Stephen King's "IT" remake has found a writer - Part 4

[Matt Mortem]

I get it. "It" is having a big cultural moment right now, which means there's nothing wrong with it lol

It's not a perfect film, but your main beef with it feels very forced.

 

[Flint Marko]

I get it. "It" is having a big cultural moment right now, which means there's nothing wrong with it lol

No, there's plenty of things that I didn't care for about the movie. You've honed in on none of them and have, like someone else said, made mountains out of borderline non-existent molehills.

 

[Donner]

I get it. "It" is having a big cultural moment right now, which means there's nothing wrong with it lol

There's a high horse around here that you need to get off of.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I think trying to read gender intersectional politics, specifically in regard to how the boys in the group all have a crush on Beverly (with Ben arguably being in a genuine form of puppy love) and wishing to condemn them/It as insensitive or regressive, is an attempt to find a subtext where there is none. Now if someone wants to take it up with Stephen King and having presented all the boys as straight (which is actually highly probable but not technically inclusive), fine. But the positive and human, biological reactions they have to Bev, and all it is treated as an aspect of growing up and healthy as opposed to the sick, vile, and abusive relationship she has with her father, is thoughtfully handled and fairly well presented.

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. And that ancient rule of pop psychology I think can now be applied to the often haphazard placement of such identity readings on all forms of art in the modern social media world.

Agreed. I get where Mad Ones is coming from, but in the context of this movie, it's not the hill to die on to make these points, because that's not what the movie is trying to be.

I get creating a discussion about representation of sex and gender and its interpretation and how we should look at it and it's very important. But sometimes with art, there comes a point where it's projection. Not every movie needs to be judged sociologically. Sometimes, a lot of the times, it's just a piece of entertainment, otherwise if you judge it on those terms, a lot of movies wouldn't be enjoyed. It's like discounting or criticizing a Chris Nolan movie because of his representation of women or dismissing All In The Family for having a bigot as your main character. You're looking in the wrong places here. You're looking more into it where the filmmakers didn't intend. Yes, I get it. Some filmmakers aren't cognizant of these social ideas and it feeds into from society where it creates a cycle and so on, but again, another time and place to discuss those. It's just not applicable here. It reminds me of when people were calling 13 Reasons Why dangerous. You get into troubling territory where it just becomes puritanical on the other end of the spectrum. It becomes a simple matter of misreading, it becomes toxic to art.

If everybody made art or viewed it from the strict view of a woke meter, things would be less interesting.

 

[Flint Marko]

^ This guy gets it.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Agreed. I get where Mad Ones is coming from, but in the context of this movie, it's not the hill to die on to make these points, because that's not what the movie is trying to be.

I get creating a discussion about representation of sex and gender and its interpretation and how we should look at it and it's very important, but sometimes with art, there comes a point where it's projection. Not every movie needs to be judged sociologically. Sometimes, a lot of the times, it's a piece of entertainment, otherwise if you judge it on those terms, a lot of movies wouldn't be enjoyed. It's like discounting or criticizing a Chris Nolan movie because of his representation of women or dismissing All in the Family for having a bigot as your main character. You're looking in the wrong places here. You're looking more into it where the filmmakers didn't intend. Yes, I get it. Some filmmakers aren't cognizant of these social ideas and it feeds into from society where it creates a cycle and so on, but again, another time and place to discuss those. It's just not applicable here. It reminds me of when people were calling 13 Reasons Why dangerous. You get into troubling territory where it just becomes puritanical on the other end of the spectrum. It becomes a simple matter of misreading, it becomes toxic to art.

If everybody made art or viewed it from the strict view of a woke meter, things would be less interesting.

Man, this closes the book on that argument. You summed up my thoughts on it. Great post.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Blumhouse has locked September 6, 2019 for a movie of their own. It's the same slot/equivalent date in which 'IT' debuted this year. Sept 6, 2019 is the Friday after the Labor Day (Sept. 2) which is basically mirroring the release date of 'IT'. So chances of WB releasing part 2 on that specific date is considerably lessened. If the Blumhouse movie happens to be a big production venture, WB may decide not to open next weekend which is unoccupied atm.

