You have to make choices and only keep what is critical to your vision of the story... Not everything can make the cut.. Not every movie can be a 12 hr trilogy like Jackson's LotR movies.. And even those missed things....And they were like 8hrs long....

File: trump_derp0.jpg (37KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 615x409px

>>745088713
>Not every movie can be a 12 hr trilogy like Jackson's LotR movies..

>And they were like 8hrs long....

>>745079081
No. You are the problem.

Jumpscares and loud noises are not scary. They're startling. The movie was serviceable but that's it. It could have been so much more but they made another garage piece for the retarded teenaged masses to swarm to. And it will make a billion dollars and they will make another one next year. The 1990 made for tv move will be better remembered than this forgettable stupid bullshit

>thinking that a hollywood produced movie will ever have all the content from the source book
>thinking that a hollywood produced movie will ever not cut important parts of the story
>thinking that a hollywood produced movie will be as close to the source book as possible with no sacrifices
>blaming it on SJW even if this has ALWAYS been the case even when SJW weren't a thing or didn't had the power they have now on companies making decisions
OP is either 12 or retarded

>>745076664
>>745076733
>>745077449
>faggots who don't know the 1980's version of scarface was a remake

>>745089483

I mean you can argue that being startled is being scared really fast and it's over quickly

>>745076425
It genuinely depresses me how many people think IT the novel is actually any good.

>>745076425
the book is over 1000 pages. the movie is 2 hours. what did you expect?

>>745079319
Age Ratings and public opinions aside, I just don't see how a scene like that could translate well like that into a cinematic sequence. How is it introduced story wise? How do they frame the shots? Where the fuck is IT while this is happening? And with how fast paced the final sequence was I don't see how such a scene would fit without being jammed in.

>>745087421
god that scene was dumb as fuck. brought me right out of the movie.

>>745091071
He was very Jim Carey Grinch-esque towards the end. I actually enjoyed it.

Just saw this last night. Liked it. Always thought there were too many horror/ sci fi concepts jammed into one story here. He's not a clown but an alien but shape shifts and he's evil and WTF. Macroverse stuff aside, the new film is good. Bev.

File: IMG_3593.jpg (34KB, 1270x657px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1270x657px

Durrrrr! (Insert jump scare)

File: IMG_3594.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

Like he's in the chromozone!

Any Beverly fans here?

>>745076425
It was alright. 3/5. I thought it was relatively faithful to the book, but the source material itself is actually... not that great. Sticking to it might of been one of this movie's weaknesses. If my buddy who had read the book wasn't there to sort of clear up a lot of the backstory, it would've been a struggle to follow. My biggest issue was the clear tonality problem- They couldn't decide if they were doing a campy, comedic 80's homage or something creepy and morbid, which was jarring at times. They also could of cut out a couple of characters in this movie, there was a shit ton of shoe horned material. 3rd act draaaaged. And uh.. not to say there weren't creepy moments and good scares.. they just weren't from the clown himself. He came off a bit silly.

>>745081882
SK noob/casual here

For reference, which are the books he wrote while coked out as fuck?
Don't need a complete list, just the ones you can recall now.

>>745091682
Paedo bear likes you.

>>745079798
That's barely readable since it's an incoherent coke-addled fever dream.

File: IMG_3595.jpg (57KB, 600x316px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x316px

Stephen King has Aspergers.

>>745078982>>745076425
The sex scene was stupid.
Classic example of a seedy middle aged man writing motivation for an 11 year old girl.

File: IMG_3626.png (613KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 1200x630px

>>745091817

Stephen King Kong Foohey is an asswipe.

File: IMG_3678.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

This movie blew. Say what you want to defend. Objectively speaking, it was a hot pile of garbage.

File: IMG_3619.jpg (21KB, 480x267px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x267px

I'm getting stronger!

I want to eat Mileys asshole.

>>745080385
hahaha

File: IMG_3620.jpg (20KB, 480x275px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x275px

Doncha want it!

File: IMG_3621.jpg (66KB, 600x333px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x333px

>>745091794
I agree

File: IMG_3590.jpg (38KB, 620x470px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 620x470px

Bill Skarsgard is terrible.

No transvestite from Transylvania in this version. And John boy. Where the fuck was he? I was hoping that guy from 3s company would at least make a cameo. Liked it though even without Venus flytrap.

