It most certainly isn't that way in the book, and that's a really stupid change.
Stan killing himself is tragic, and it casts a pall over the Losers reunion. It hits them hard, particularly when they realize it happened immediately after Mike called him. It's partly what motivates them to move on forward.
There is also a bigger difference between the two as It is pregnant when they first meet It as children, and It has laid It's eggs when they are adults. On some intuitive level, Stan knew It was pregnant. And because it's implied Stan remembered everything all at once when Mike calls him, he psychologically can't handle it.
Turning Stan killing himself into a noble act is bull****, and kind of irresponsible on the writer's part.
A person sacrificing themselves to protect their friends or family is one of the most noble things a person can do. It also makes him the bravest of the Losers. Immediately after the call he knew what he needed to do to protect his friends from his own weaknesses and he did it without hesitation. The rest of the Losers want to run from what they have to do multiple times.
Stan killing himself in the book was much more impactful because it showed that Pennywise scarred him to the point where he didn't want to return to Derry and the thought of IT drove him to suicide.
The movie tried to do something different, but it didn't work because the subject of suicide is a very serious thing, and they sort of fetishized it and made it a noble act which is incredibly problematic imo.
Stan killing himself in the book was much more impactful because it showed that Pennywise scarred him to the point where he didn't want to return to Derry and the thought of IT drove him to suicide.
The movie tried to do something different, but it didn't work because the subject of suicide is a very serious thing, and they sort of fetishized it and made it a noble act which is incredibly problematic imo.
Stan's suicide is indeed way more impactful in the book. It's heavily implied in the book that Stan has a certain level of physic ability (or 'the shine' to use a term from another famous King book) that the other Losers don't have (Bev's ability to see their future selves and their respective deaths was entirely made up for the films and doesn't appear in the book because she never saw the deadlights there) so he appears to understand what It/Pennywise is better than the rest of them. He's an incredibly skeptical, compulsively ordered person by nature (which his neatness and OCD tendencies come from) so the very existence of It/Pennywise offends his whole worldview and messes with his sanity more than the others.
He also appears to subconsciously remember the events from his childhood much more than the rest of the Losers (other than Mike of course), one of the early adult chapters of the book is told from his wife's perspective and it recounts how sometimes Stan says extremely odd, out of place things like "the turtle couldn't help us" and then seems really confused, as if he doesn't know where he is or why he said it. The implication is that when Mike called him, Stan (unlike the others) remembered Derry and everything that happened there all at once and his already fragile sanity just couldn't cope with remembering the horror all in one go so he did the only thing he could conceive of doing, he committed suicide.
The whole deviation from the book of Stan killing himself as a heroic deed is the absolute worst change that was made in the films, portraying suicide as a positive thing and a heroic act is an supremely dumb and dangerous decision.
One change I also didn't like in the first film was Bill being the one to make the Losers swear to come back to Derry and the one who cut their palms for the blood oath. It was Stan who did that in the book, and the fact that he was the only Loser who broke the promise that he made them all take made looking back on that scene so much sadder and again, more impactful. Shame.
A person sacrificing themselves to protect their friends or family is one of the most noble things a person can do. It also makes him the bravest of the Losers. Immediately after the call he knew what he needed to do to protect his friends from his own weaknesses and he did it without hesitation. The rest of the Losers want to run from what they have to do multiple times.
You guys pretty much summed it up for me. But I'll also add
Marvolo mentions the Losers at various points wanting to run away from what they have to do. But that's just another example of what I feel is a bastardization of the characters. The screen writers seem to feel it adds some needed conflict, which is dumb since the conflict should come from their fight with It and Henry's crew, and the various adults in their life.
It calls into question this supposed deep friendship of theirs. When Richie (in the first movie) fights Bill, or when Eddie rather irritatedly tells Bill he doesn't want to end up dead (like Georgie), I feel like I'm watching very different characters, ones that don't particularly have a deep bond beyond the fact they faced It. I don't see them being friends like they are in the book. Maybe the second movie expands better on this, but I don't see Richie being friends with Beverly or Ben. Eddie's hero worship of Bill appears to be completely done away with. Mike seems to have no relationship to the others whatsoever. At least you got the feeling in the book that Bill respected Mike, and this was especially true of the adult sections in the book.
