Talk:It (miniseries)

Novel vs. Miniseries

WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY more needs to be added on differences. Especially on sexuality. I'm working on making it longer. 2Pac 13:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In fact, I think several of the sections citing differences run way too long. For example, the discussion of the "Omitted Elements". This entire section should be deleted, or if nothing more condensed. To call them ommitted is, at least in part, an error anyway. They were not omitted, they were removed, and every element listed there was removed due to "standards and practices". This was originally produced by, funded by, and aired on ABC, the champions of overcensoring (i wonder if the "tar baby" omission had anything to do with Disney's Song of the South fisaco?) so I'm of the opinon anything that got cut out due to S&P really doesn't deserve mention. Smokachu 11:51, 4 April 2007

I read somewhere that the phrase "beep beep richie" was meant to mean "shut up richie" i've never read the novel so is that true? -JKB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.32.110 (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Not sure if it's stated but that seems to be the way they use it in the novel. 64.119.57.59 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Library

In the movie, at the library where Mike worked since when the gang were kids, on the table at one part is a novel entitled "The Glowing." This is almost surely a reference to King's "The Shining." --Wilbur 01:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well there's a character there, i forget his name (the author), King said he based himself on this guy.66.115.235.199 02:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"The Glowing" is a fictional book written by "William Denborough", the lead character of IT. LuciferMorgan 12:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added that tidbit of trivia. Mhacdebhandia 13:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Remake?

I clicked on both links to the so-called remake. It showed stephen's page' frame but the middle said there was nothing. The remake part should be removed. It's been 10 years.

It was reported last year on Fangoria it would happen, but talks broke down. I was the one who said this and I think it's important to the article that the reamke at least be mentioned. The film verision of THe Eyes Of The Dragon is mentioned on it's page, even thought it will never happen. --Unopeneddoor 00:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me what issue of Fangoria you found the mention? Then I can add the source to the page, thanks Desdinova 17:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

can someone update the remake section? only americans know when memorial weekend is. but, of course, only americans read wikipedia or watch stuff... typical. 82.43.64.177 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If someone address this despite your confrontational tone, it's a pretty good sign people are forgiving. If no one addresses it, I'd suggest it's a pretty good sign your tone didn't help. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

i don't care either way, i don't really expect any Americans to think of anyone other than themselves! what i said is true, and in no way controntational - nothing aggressive about my comment, as far as i can tell. 82.43.64.177 (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Cast

If I knew more about actors I would do this edit myself, but I try not to memorize actor names. This article needs a Cast section saying which actor is which person in the film. Also your staring section is missing Seth Green. I actually came here to see who he played in the movie. Just a suggestion though. The best part of the whole movie was the scene between Pennywise and Georgie... and it doesn't even rate a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.200.60.7 (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

IP Edits

Recently I've had to babysit this page because numerous IP edits are removing valid information, along with vandalising the mainspace with questions about the movie. It's getting really annoying. I requested semi-protection so these IP edits will stop. I hope they protect the page, as if you look at the history, quite a few users (not just myself) have to constantly revert their changes. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the book and seen the miniseries, if you have then you would know that

• An adult Beverly helping an old woman clean up a mess of coffee which turned into blood and the Old lady turned out to be It and was talking like her late father.
• A young Bill looking at his late brother, Georgie's picture in a book. Georgie then winks and the pages start turning and blood is pouring out of the book.

did happen in the novel, but they were listed under "While many of Its attacks are represented accurately in the film, some never appear in Stephen King's novel at all, and are completely unique to the film. These include the following." So i took them out, but you warned me for taking them out.So I'm telling you now that you should take that out because if you don't then people who have seen one but not the other or none at all would get the wrong impression.

• Well, I have the book in my hands right now. 1st edition hard cover. I'd like to read a bit from where the part of the book you are explaining. Page 571. 2nd full paragraph. "She was dimly aware that it was not tea in her cup but shit, liquid shit, a little party-favor from the sewers under the city. She had drunk some of that, not much but a sip, oh God, oh God, oh blessed Jesus, please, please ---. So as I have reiterated in the 10+ times I've had to revert the page, the information listed on the article is correct, as it was blood in the mini-series, but shit in the novel. Now, will you please stop editing out the valid information on this article. Thank you. (oh and by the way, please sign your comments with 4 tilde's) --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 05:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that the attack did happen, but you're gonna put it on there because of one little deatail that really doesn't matter anyway.

