Oh the character is credited as Patrick. Well that makes a world of difference. Naturally that must mean Hockstetter. Even though he is never even named in the movie.
We don't see him lay off Bill for the school year, so that doesn't mean jack. Of course its a plot device. How he broke his arm is inconsequential. Its the effect itself on Eddie that matters.
Again Eddie has no reason to believe she is lying, because she has no personal beef with him. That is literally the only scene they share together, and she has nothing to gain from telling him his meds are placebos. Nothing. Furthermore, since you are making a big song and dance about this, lets discuss the real importance of this story element. The effect this has on Eddie. This is what gives him the strength to stand up to his overbearing mother. In the miniseries this never happens. In fact to add insult to injury we see not only see Eddie still living with his mother when he is an adult, but he still is under her thumb, too. They totally butchered one of the best character developments of his character. You are making a fuss over who it was that told Eddie the truth about the placebos lol.
I'm not talking about the leper of the book. You said the context of the leper in the movie makes no sense because in the book Eddie encounters a homeless man before. The leper of the movie makes total sense for the reasons already explained. The sexual aspect doesn't matter. The fact is he is terrorized by a leper, whether it wants to infect him or rape him. Its a key scene in the movie. One that is entirely omitted in the miniseries.
What difference does it make why Neibolt was cut from the movie? The fact is it was. An integral part of the book. One of many important aspects missing from the miniseries.
Mike isn't seen to be an adult because he is not an adult. Neither is Stan. None of them are. Omitting Mike's parents from the miniseries was no more a statement of adulthood than it was omitting Stan's. You projecting your own baseless views doesn't translate into me not understanding base themes. I don't see something that isn't there. Simple as that.
It is not more or less the entire summer. Not even remotely. You go ahead and tell me the chapter or page number where Bill says that. Then you'll see just how far into the story it is.
Adults not seeing blood is not the same as adults not seeing wounds Pennywise inflicts. Case in point, Bev's father couldn't see the blood in the bathroom. That's not a wound inflicted on Bev that he could not see. Pennywise did not physically attack her and leave a scar. He sprayed her with blood.
The fx work was great. Skargard's acting was on top form. Henry's fate not being clear isn't a flaw, as it can and will be revealed in the sequel which continues the story. You don't need it to be spelled out that the Losers square it with the Police, any more than you need it spelled out that Henry is the one they pin his father's murder on. Its obvious. It doesn't need clarification.
We see Bev not only buy cigarettes, but also smoking them e.g. when she is waiting for the Losers to come to show them her bloody bathroom. Yeah we don't see the other Losers smoke, but that's one more Loser than the miniseries showed.
Yes, we do know the citizens in Derry a lot more in the 2017 movie than in the mini series because we actually see several examples of them turn their back on blatant wrong doings and danger e.g. when Ben is being attacked by Bowers, or when Georgie is killed by Pennywise. It creates a sense of dread that there is something seriously messed up about Derry and its people.
I think this will be my last response to you as I think I've expressed my points as clearly as I can, and you either disagree with them, or reject them entirely.
- Of course I'm assuming the character called Patrick is Patrick Hockstetter. Why wouldn't I since he's called "Patrick"? Also, you're giving a point to the movie because it has Patrick Hockstetter, for being more faithful because it has Patrick, yet there is nothing to distinguish him from either of Henry's other friends, nor is there any reference to him being a budding psychopath. He's an interesting character in the book, but he's not a vital character, which is presumably why none of these character attributes are in the mini series. I don't give the movie credit for including him when he bares little relation to his character in the book, and he's disposed of without the audience getting to know him.
- So you think the girl is telling Eddie with his best interest in mind? Again, she's not a doctor, how is she a reliable source? I feel like I'm beating my head trying to explain this to you. Eddie living with his mother is a change, but it's at least consistent to the character portrayed with the mini series. But we haven't even seen the adult portions of the movie, so there's no point trying to argue it.
The mini series may not address some of these elements and moments, but it only does so by complete omission. The frustrating aspect of the movie is it
does graze theses points, but changes them haphazardly.
- Again, it's like beating my against a wall. I know you won't do it since you're stubbornly refusing to acknowledge other people's opinions, but try reading the book with some of my points in mind. You may be surprised by what you find if you dig below the surface.
And again, the mini series does delve into the backgrounds of these characters, while the movie outright changes them.
- The chronology of events isn't easy to pin down, but near as I can tell, this is the sequence
School's Out - Ben writes Beverly a haiku, gets into a fight with Henry, and meets Bill & Eddie.
Day 1 of summer vacation - Ben, Bill, Eddie, Stan & Richie build the dam, discuss their shared encounters with It (except Stan), then dismantle said dam when Mr. Nell shows up. Afterword, Bill shows Richie Georgie's photo album, Richie concludes there's a monster killing kids.
Things are a bit unclear after this as it's said Richie, Ben & Bev go to the movies on a Saturday, although it's not stated if it's the Saturday of the same week, although it's not unreasonable to assume it is. They go to the movies, get into a fight with Henry and his friends, then meet Bill and his friend Bradley in the Barrens.
Five days later (the book is precise about this), on page 349, Bill says "I w-want to k-k-kill it". The next day, he and Richie go to the house on Neibolt and come face to face with It.
All of this happens maybe within the span of maybe two weeks. So, no it's not the
entire summer, but its damn close to it.
- But how is it really different? It's said in the book that scars are both there and
not there. Bill's hands, for example, suddenly show the scars of where he cut his palms, but it doesn't show up until Mike calls. So there is a supernatural element to it all.
- We see a man fold his newspaper when Henry and the others grab Beverly in the mini series, and we see Bill's mother put away Georgie's album, oblivious to the blood coming out of it. The way you talk about it, you make it sound like the movie is vastly superior, when it really is only slightly better, and not by much, in this regard.