Stan killing himself in the way he does in the second film is stupid. Because if he was so worried about his potentially negative impact on being there, he could simply have not showed up. Stan's suicide is perfectly described by Bill in the book as Stan's way of dying clean, because the one thing Stan hated was being dirty. It was a rash choice made on his part, not a calculated decision. Which is why his death ways so heavily on the Loser's, particularly Bill, because it suggests to the Losers that they are in deep, past the point of no return.
The idea that Stan killing himself makes him the bravest of the Losers is a shockingly bad take.
While I admit that you can never know about a person's decisions regarding that until you walk in their shoes, the only way that can really be considered a heroic sacrifice is if you're like in the midst of a battle and are forced to do so to stop an enemy.
While I admit that you can never know about a person's decisions regarding that until you walk in their shoes, the only way that can really be considered a heroic sacrifice is if you're like in the midst of a battle and are forced to do so to stop an enemy.
Stan killing himself in the book was much more impactful because it showed that Pennywise scarred him to the point where he didn't want to return to Derry and the thought of IT drove him to suicide.
The movie tried to do something different, but it didn't work because the subject of suicide is a very serious thing, and they sort of fetishized it and made it a noble act which is incredibly problematic imo.
Stan cutting his wrists to protect his friends is no different from a person running into a burning building to save a baby or a person jumping in front of a bullet to save another person. All are a conscious decision to disregard one's own life and well being so that others might live.
I think every human being has the right to choose how and why they die. Choosing to end your life is a bad thing when depression or mental issues are involved because in those cases the person isnt thinking clearly and if they got help they might change their mind. Or if the person is the only guardian of a kid the person should stay alive for the kid. As the letter showed, Stan had a clear mind when he chose to end his life and he did it for the right reasons.
He took his life to protect his friends and that is brave regardless of his wife's heartbreak. That being said, I do think since they were changing his motivation they should have changed how he killed himself. He should have either done it in the car outside a police station so they could find him quickly and inform his wife, or he should have overdosed on sleeping pills. It wouldnt have totally eliminated his wife's heartbreak but it would have been less traumatizing than her breaking into the bathroom and finding him with his wrists open and blood all over the bathroom floor.
Saw it yesterday afternoon after rewatching Chapter 1 in the morning. All in all, I liked Chapter 2. But it's not as good as the Chapter 1. Keep in mind I never read the book or watched the miniseries
-For the most part, the acting is good all the way around. Hader and Ransone were the best. I've been a big fan of Ransone since The Wire and he's been my top choice for Deadshot for like a decade, and not that he's hurting for work, but I hope this helps him get more high profile roles. Isaiah Mustafa was good. Never thought the Old Spice guy who be a good dramatic actor. Hope he gets more work too. And of course, Skarsgard as IT was still great.
-The laughs were as good as they were in the first one. Even though there were a lot I didn't feel like they ruined the tension.
There were some problems
-I thought Chastain wasn't given any kind of personality. I know the excuse can be: From years of abuse she's just worn down. But young Bev had personality, had spunk...Chastain brought nothing. Which is weird because I'd say she's one of the strongest actors in the cast. But yeah they could've written her with some more personality.
-Looking back in the thread I saw someone mention that the intro to the adult Losers should've been longer. I'm the opposite. None of their introductions really mattered and could've been cut out. Like Bev's abusive husband, I read in the book he plays a bigger role and the jerk actually follows Bev to Derry. But in the movie it serves nothing except to say "Oh Bev's getting abused again." Bill's whole scene was just to have meta jokes about Stephen King and endings. Richie's scene I did like. "I love you, mommy" but I would've been fine for that being removed from the movie or included in this megacut I hear Muschetti wants to make.
-The opening homophobic attack was weird. Again, apparently it's in the book, but it doesn't play a role at all in the proceedings. Don and Adrian have no further role, so it's weird that such a drawn out and brutal attack/scene happens and it kinda isn't touched on by the rest of the characters. It wasn't used as a catalyst for certain characters of why they aren't being true to themselves or anything it was just out of place. And also I thought Pennywise didn't eat adults, so that was confusing to me as well.
I agree with the notion that the movie should've opened with the bleachers scene. But then I would've had MIke come across the crime scene, and then the next scene would've been the Chinese restaurant.
-I didn't feel the runtime too much, but they could've cut some stuff out. Like all of Henry Bowers stuff. He didn't have the impact he had in the books. But his involvement did lead to 2 really funny jokes
-A lot of the flashbacks it was kinda hard to figure out what was happening when. Even if the movie stated the time period. I do think the criticism of "They should've filmed the flashbacks during filming of the first movie" to be kinda stupid though
-I know I mentioned some stuff coming out, but I would've liked some scenes of what happened to the kids after Pennywise's first attack
-I do wish they explained why adults in Derry are so apathetic. They do in the book and miniseries, but didn't here
-The whole explanation of IT and the whole rituals and **** is kinda stupid, but in the book it's pretty stupid too
-The adult losers were really really dumb.