 

[Donner]

Agreed. I get where Mad Ones is coming from, but in the context of this movie, it's not the hill to die on to make these points, because that's not what the movie is trying to be.

I get creating a discussion about representation of sex and gender and its interpretation and how we should look at it and it's very important, but sometimes with art, there comes a point where it's projection. Not every movie needs to be judged sociologically. Sometimes, a lot of the times, it's a piece of entertainment, otherwise if you judge it on those terms, a lot of movies wouldn't be enjoyed. It's like discounting or criticizing a Chris Nolan movie because of his representation of women or dismissing All in the Family for having a bigot as your main character. You're looking in the wrong places here. You're looking more into it where the filmmakers didn't intend. Yes, I get it. Some filmmakers aren't cognizant of these social ideas and it feeds into from society where it creates a cycle and so on, but again, another time and place to discuss those. It's just not applicable here. It reminds me of when people were calling 13 Reasons Why dangerous. You get into troubling territory where it just becomes puritanical on the other end of the spectrum. It becomes a simple matter of misreading, it becomes toxic to art.

If everybody made art or viewed it from the strict view of a woke meter, things would be less interesting.

Well done

We don't want to regress back to the time of the Motion Picture Production Code/Hays Code.

 

[DeadPresident]

If we ever get to a place where every single piece of creative media has to be an extension of the platform where social vengeance warriors can vicariously right all of mankind's societal wrongs somebody please do me a favor and drive a stake through my temple.

 

[Doctor Jones]

A thing to remember, I don't think any of us are trying to take anything away from Mad Ones's concerns themselves. It's just the use of those concerns by turning them into an argument against this movie is fitting a square peg into a round hole here. I hate when people criticize SJW's for the wrong reasons and are dismissive, but there's a spectrum here we need to operate on to tell what's what. Many people have problems doing this. Or else it's just black and white. Progressive and well intentioned be damned, it's the same thing.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Agreed. I get where Mad Ones is coming from, but in the context of this movie, it's not the hill to die on to make these points, because that's not what the movie is trying to be.

I get creating a discussion about representation of sex and gender and its interpretation and how we should look at it and it's very important. But sometimes with art, there comes a point where it's projection. Not every movie needs to be judged sociologically. Sometimes, a lot of the times, it's a piece of entertainment, otherwise if you judge it on those terms, a lot of movies wouldn't be enjoyed. It's like discounting or criticizing a Chris Nolan movie because of his representation of women or dismissing All In The Family for having a bigot as your main character. You're looking in the wrong places here. You're looking more into it where the filmmakers didn't intend. Yes, I get it. Some filmmakers aren't cognizant of these social ideas and it feeds into from society where it creates a cycle and so on, but again, another time and place to discuss those. It's just not applicable here. It reminds me of when people were calling 13 Reasons Why dangerous. You get into troubling territory where it just becomes puritanical on the other end of the spectrum. It becomes a simple matter of misreading, it becomes toxic to art.

If everybody made art or viewed it from the strict view of a woke meter, things would be less interesting.

If you simply read something as a filmmaker intended, all movies are not art, and impossible to criticize. Because that is how they "intended it". If it is art, it is up to the interpretation of those who see it. Eye of the beholder and all that.

 

[DeadPresident]

A thing to remember, I don't think any of us are trying to take anything away from Mad Ones's concerns by disagreeing with them. It's just the use of those concerns by turning them into an argument against this movie is fitting a square peg into a round hole here.

It's a case of time and place, and in the case of art it sets the potential to create an environment where no piece of art can ever stand as its own entity anymore, everything will have to be a self-aware meta-commentary on its own content. If we ever get to that point we may as well pack it in and all become hermits and never pursue any artistic endeavor ever again, because anything and everything will simply be judged by its ability to be some kind of social critique on whatever elements it consists of. The entirety of social media culture has already completely been usurped by that perspective and it's encroaching on other media too, at some point enough really has to be enough.

If all movies, songs, and TV series have to become analogues for Fanon and Sontag's social commentary and critique essays…let's rather not.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's a case of time and place, and in the case of art it sets the potential to create an environment where no piece of art can ever stand as its own entity anymore, everything will have to be a self-aware meta-commentary on its own content. If we ever get to that point we may as well pack it in and all become hermits and never pursue any artistic endeavor ever again, because anything and everything will simply be judged by its ability to be some kind of social critique.

