Stephen King's IT

The second half of the movie is honestly such a drag

vegeta bre said:the second half of the movie was freaking boring

Wow, truly some top-tier constructive criticism right there, really helping us all out

I assume you actually bothered to read the book too, right?

Peter Hayes2 said:really helpful feedback

I assume you’ve actually read the book yourself?

He "read" it about the same way he "watched" Greek horror, which clearly doesn't stop him from calling it garbage just because he hasn't seen the movie.
The only thing that actually bothered me in the book was that disturbing scene involving a child in the sewers... was that really necessary?... 🙂

Peter Hayes2 said:super helpful

I'm assuming you actually read the book, too?

Nah, I just watched the movie.

The book is actually even better... especially the second part... it’s just absolutely crawling with pedophilia

Justin Taylor6 said:The book is actually better... especially the second part... it's just full of pedophilia.

Hmm, either I'm mistaken, or you found that child sex subplot a bit too stimulating? 😬

crimsonmoose3 said:He "read" it just like he did the Greek witch one, but apparently that doesn't stop him from calling it garbage just like every other movie he hasn't even bothered to watch.
For me, the only thing that actually rubbed me the wrong way in the book was that twisted scene with the kids in the sewer—I mean, was that really necessary? 🙂

Well, look, King did exactly what he set out to do: he shocked people.

But if you think about it, that whole act is supposed to represent the transition from an innocent childhood into the harsh realities of the adult world, effectively marking the end of their friendship, at least as they knew it back then.

Peter Hayes2 said:well, King did exactly what he intended: he went for the shock factor.

But that act should represent a transition from an innocent childhood into the adult world, effectively ending their friendship—at least the childhood version of it.

I realize he wrote it just to be provocative, but does he even need to? Even if Justin Taylor6 touched on this in another thread, relying on shock value feels like the laziest move a writer can make. Especially for a writer of his caliber.
You make a fair point about the symbolism of the act. Still, it ruined the book for me.

I’ve always had a soft spot for supernatural thrills in both cinema and literature, yet lately, I find myself unable to get through much of it because King hasn't quite hit his stride over the last two decades; he presents these compelling ideas that demand your patience and attention, only to undermine them with poor execution at the finish line. I’ve been hearing more and more that he’s become far too preoccupied with graphic physical gore and excessive descriptions in his recent work. Since he is the King, everyone else seems to follow suit, leaving us with very little genuine Horror to actually sink our teeth into—nothing quite reaching the heights of Radiation, Talisman, or those short stories he contributed alongside H.P. Lovecraft and Clive Barker in the Horror anthology. I even attempted to read Summer Night Simmons, but found him just as suffocating with his overly detailed descriptions of delicate situations. Why is it that so many of these authors have become so sadistic toward their own characters?

Tyler Sanchez said:Why does it feel like most of them are sadists even toward their own characters?

Well, that’s a fair question. I’ll admit I tend to be a bit sadistic with my own characters in my noir and vampire stories too. But since the protagonists themselves are usually sadists, I suppose it isn't really an issue...

Tyler Sanchez said:Why does it feel like most of them are just sadistic toward their own characters?

Honestly, it’s because life itself is a total sadist to everyone, isn't it? I think I mentioned this before, but if you find King's stories too much to handle, maybe stick to Koontz; he isn't quite as much of a masochist when it comes to his cast.

Peter Hayes2 said:Because life itself is sadistic toward them. Like I said before; if you find King's stories too "heavy," stick to Koontz. He isn't quite as much of a sadist when it comes to his characters.

No way. His books are weaker and more tedious than King's. There are exceptions like After Midnight and Guardians, but the rest are just mediocre...

I tend to agree; there’s just something about Koontz that doesn't quite seem to sink under the skin.

crimsonmoose3 said:No way, his books are honestly weaker and just plain more boring than King's. You could argue that After Midnight and the guardians are exceptions, but everything else he's written is pretty much garbage.

Sure, but he’s definitely a bit softer on his characters, isn't he? You actually know who's going to make it out alive and who isn't.

Peter Hayes2 said:Sure, but he’s much softer on his characters. You always know who makes it out alive and who doesn't.

The sugary ending in the book After Midnight really rubbed me the wrong way. There isn't that much sweetness in even the most intense Hollywood romance...
If you're following my stories, just tell me straight—is it obvious whether my characters live or die?

crimsonmoose3 said:But honestly, that sugary-sweet ending in the book After Midnight really rubbed me the wrong way. There isn't that much saccharine in even the cheesiest Hollywood romance movie.
If you’re actually following my stories, why don't you just tell me straight up whether my characters are going to kick the bucket or not, huh?

Well, I'm not actually keeping up with them, so where am I even supposed to find them? I'd love to give them a read if I could actually track them down.

man, I've spotted them in local libraries (like the one over by my place) and even in some big bookstores (saw them at a Barnes & Noble recently)

crimsonmoose3 said:Wait, am I seeing things, or did that whole segment about kids having sex actually get you worked up? 😬

No, it isn't.

And honestly, that’s exactly what I’m getting at—the second part is where things actually get interesting. That's my whole point right there. 🙂

Joshua Johnson67 said:well, I’ve spotted them in libraries (like the one over in Chicago) and even in some bookstores (I saw some at Barnes & Noble)

🤔

hmm, but under what name exactly? I haven't really spent much time digging through his bibliography

Peter Hayes2 said:🤔

Hmm, under what name? I'm not particularly familiar with his body of work...

You won't believe it, Dean R. Koontz. 🙄 🙄