Really? You're going to run in the house with even less weapons than you did as adults?
-
-Richie being gay. I don't have a problem with it but it was kinda out of nowhere and kinda seemed they just added it for dramatic effect. ANd honestly, the way the movie framed it, it would've been better to have Ritchie being in love with Stan
Those are my immediate thoughts, but I did like the movie. I will pick up the Blu Ray, but I wish it was coming out on Black Friday so it'd be a lot cheaper. I don't think this is a Day 1 buy like the first one was for me[/SPOILER]
Stan cutting his wrists to protect his friends is no different from a person running into a burning building to save a baby or a person jumping in front of a bullet to save another person. All are a conscious decision to disregard one's own life and well being so that others might live.
I think every human being has the right to choose how and why they die. Choosing to end your life is a bad thing when depression or mental issues are involved because in those cases the person isnt thinking clearly and if they got help they might change their mind. Or if the person is the only guardian of a kid the person should stay alive for the kid. As the letter showed, Stan had a clear mind when he chose to end his life and he did it for the right reasons.
If Stan really did have a clear mind, why wouldn't he just have written a letter saying "sorry, I chickened out", and stayed home? The other Losers didn't remember the specifics of their promise, so he could easily have backed out. And if he hadn't backed out, would that really have significantly altered what happened to them?
Stan's motivations make sense in the book because it's established very early on what kind of person he is. They are clear, and cut and dried. And, given the circumstances, understandable.
I'm someone who has been quite suicidal lately and am really struggling with it on a daily basis...and the "heroic suicide" angle kind of ticked me off.
There is a difference between not doing what the first did, and ending up 80-90m behind. Maybe even 100m. Also It doesn't play like a horror movie domestically. It plays like a blockbuster.
And actually, The two It films basically cost the same amount to make as the entire Conjuring franchise so far. That series is close to 2 billion. So it isn't competing with It, it has far surpassed it.
And actually, The two It films basically cost the same amount to make as the entire Conjuring franchise so far. That series is close to 2 billion. So it isn't competing with It, it has far surpassed it.
You were talking success. Say they add another 300m, which they probably won't, but say Part 2 does. The cost for each franchise at this point is very similar. And the Conjuring is miles ahead still, with sequels still on the way. So hard to argue it isn't the most successful horror franchise. Even it's awful movies are rather profitable.
Also I would say the domestic performance this time around means that chances of that prequel are probably not good.
Stan cutting his wrists to protect his friends is no different from a person running into a burning building to save a baby or a person jumping in front of a bullet to save another person. All are a conscious decision to disregard one's own life and well being so that others might live.
I think every human being has the right to choose how and why they die. Choosing to end your life is a bad thing when depression or mental issues are involved because in those cases the person isnt thinking clearly and if they got help they might change their mind. Or if the person is the only guardian of a kid the person should stay alive for the kid. As the letter showed, Stan had a clear mind when he chose to end his life and he did it for the right reasons.
What? That is not how suicide works. Stan was not terminally ill. He could live another 40 years without interruption. Stan's suicide here is the result of depression/mental issues. The clear thinking is, "I am too weak to go back, so I have to kill myself". What you described is a big part of how depression works. That you are worthless. That you can't go on. That the world would be a unchanged or even better place without you. Thinking yourself too mentally "weak" to go back and ending your life, is not brave. It is the result of depression and anxiety. And peddling the idea that suicide in such a circumstances is a brave decision is utter garbage.
What you are suggesting means Richie, in a moment of "clarity" should have killed himself as well. After all, beyond not wanting to go back, he tried to leave and if not for the support of the others, would have ended up dead. And that is the thing. They gave each other strength. If Stan goes back, he finds the strength he forgot he had. The bonds that made him a Loser. That is what happens with all of them.
Also the use of the Deadlights in this film show how much of a crock that Stan did the "right thing" is. Because as we see, they were able to change their fates. What Bev saw did not come to pass for the majority of them.
Oh, and one more thing, Stan being "afraid" of going back, outside of the general feeling they all get, makes no sense. He moved away from Derry. He, like the others, should have no memory of what he is afraid of. He shouldn't even remember the others.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
