Talk:It (2017 film)

Suspicious Marketing and News Coverage as Hidden Advertising

Several sources question the sudden 'sightings' of clowns being covered in the media as shady marketing for a movie announced to release.

The "coverage" "questioning" the shady marketing also makes repeated use of King and expounds on the movie in great detail, usually sliding the story into a full-on PR piece for the upcoming movie.

I hoped for better from my favorite author.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/28/what-we-know-creepy-clown-reports-across-nation/91171858/

http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/08/are-the-clown-sightings-in-south-carolina-real/498059/

http://nypost.com/video/theres-a-terrifying-clown-crisis-spreading-across-the-country/

Sincerely,

Constant Reader, King-Inspired Writer, Disappointed Adult — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.244.2 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Good Work

Hello everyone, just wanted to say how great the article is coming along (wish that the original film received this much attention). Keep up the good work. Hopefully we can get this one and the other film version to meet GA or FA status.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well given it took me months to overhaul the original page into the current one I should think so haha --Bartallen2 (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That was a hint.....--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It: Part 1 - The Losers' Club

Can someone please move the current page to It: Part 1 - The Losers' Club (given it's the confirmed title of the piece); many thanks!--Bartallen2 (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Controversy section

Neither this section or the 2016 Clown Sighting article mentions any specific links between the film and the sightings, neither are their any links to prove it. Unless it's referenced it should be left out. Even if there are proven links, which their aren't, it isn't "controversy" anyway. Any unsourced content put back in will be reported Cls14 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone intent on spoiling Wikipedia put this stupid section back in. Unless you can actually find some references to the link grow up and leave Wikipedia alone. Cls14 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The Loser's Club??

Where is there a verifiable reference that the title of the film is It: The Loser's Club? All of the marketing material and press releases simply have the title It. This needs to be removed unless someone can corroborate it. --Drown Soda (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking that. I can't actually view the article at the moment (work filter doesn't like killer clowns!) so I can't do much about it right now. Cls14 (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who provided such a title; I clarify it within the N3 tag title reference; as well as from King's statement within the Release section of the article.--Bartallen2 (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Bartallen2, while it is sourceable that this is an alternative title, it is undue weight to put it in the opening sentence. A search engine test shows that this alternative title is never used in the past month's set of articles about the film. I've positioned it at the end of the first paragraph instead without the over-emphasized bold formatting. Drown Soda, Cls14, would this work instead? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Erik:, seems fair enough to me. I personally found the alternate title in the lead confusing from day one as it's not appeared in any of the promotional material—it almost upon first read seems as if you're at the wrong article. I think having it in the lead may even be unnecessary, but it's much better to not have it in the opening sentence so as to lessen confusion. -- Drown Soda (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Erik:, it's better. I can't view the article on the works PC I'm at because the filter is ridiculously sensitive and it's blocked Cls14 (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

TropicAces, see above for support of not treating the alternative title almost as equally as the main one. There's just no due weight in support of this being used, especially the last two months with all the marketing and all the press. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Line Cinema change

Reading the article that the Hollywood Reporter wrote, it said that the film was being made by New Line Cinema. It didn't say they were distributing the film. I suggest we move the company to a production company credit. Any thoughts? -- Adamtb24 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Bob Gray

Pennywise uses the alias Bob Gray in the novel, but this is not the novel. Where is the Bob Gray moniker cited, specifically for this film? DarkKnight2149 15:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Poster Image Needs to Be Updated

Just thought I'd let you all know that the poster currently shown in this article is an older one and a new one (the official release poster) has been released and should replace the one currently in this article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The Comic Con poster is still a teaser poster, but not the official theatrical release poster.--Bartallen2 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Cast Section

This blurb, "On the character of Marsh, Muschietti spoke of her knowing a situation of despair, on top of the terror of It and the fear of heights, to which he stated, " reads funny after being repeated in each of The Loser's bios. Was hoping there was at least another way of wording it that doesn't sound so cut and paste? 74.74.64.241 (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I wrote it as a quotation from Muschietti in which he states "Each ‘loser’ knows a situation of despair, on top of the terror of It and the fear of heights. Beverly’s case is, of course, the worst, because it’s about sexual abuse on a minor. But each kid is neglected one way or the other. Bill is like a ghost in his own home: nobody sees him because his parents can’t get over Georgie’s death."--Bartallen2 (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand that the statement is referring to each character, I just thought it sounded funny as I was reading the cast bios. Thanks for your swift response, I won't be touching/changing it. 74.74.64.241 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Early reactions

Shouldn't there be a reception part now that early reviews have come out? --Matt723star (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Bloated article. Who's got a pin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.85.65 (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Eight years of background and 300 references?

Looks like it took eight years for this project to move from original concept to final film. As a result, the article is filled with nearly 300 references covering the speculation and possibilities and considerations of numerous producers and screenwriters and casting agents and actors and directors over the eight years. Waiting that long for a final product, with nothing concrete to point to, leads to any interesting tidbits that might show up in the press being included here in place of concrete data. But does it still make sense to keep the years worth of random speculation in place now that the final players have been found and the final product has been produced?

For example, there are 29 references for "Cast - Bill Skarsgård as It / Pennywise The Dancing Clown / Bob Gray". Some of these cover the random speculation of possible actors who were thought of, over the eight years, to play the part. We don't normally waste time with long lists of every actor that was thought of, for a few minutes, for every role in every movie. It would seem that the real key for this article is that, because the project took so long, the original major consideration was Will Poulter, and years later it became Bill Skarsgård. Done. The rest is tidbits filling in for data while everyone went through the eight years of waiting-for-something-to-actually-happen.

For a related example, does it really require four references to support the statement "An ancient, trans-dimensional evil that awakens every three decades."? The statement is 9 words, and it has 233 words to "prove" it, as if it is a major controversy that needs tons of backup! Heck, once the film is released, it won't need any external reference - someone says it during the film, so it can be written into the wiki article. Done. The Cast section for Gone With The Wind, for example, draws from what is shown on the screen - it did not need four references to confirm that the cast was grouped on screen in a certain way. Again, this seems to be the result of having years to wait for the project to be completed, so there was years worth of references to add while waiting for the film to finally show up.

It also appears that the comments from years ago have not been updated for the passage of time. For example, under the Production section, it still used the phrases "The project has been in ongoing development since 2009.[90][91][92] To date, the proposed film adaptation has gone through two major phases of planning: initially with Cary Fukunaga from 2009 to 2015, with the early contributions of screenwriter David Kajganich, and currently with Andrés Muschietti, with Fukunaga remaining in some capacity due to prior screenplay contributions.[84][93][94][95]" (56 words, requiring 7 references?) The adaptation is no longer "in ongoing development", it is now "done" - with a possible mention of the second film coming up to finish the "It" story. Likewise, "the proposed film" is a "finished film". Little temporal items like this are found throughout.

None of this is a comment against the work and effort that was applied, over eight years of waiting, by a large number of fellow editors. The problem is that the folks making the film took forever, they filled the air with possibilities and speculation, and there was nothing else to report here. But now that the film is done, does it still need the 183,554 bytes - before the plot synopsis has even been added - of everything that happened during the eight year wait, complete with 300 references, with multiple references to support every single data points?

I'm just asking, I'm not attacking. I am happy to drop the subject, but thought it should at least be raised. I look forward to constructive discussion.Jmg38 (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Location Questions

Which parks or forests were the nature scenes shot at? This swim-hole/cliff-jumping scene: where is that?? Does anyone have this info?