And what abou the part with Bill and the book? That happenned on the book and the movie, yet it's still on there. --User:Glm is sexy 02:54, Jun 24 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, remove the part about the book if you want --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 00:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. --User:Glm is sexy 10:28, Jun 24 2007 (UTC)

• I moved the controversial item to the "Other Differences" section, so it doesn't have the "are completely unique to the film" stigma attached to it. It did happen in both the novel and the mini-series, albeit the tea was feces in the novel, and blood in the mini-series. Since it was basically accurate, save for the contents of the tea, it was moved and rewritten. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. --User:Glm is sexy 05:28, Jun 26 2007 (UTC)

It and it

I was going to go ahead and ignore the manual of style and convert all of the "It" references within the article to It. I think this is an good exception mainly because when the monobook default font renders the "I" in "It" it is easily confused with the lowercase "i" in "it." Please lemme know if you have any problems. --slakr^\ talk / 22:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of a sentence from "Other Differences"

I removed this sentence:

*Also in the film it is not shown that It was a female,It is pregnant and as adults It has eggs in It's lair which they destroy while Bill fights It.

The reason why I removed it is for a few reasons. First, it's poorly written (normally if something is poorly written, the obvious answer is to rewrite it, however with regards to my next points it was just a small part of my decision). Secondly, it's original research. It's also incorrect. It's not a difference between the book and the mini-series. It is not mentioned anywhere in any of Stephen King's novels (It is mentioned in other novels as well) ever that It is a female. In fact, I'm pretty damned sure that It is ABSENT of a sex. It isn't a "he" or a "she". No pun intended, but It is an it. It's true form is never shown. The deadlights is presumed to be closest to it's real form, if I'm not mistaken. It takes the form of whatever the victim is most afraid of. Oddly enough It always takes the form of a "male" version of the victim's terror. So if anything, it would be more easily arguable that It is a male instead of a female, however I still stand by my reasoning that It does not have a sex. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi from pennywise! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.195.62 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• shoots furiously with slingshot* DIE, BASTARD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.124.193 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's entirely true. In the novel, the idea that It will reproduce is crucial. It's true form is probably genderless, however, Chapter 21/3: The writer's woman had put out one powerful, horrified thought - OH DEAR JESUS IT IS FEMALE - and then all thoughts ceased. And, at the end of Chapter 21: That's Its egg-sac, Ben thought, and his mind seemed to shriek at the implication. Whatever It is beyond what we see, this representation is at least symbolically correct: It's female, and It's pregnant . . . It was pregnant then and none of us knew except Stan, oh Jesus Christ YES, it was Stan, Stan, not Mike, Stan who understood, Stan who told us . . . That's why we had to come back, no matter what, because It is female, It's pregnant with some unimaginable spawn . . . and Its time has drawn close.

Perhaps King's portrayal of It differs in other books, but in this one (which should be the most relevent to this film), it seems to me that this is a very important difference between the film and the novel. (I didn't insert the entry originally, however... the differences between the film and the book are so great I'm not sure it's even worth itemizing them.) 216.144.119.132 (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Stephen King's IT being remade or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.21.31 (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Glad somebody here actually reads before changing things here. Yes It is female and yes the egg sack is in the film. Not sure why it's so hard to believe that such an evil and violent thing could be female, look at animals in nature. Humans seem to be one of the few exceptions to this, but females are generally the aggressive and more violent members of a species, especially when ready to multiply. "It" is just an animal on a much higher level, the same way we are just animals on a higher level than ants. Sure we can't create illusions to mess with an ant's head but...well just look at the sick things children instinctively do to animals that are weaker and helpless to them. Personally when I was close to that part of the novel I kind of assumed the big reveal would be that "It" is just a child (sounds silly I know but the way the Patrick character was emphasized seemed to be drawing that conclusion. He tortures, kills, and collects insects the same way that "It" tortures, kills, and collects human children. Sorry I'm rambling, just saying there's many ways to see it but it's pretty much stated outright that It is female. Maybe there's no reliable source to prove this but it's in the actual novel. How many plot details on this page can be verified with a reliable source? Can anyone show me a link that proves that Pennywise is also known as Bob Gray? 64.119.57.59 (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Replacing the image