File: IMG_3596.jpg (61KB, 590x350px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 590x350px

This clown is retarded. The whole movie helped me overcome my fear of clowns. Grade A shit movie.

>>745091682
It goes

1. Bev
2. Bill and fat kid
3. Nervous kid
4. Finn
5. The rest

>>745076425
>sex scene
It was a fucking child orgy, you moron. They can't show that shit.

File: IMG_3661.jpg (52KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 480x720px

>>745092334
John Ritter should make a cameo. It would breathe some life back into this dead lay of a film.

>>745091955
>Objectively
Okay

>>745079319
The importance has been back engineered.
King has just invented the whole 'transition to adulthood angle' to cover the fact that he was an acohlic, substance abuser who had, at least at the time he wrote it, a pre-pubescent sex fantasy.

Interesting that the fat kid has the biggest dick and eventually gets the girl.

>>745092463
I'd dang near have a heart attack to see him back!

>sjw
stopped reading there OP, can't blame them for not seeing your child sex scene on cinema, you fucking autist

>muh source material
/b/ really is so far removed from this world it's amazing

File: IMG_3615.jpg (21KB, 311x318px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 311x318px

>>745092482
You understand. I didn't like, the rest of the world did. The main thing that draws me in to watch IT, IS IT. And he's a buck toothed Nordic retard with CGI enhancements. Lame.

>>745080888
Nice trips, bit in this case they're not the truth.

The laws are the same, but dim witted sjws like you would never allow a movie like that to be made.

You're almost as cringy as the upcoming all female remake of the "Lord of the flies" coming out.

>>745082613
Bev is 11 when the orgy happens, boys are similar.

>>745089911
You know jumpscares are cheap though

>>745092794
she had her peroid so
and i remember the fat kid being 13

>>745092731
I mean you're not wrong that he looks and acts silly. Just so happens that's what I liked about him. I don't expect to be scared by horror anymore. The last movie I was scared of a film was Chuckie when I was like 8. The movie was entertaining and actually made me sad at some points. That's good enough.

You fags think you can hold down a conversation about film when you spend your days fapping to traps? Fuck that. It rocked. Now let's talk Tay Tay scat.

>>745092731
you thought Tim Curry's It looked "scary"? because you're lying...

>>745093234
I don't remember any blatant jumpscares in IT though. I guess there were some soft build-up ones that you could see coming. Kinda like half-jumpscares.

>>745093429
I did as a kid. I don't know anyone above 18, shit even 12 who still would find him scary though.

Are thiy makihg a seeqwell with the guy from the anseesters rock show maybe if the the trillogey had 4th standers?

>>745093604
So kids today probably think this one is "scary" too...how about that

>>745093780
Yeah i agree, i'm not the guy you were initially responding to. Was just throwing in my 2 cents

From that purspectiv, know how seeqwell can be done. Just film the the 2 parts withh the guy from anseessrtrs and leave out 4th standers for the film part. Done,.

>>745077619
>No body but btards
You don't understand the human race

>>745094225
?

>>745077641
I don't go pay for moves that are rated for children. Ever.

>>745089655
im surprised more people dont know this

>>745094309
They're fuckin movies dude calm down

I knows Steven king moves. The best of thhem. His are the best. I do like others though. No moviees without the book parts

>>745076425

Read the book, and seen the movie. I still thought it was decent. They need to keep it under NC17 so as to make money ya know. There were some flaws in the movie though.

File: 2017-09-12-00-24-07.jpg (233KB, 479x799px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 479x799px

>>745093647
Rock show?

>>745076425

Already did this thread.

>King sells rights for money.
>Hollywood can't make a 4 hour movie.
>pc/sjw culture. women can't be seen as victims.
sex scene with kids? right.
>the novel would be chopped up if released now.
>could have been a independent release with
more in it.
>sheep see it anyway.
>ticket sales. money.

>>745094715
>enjoyment
>entertainment

>>745092463
What about Jonathan Brandis

>>745081460
The Shining
Isn't that scary.


The movie is much better.

>>745095075
damn

> IT was supposed to have a sex scene and even more disturbing themes as does the book but due to sjws we will never get to see that creation
>But due to sjws it was RUINED
>The kids where 13-16
So how soon are you going to turn yourself into the police?