If all movies, songs, and TV series have to become analogues for Fanon and Sontag's social commentary and critique essays…let's rather not.

Here is what I don't get. Why does everyone have to look at a movie the same way? Judge it using the same criteria? People are annoyed some found stuff in It that they don't agree with, fine. Why does this become a reason to crap on them, to make fun of them? Why does it matter if they care about something being self-aware? If everyone is so positive in their views of It, why does it matter if Motown and Mad Ones feel the way they do? And them insulting others is wrong. But I get the reaction when people are here to complain about how they view a film, why telling them how they "should" be looking at it.

If we are going to make the argument that art can be what it likes, and I agree with this, why do we limit commentary or criticism? Whether it is It or how the Star Was prequels set space and time back 30 years?

Also, just on social commentary. Way too often it is dismissed out of every conversation, which is odd. Because when we look back at art from the past, it is a common part of the conversation.

 

[Donner]

Critiquing movies/TV/songs/art is one thing, insisting that they follow a set of rules or societal guidelines is another. That's how Hollywood used to operate and it sucked.

 

[Donner]

Here is what I don't get. Why does everyone have to look at a movie the same way? Judge it using the same criteria? People are annoyed some found stuff in It that they don't agree with, fine. Why does this become a reason to crap on them, to make fun of them? Why does it matter if they care about something being self-aware? If everyone is so positive in their views of It, why does it matter if Motown and Mad Ones feel the way they do? And them insulting others is wrong. But I get the reaction when people are here to complain about how they view a film, why telling them how they "should" be looking at it.

If we are going to make the argument that art can be what it likes, and I agree with this, why do we limit commentary or criticism? Whether it is It or how the Star Was prequels set space and time back 30 years?

Also, just on social commentary. Way too often it is dismissed out of every conversation, which is odd. Because when we look back at art from the past, it is a common part of the conversation.

I think it's the way Mad Ones and Motown come across. Their posts are suggesting that people here are okay with oversexualizing girls/women and the "boys will be boys" attitude. They're very wrong in that sense and that's why people are crapping on their opinions. It's not just an opinion. It's a holier-than-thou "wokeness" that rubs people the wrong way.

 

[DeadPresident]

Here is what I don't get. Why does everyone have to look at a movie the same way? Judge it using the same criteria? People are annoyed some found stuff in It that they don't agree with, fine. Why does this become a reason to crap on them, to make fun of them? Why does it matter if they care about something being self-aware? If everyone is so positive in their views of It, why does it matter if Motown and Mad Ones feel the way they do? And them insulting others is wrong. But I get the reaction when people are here to complain about how they view a film, why telling them how they "should" be looking at it.

If we are going to make the argument that art can be what it likes, and I agree with this, why do we limit commentary or criticism? Whether it is It or how the Star Was prequels set space and time back 30 years?

I've got no issue with critique, I agree with that part completely - that's a free speech thing. I'm not saying Mad Ones or anyone else shouldn't critique the movie.

My issue with the entire social vengeance movement is that it isn't simply about critique or criticism, it's about coercing and intimidating others into not saying, thinking, or doing specific things. The line of logic from Mad Ones appears to be that if people don't find the same things wrong with It as what they do somehow they're not taking social problems seriously, or something along those lines.

I'm not telling anyone not to look at the film the way they want to look at it by any means, I'm telling people not to stealthily guilt-trip the users here who enjoy It and don't want it to be turned into a poorly chosen battleground for social critique. Critique is one thing, but implying someone should feel guilty, or doesn't have the same "moral authority/value" because they refuse to condemn something for [insert reasons] is coercive by nature, I just can't agree with that. It's the shame/guilt dynamic of this kind of thing I don't like, like people's woke currency defines their value.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Critiquing movies/TV/songs/art is one thing, insisting that they follow a set of rules or societal guidelines is another. That's how Hollywood used to operate and it sucked.

I see your point. But there is even more insistence that one not look at the social aspect of art, as it ruins people's joy in discussing it. And if that isn't the problem, why even response to the critique at all if it so outlandish?