The Pennywise image in the article should be removed since it has no fair use rationale. I suggest uploading a poster image as an identifying image for the infobox, and it will show Pennywise, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please keep "Differences between the novel and film"

This will tell people (who haven't read the original novel) the differences between both the novel and film, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.134.188.237 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 January 2011

This is trivial, uncited original research. I does not tell people the differences between the two, it tells people what you noticed that you thought was different and significant enough to mention. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Any notable differences can be discussed in any writing, development or production sections with, and only with, reference to reliable sources. Sometimes filmmakers mention in interviews or audio commentaries why a change was made. The_Golden_Compass_(film)#Differences_from_the_novel does it pretty well. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Adaptation_from_source_material, "Writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Discouraged and unsourced -- it should go. SQGibbon (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A discussion has be opened on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Differences_between_novel_and_film. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Kaspbrak Facebook Page

Can someone remove this? I've tried several times and I can't seem to figure out how? This section bares no relevance to this page and is blatant self-advertising. I nominate it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.76.201 (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't find what you're talking about. What section is it in? I'm searching the whole text (on the code side) for facebook and face book but not finding anything. Millahnna (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be gone now, but it was under "Reception". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.76.201 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll look for it in the history so that I have a visual to watch out for in the future. Thanks for the heads up. Millahnna (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.76.201 (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Disembowel It's Heart

In the last sentence it says they disembowel It's heart, but that doesn't make sense. To disembowel is to take out the bowels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.156.66 (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Horrific grammar

I'm reading through the first part of the article now (1960), and it's like the person who wrote it didn't understand that a complete sentence in the English language requires a verb. Sentence fragments and comma splices abound. This article desperately needs to be rewritten in complete English sentences.

Cleanup and Expansion

This article is poorly developed and is missing important information on the film's development, and production which needs to be added to the article. The reception section is also way too short and needs reviews from notable critics added to this section. There are several sections in this article that do not cite any sources to its information, these section need to be fixed or deleted so that they fit with the article. All of these changes and additions need to occur on order for this article to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed and properly referenced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Expansion so far is looking good. However, it still needs work on it and some of its information remains unsourced.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The reception section needs more reviews added to it. Also the article itself doesn't cite a lot of sources. Although much of its information is sourced, if there are more sources that list the same information then it should be added as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

"Cult following" vs. WP:WEIGHT

Yes, one reviewer does say it has become a "cult classic' (which is different than having a cult following). It is appropriate to mention that, with attribution, in the reception section.

If the TV miniseries had articles about its cult following (similar to Rocky Horror Picture Show) and all the seeming madness that surrounds such things: midnight showings, fan clubs and conventions, etc., that might be something to include in the lede. The lede is where we summarize the important aspects of a topic. One reviewer's comment is not something you state twice: once to say it and another time to "summarize" it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

27 vs. 30

The novel specifies 27 years. To the best of my recollection, the miniseries follows this. A dynamic IP editor keeps changing it to 30. Unless someone can confirm that it is 30, I will continue to revert it and, if necessary, work on a range block for the IP editor. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The original miniseries is 30 years, the new film is 27. This is told in two sequences. When Mike first arrives at the school and talks about the history of Derry, the tragic events happen every 30 years. Secondly, when all the adults are in the hotel and Mike is passing out newspapers, he remarks that the sequences of them as kids happened 30 years ago. He even specifically says "[the events happened] exactly 30 years later." He then proceeds to list off the tragic events in Derry's history one more time. 1960, 1930, 1900, and on, and on... So yes, 30 years is correct.