>>745081882
>>745091729
His most entertaining books were written then.
It, Cujo, Pet Semetary.
Also, The Jaunt, which is the best thing he's written.
The mini-series ruined the Spider just as much as it fucking made Pennywise.
For anyone who's ever felt like the only people who appear sane and healthy in this world are like spiders crawling about them and around their brain, it's fucking terrifying

>>745076425
grow up you edgy nigger. if you're so desperate to see CP then actually put your ass on the line instead of wineing like a bitch

>>745076425

It, the novel, is over 1000 pages. To adapt it totally faithfully would require several movies or a full series on a channel willing to deal with some really strange source material.

I fucking love the book. It's one of my favorites, not just from Stephen King, but of all books ever. I also fucking loved the new movie. Hell, I liked the old Tim Curry movie, though I saw that one before reading the book.

Some changes have to happen. Like cutting out an easily removed preteen gangbang.

>>745096605
>calling someone edgy whilst using nigger in the same sentence

>>745096136
people fudge ages all the time in movies and shows
look at Game of Thrones, Dany was supposed to be underage in the books, but they quietly changed her age and whipped out them titties in the show
would it really be that hard to have a quick line "happy 18th!" and then be more faithful to the book than otherwise?

>>745081070

This guy gets it.

>the sex scene in the book was the ONLY part of that story i disliked. Felt so fucking fake. Trust me i got it at the time; oldfag read the book when it came out. Just always thought it could've been written better. Glad it's in neither of the versions...

>>745096832
Ok well tell me does the sex have a impact on the story also bump

>>745081300

Absolutely this.

Fucking pervert here, and it's the only part of the book I didn't like.

>>745081882
Ive never read it but my mom read it and she said that the kids having to fuck and the spider at the end was pretty weird too. I should read it

>>745097006

It actually was a huge part. The act of them all having sex and shit and showing their real love for each other was a major element.

>>745081882

First King book I read was The Dead Zone...when it was released. Read every release (good/bad) ever since.

It was scary. It wasn't a gay cosmic spider. The Alien's form was so foreign the kid's mind could only picture it as "their" worst fear...a gay cosmic spider.

To me it would be my ex-wife
To you it would a BBC

>>745096832
That completely changes the story-
>11
>18

>>745078764
What the fuck does that have to do with the 2nd amendment?

>>745097440
You're afraid of a lady you fucked but not BBC...
You sound like a gay cosmic gay.

>>745093321
the movie is not called chucky its called childs play come on guy.

File: C1F7CD46-1EA2-4FF8-92D4-F2CFFCC86F6B.gif (2MB, 500x289px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x289px

>>745093429
Tim Curry’s portrayal was real, sadistic, serial killer style. His classical acting training made his facial expressions and voice inflection scream lunatic but at the same time he could draw children in with his fun and approachable side. Tim Curry is Pennywise. This kid is a CGI joke.

>>745096821
>implying someone on /b/ isn't an edgy nigger
you faggot

>>745098171
This.

>>745098171
/conversation

>>745080707
You seem like the kind of person who would defend Salo.

>>745077619

I agree.

Hollywood does "sexualize" minors, but only in the way that the pop. at large finds acceptable to stomach.

Disagree that it's a standout, but I give it points for being a movie from children's perspectives.

Sure, the clown was pretty stylish here; but the actual horror qualities of this movie don't really stand out for me.

>>745078764
>>745097582

Gonna be full of guns, gonna be about immigrants going from zero to arch-villains, gonna be a historical fiction featuring a depiction of different times and values than are generally shown today IF it actually tries to do justice to the first Scarface.

I guess I'm stretching it a bit here lol.

>>745077619
Tell that to my raging semi set to Young MC

>>745096793
They didn't gangbang her.. they ran a train on her.. there's a difference

>>745076425
WHAT was supposed to have a sex scene? Which book are you referring to?

>>745091682
I wanna fuck bev in her tight little ginger snatch until she doesn't want to anymore and leaves

>>745083884
the fat kid was older, that's why

>>745076425
>wah wah the Jewish depravity had to be reigned in
This shit is corny and clowns are not fucking scary no matter how much they smile in dark corners.....

>>745076425
Dude, mainstream Hollywood isn't going to touch a scene where a group of pre-teen boys run a train on a pre-teen girl. Not gonna happpen. Ever. Give it up. It's just making you sound like a creeper.