Looking at films, no when they are made or set, through social norms of the day isn't odd at all. Doesn't make the criticism right obviously, and I do disagree with it here. But this has taken over the thread in a very bizarre way, all things considered.

By the way, I just got back from seeing the film again. It was even better then second time around. t:

 

[Doctor Jones]

If you simply read something as a filmmaker intended, all movies are not art, and impossible to criticize. Because that is how they "intended it". If it is art, it is up to the interpretation of those who see it. Eye of the beholder and all that.

I agree with you. Subjectivity in and of itself is important in art. The ability to have an interpretation alone leads to the debate of if Rick is a replicant or not in Blade Runner or if Cobb was really dreaming in Inception. But that's interpretation. What this is about is criticism of art. And the difference between those other examples and what Mad Ones is arguing is that two of those movies welcome those debates based on the merits of their films. IT doesn't. You judge a movie on its own terms first and go from there. The terms of this film do not welcome the idea of the male gaze upon a teenage girl from a toxic sociological male perspective and who save her only because they find her attractive. That just simply isn't true in the context of the film without any evidence to support it.

Sure, maybe that male gaze at the quarry comes from how men see women in society and how it gets embedded within boys brains from society, but this isn't the point of the film. But you're wasting your time trying to argue about that in a film that's about childhood and growing up and the loss of innocence. Looking at a girl is part of growing up. Not the sociological causes of that. That's irrelevant to the movie. It would make a great movie to examine that, but another movie nevertheless.

It's more about what they want to see than what's actually there. I don't think that's good film criticism. There's a difference between eye of the beholder in interpreting the filmmaker's meaning and eye of the beholder in criticizing when you're trying to devalue art because you see it something as there when it isn't at all and the art is going for something else entirely. It's not fair to the intent of the art.

 

[Pennywise]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=it.htm

IT has made $404,306,627 at the box office worldwide!!!!

 

[markjoedelonge]

Here is what I don't get. Why does everyone have to look at a movie the same way? Judge it using the same criteria? People are annoyed some found stuff in It that they don't agree with, fine. Why does this become a reason to crap on them, to make fun of them? Why does it matter if they care about something being self-aware? If everyone is so positive in their views of It, why does it matter if Motown and Mad Ones feel the way they do? And them insulting others is wrong. But I get the reaction when people are here to complain about how they view a film, why telling them how they "should" be looking at it.

If we are going to make the argument that art can be what it likes, and I agree with this, why do we limit commentary or criticism? Whether it is It or how the Star Was prequels set space and time back 30 years?

Also, just on social commentary. Way too often it is dismissed out of every conversation, which is odd. Because when we look back at art from the past, it is a common part of the conversation.

Now if we can just apply that mindset to MoS and BvS as well...

 

[DlAMONDZ]

This could've been so much better with someone like Wan directing. This really wasn't all that scary tbh

 

[JtheDreamer]

Honestly, the only thing that rang false to me about that sequence was everyone being in their underwear instead of swimming outfits.

I know skinnydipping is a thing, but didn't kids use swimsuits in the 80's? Especially if they planned on going swimming?

Thought the underwear was completely unnecessary. Definitely should've had those kids in swim trunks.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

 

[DACrowe]

I'm just explaining reasons why I, and a number of people I talked to, didn't like it. I guess I should know better than to come to a fan space with a minority opinion. Sure, Bev is included in the group. It's also a boys space that thrives on period jokes, which is something Bev has massive anxiety about. Sure Bev might smile and nod and approve, but again that doesn't make things ok, it just means the filmmakers think it's ok.

What I actually think is that the dynamic of an all boys group that includes one girl that draws their attention and attraction is really lazy and unoriginal and does create problems considering how much this group dynamic gets reproduced. So many people keep saying "it's normal it's normal" but these losers aren't supposed to be normal (or are they?) and this is something straight out of the 60s. The film reads to me as something misogynist geeks would make after they grew up (vindicated for their bullying, loved for their humour, a pretty girl smiles at them and approves their behaviour).

I think you are hitting the nail on the head when you are talking about it dealing with a particular trope or storytelling setup that annoys or frustrates you (a group of boys and one girl).

