Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First series with the new (old?) HBO Max branding...

Is this just a retelling of the earlier half of the book? If not for the IP, I would guess this was some Blumhouse level mediocrity.

 Ghaz wrote:
with the new (old?) HBO Max branding...

I saw the re-re-branding in the news the other day. I knew if I stayed the course and kept saying "HBO Max" in spite of it changing to just "Max", that the world would correct itself.

Sweet, sweet vindication!

In regards to the show, I'll probably check it out when I resub here shortly. Getting to the urge to re-watch some HBO classics(Rome, The Wire, etc).

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Is this just a retelling of the earlier half of the book? If not for the IP, I would guess this was some Blumhouse level mediocrity.

No. The 2017 film took place in 1988-89, instead of 1957-58 as the novel did. Therefore, this would have occurred in 1930-31 if they would have kept the dates used in the novel instead of the films.

Ah thanks. I forgot they changed the timeline from the book.

I forgot the town in It was called Derry and thought for a second they were going to do an IT Derry Girls crossover.

 Da Boss wrote:
I forgot the town in It was called Derry and thought for a second they were going to do an IT Derry Girls crossover.

That would be great, honestly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
First series with the new (old?) HBO Max branding...

With every new It adaptation,I pray harder they don't add that sewer scene into it somehow.

The sewer scene made sense in the context of the book in the time it was written. There’s a bunch of messed up stuff in the book, and an obsession with innocence and the transition to adulthood. Times have changed, and I wouldn’t expect modern readers to approach it the same way, but it wasn’t any more objectionable on release than the ending of Cujo, far less so as I recall.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The sewer scene made sense in the context of the book in the time it was written. There’s a bunch of messed up stuff in the book, and an obsession with innocence and the transition to adulthood. Times have changed, and I wouldn’t expect modern readers to approach it the same way, but it wasn’t any more objectionable on release than the ending of Cujo, far less so as I recall.

I don't know, I don't have thin skin when it comes to this stuff, but the way it's integrated feels forced and really reflects the coke binge King was on. You can write about kids becoming adults without having an 11-year old do that stuff to 'restore morale' or whatever. King has a pretty unique approach to writing this stuff. Apt Pupil and The Stand are both good examples.
Again, I'm not one of those 'Yikes! This is problematic!' types, stuff ages, I understand. I just can't see how it wasn't some huge controversy to have child-on-child 'relations' in your horror novel in 1986.

Except, she was a victim of SA.

And it’s a depressing fact that victims of SA can be more, well let’s just call it precocious in that realm. So the scene is challenging, sure. But not and I really don’t like this word in the context, inaccurate.

Within context, it serves its purpose. Their collective encounter with Pennywise robbed them of certain innocence. Mislead as what happens is, it can be read as them all, for once, consenting to lose one part of innocence.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Except, she was a victim of SA.

And it’s a depressing fact that victims of SA can be more, well let’s just call it precocious in that realm. So the scene is challenging, sure. But not and I really don’t like this word in the context, inaccurate.

Within context, it serves its purpose. Their collective encounter with Pennywise robbed them of certain innocence. Mislead as what happens is, it can be read as them all, for once, consenting to lose one part of innocence.

Forgot about that part, understand it a bit more. Thanks for clarifying, m8

Genuinely not sure if you’re being sarcastic, but I’ll assume you’re not.

And if you are? Entirely fair enough Challenging content* is challenging, and nowt wrong with finding it a bit too much.

*not my post.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Genuinely not sure if you’re being sarcastic, but I’ll assume you’re not.

And if you are? Entirely fair enough Challenging content* is challenging, and nowt wrong with finding it a bit too much.

*not my post.

Nope, not a trace of sarcasm was intended there. Don't necessarily have a problem with having that scene in it, King can do what he likes, I just have no idea why he put it in, that's it. Doesn't ruin the book or anything. Similar to how the revolver-rape scene in The Stand doesn't ruin the book either, even if it's an odd way of showing how demented someone is...
Generally, I think if something is challenging, readers can just put the book down, unless you have serious trauma (in which, yes a warning might be warranted) i don't really see what can be done about it.

Fair dos duder