I wish Hollywood would grow a set of balls and stick to the source material for once! IT was supposed to have a sex...

I wish Hollywood would grow a set of balls and stick to the source material for once! 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. RUINED WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE STAND OUT HORROR MOVIES OF THE PAST DECADES.
> What do you guys think about this?
> Preferably people that have read the book

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Qu3xxq5F3Gw
google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2017/09/11/original-scripts-gross-creepy-sex-scenes-horrified-parents-ofchild/amp/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

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

Tell me this isn't true...

Rip Steven kings work

Look it up.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

OP READ MY FUCKING COMMENT MAN

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.

op just wants to watch kids fuck

talk about what

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.

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

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

also

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

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.

Some faggot never saw blue lagoon

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

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

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

SK approved this version of IT.

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.

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

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

Weak bait

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

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

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.

Laws changed idiot.

Uncut bluray edition for the win?

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

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.

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.

nice trips. gimme the kiddie porn pls

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).

>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.

>Hollywood doesn't want to sexualize minors

AHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAH

AHAHAHAHA

AHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAH

HA

HA

They've already said they arent

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

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.

>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?

This.

I remember reading it and feeling uncomfortable as fuck.

And I love loli hentai.

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

>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.

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.

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.

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

>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.

Sure thing sport.

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.

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

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?

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.

>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.

>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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

>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.

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

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

Sauce.

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

What darker themes, you fucking dipshit?

I don't believe you.

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

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

Literally on the internet, also fun fact.

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

Fucking idiot.

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

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.

Because he dies after CW you fucking retard.

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.

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

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 user 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.