You are right, it is based on something out of the '60s... almost. It's actually a novel written by a man in the '80s remembering his childhood from the 1950s and turning it into a story about remembering your childhood in the 1950s... which filmmakers who grew up in the '80s have transplanted to their own youth.

But on a larger note, I do not see how the boys are misogynistic. They are not woke in modern 2017 vernacular, nor would they be given the film mostly takes place in 1989, and kids unto themselves can be awful. Stephen King is aware that children can be cruel and monstrous. In fact, I think the movie smoothes out some of the most sadistic edges, like how Richie says racist things to Mike, and the latter just has to laugh along, and then yes Henry Bowers is much more monstrous (and openly racist) in the book too.

As for its handling of gender politics, I actually think other than the lazy and disappointing third act plot development of Bev becoming a damsel in distress, the film takes very painful steps toward addressing what you're talking about. Beverley is in a toxic situation at home with a father who demonizes her for her burgeoning sexuality. That same quality is why she is taunted at school, and how she is only now becoming aware of the power she can hold over men... including creepy druggists.

This is not demeaning her, but rather pretty sensitively dealing with the idea of abuse in a more sinister unspoken way that gets to plenty of subtext beyond just having her be physically beaten (which is what King mostly does until some rather grim third act insinuations that are more overt in the film). It is about a young girl who is targeted by everyone, except Pennywise who is an equal opportunist, due to both gender and class--do not forget a major reason she is targeted by her peers for gossip and crude rumors is because that in addition to having a period like Carrie, she comes from a poor home with a disreputable father. Parents talk. Kids use that as an excuse when she doesn't have the money or social support to defend herself.

It is actually pretty open in considering the role of sexuality in a girl's life when on the precipice of puberty, and it is giving a healthy message about her taking command and control of it. You criticize the movie for having boys stare at Bev, but that is what boys do, and that is also what Bev is considering. Her father leers at her; Henry Bowers leers at her; apparently the pharmacist leers at her. She is taking control of that and not in a sexual way, but in a self-aware and confident way. She is having to deal with a patriarchal world that victimizes women, and grapples with that in a sincere way as opposed to pretending it doesn't exist, which seems to be what many culture critics would prefer when they raise similar objections.

As for how the boys treat her; she is just another one of the club and not. They're too young to know why it's different, but they do treat her as their heart, because, yes, they all have a crush on her. That is not misogynistic, that is just a genuinely natural form of character progression in this situation. I find something like the much more saccharine Harry Potter books more of a problem as it doesn't actually represent genuine childhood emotions.

In any event, the book nor the film are perfect. I wish Henry Bowers had chased all of the children into the sewers and that Bev was not kidnapped. And I wish that sewer scene in the novel didn't occur. But if you think the boys are misogynistic for having a crush, or Ben is a date rapist for believing in true love's kiss, I think you are mostly just using hyperbole to exaggerate your disdain for the basic premise of the movie.

 

[DACrowe]

Agreed. I get where Mad Ones is coming from, but in the context of this movie, it's not the hill to die on to make these points, because that's not what the movie is trying to be.

I get creating a discussion about representation of sex and gender and its interpretation and how we should look at it and it's very important. But sometimes with art, there comes a point where it's projection. Not every movie needs to be judged sociologically. Sometimes, a lot of the times, it's just a piece of entertainment, otherwise if you judge it on those terms, a lot of movies wouldn't be enjoyed. It's like discounting or criticizing a Chris Nolan movie because of his representation of women or dismissing All In The Family for having a bigot as your main character. You're looking in the wrong places here. You're looking more into it where the filmmakers didn't intend. Yes, I get it. Some filmmakers aren't cognizant of these social ideas and it feeds into from society where it creates a cycle and so on, but again, another time and place to discuss those. It's just not applicable here. It reminds me of when people were calling 13 Reasons Why dangerous. You get into troubling territory where it just becomes puritanical on the other end of the spectrum. It becomes a simple matter of misreading, it becomes toxic to art.

If everybody made art or viewed it from the strict view of a woke meter, things would be less interesting.

Well said. I think there is a need for our art to represent and improve our understanding of culture and life. But to view art solely through the lens of a "woke meter" (great term) is reductive. As is judging characters who would not exist within the confines of modern political correctness solely on whether they adhere to said correctness by the letter.