Bibliography

So I've noticed that the sources listed in the Bibliography section are not cited in the article itself. They should be cited as ()--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Its vs. It's

There is a discussion going on regarding whether grammatically, Its or It's should be used as the possessive form. If you are interested in reading the different viewpoints and weighing in, you can do so at Talk:It (novel)/Archive 2#Its versus It's, round three. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Am I the only one that doesn't understand how this is relevant to the article about the Stephen King's It 1990 miniseries? And anyway, aren't there established grammar rules for this issue? Anyhow I don't see why it's on this talk page. RagingR2 (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The grammatical peculiarity of "its" as the possessive is for the pronoun "it". In the context of this article, "It" is a proper noun. Please see the discussion at Talk:It_(novel)/Archive_3#Its_versus_It's,_round_three.

The consensus was to use "It's" as the possessive form of "It". In this usage, "It" is a proper noun. The English peculiarity of "its" as the possessive form of "it" is irrelevant. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional Literary Sources to Add

So looking at this article, there is still a lot that is needed to be done to it with some sections needing to be cleaned up. I have also been looking at some information from literary sources that can be added to both this article and the ones on the character, and novel. Here is what I have so far on some literary sources that can be added (there are plenty of other literary sources that are not mentioned here):

• A Literary Stephen King Companion by Rocky Wood (Pgs 100-101; 137)
• Stephen King: The Non-Fiction by Rocky Wood and Justin Brooks (Pgs 372-373; 374-375)
• Stephen King and Philosphy edited by Jacob M. Held (Pgs 173, 176, 177, 181, 186, 189, 242)
• TV Horror:Investigating the Dark Side of the Small Screen by Lorna Jowett and Stacey Abbott (Pgs 72, 74-76)

--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Principal cast?

Why isn't Annette O'Tool shown in the 'thumbnail gallery' of principcal cast, under 'Cast'? While at the same time Jonathan Brandis (young Bill) is listed. Either list all of them, or just the (adult) 'loser club' members, but in any case list *all* of the adult 'loser club' members. Or just make the caption say "some of the principle cast". But I really don't know why you'd want to exclude Annette O'Tool. She has more dialogue than some of the other members, if that has to be a criterium... RagingR2 (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It's vs. Its, current consensus

Please see the discussion at Talk:It_(novel)/Archive_3#Its_versus_It's,_round_three.

The consensus was to use "It's" as the possessive form of "It". In this usage, "It" is a proper noun. The English peculiarity of "its" as the possessive form of pronoun "it" is irrelevant. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Promo Artwork description

The comment for the promo art states: "Pennywise (played by Tim Curry), rips through a white wall, using his two three-fingered claws, with a malevolent grin on his face. Behind him is an entrance to a sewer." But isn't the background supposed to be a VHS tape? I know that the picture most likely first appeared on the VHS cover (as a TV miniseries there were no "Theatrical" posters), and they wanted to create the "illusion" that Pennywise rips through the package with the tape appearing behind him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.122.241.26 (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Actual poster

Actually, there WAS an original poster for this film upon its airing 1990. It's in page 32 of this early 1991 Fangoria feature! ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.200.112 (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

alternative versions

The version of It I grew up with was missing a lengthy sequence (I believe after the incident in the Chinese restaurant) where the Losers sit around and talk about their lives, their failings, etc. I was surprised to see this scene on my Blu-Ray as I had never seen it before. I believe the version I am familiar with also cut a brief scene of Georgie going into the basement to retrieve the paraffin use to seal the boat. I can't find a source that mentions these omissions, but I was wondering if anyone else remembers this version. It may have been available only in Australia, I really don't knowRobbmonster (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Production - Mrs. Kersh

It says here that "For the part when Mrs. Kersh is revealed to be Alvin Marsh's corpse, Florence Peterson was still playing the character". I was just watching the documentary "Pennywise - The Story of "IT"", and they DEFINITELY put the "Alvin Marsh corpse" makeup on Frank C. Turner and not Florence Peterson. How do you quote/source info from a movie, which you really can't link to? 91.204.194.77 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Fill out parameters in {{Cite AV media}} as best you can. Title obviously, timestamp, if possible, and a quote if it helps. Providing a link is not necessary. It helps, but there are often sources in print-only formats that can't be linked, either. The verifiability doesn't need to be online verifiability. Things can always be verified in a library or renting a video WP:OFFLINE. -2pou (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Plot?

why isn't there a PLOT section? This is 101 Wikipedia...

Why isn't there a CAST section?

This article is a very bad organised Wikipedia page. 95.20.125.197 (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)