Talk:It (2017 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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? The cliff-jumping scene looks like The Elora Quarry, Ontario, Canada. Covered Bridge scene: The West Montrose Covered Bridge, Ontario, Canada, also known as The Kissing Bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Controvery section

Why is this section here? The "events" (clown sightings during October in 2016 in various cities) have nothing to do with this film. In fact, nothing in that section mentions this film. The studio for the film says it had nothing to do with it. The events happened almost a full year before the film was released. There's no argument that can be made that the clown sightings (during the month of Halloween, I might add) had anything do with this film. Furthermore, it's not even controversial. When those people dressed as clowns were found and confronted, the vast majority said they were just doing it as a prank. I can see no valid reason to include this section in this article. There's literally no reason for it other than to attach a manufactured "controvery" to a film simply because they both involve clowns. 2602:306:832F:C990:58D:9B2D:4E57:B751 (talk) 04:35, 8 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)

This is also a learning item for me. I've watched a few other articles, and was happy to find one that is being actively updated, so that I can ask these questions:

(such as) Perhaps an article requires four references for every nine words of non-controversial text before it can become B-Class? Is a film article doomed to stay C-Class if it doesn't include things like a list of every single actor considered - even fleetingly - for a particular role? Does quantity of trivia carry more weight than "clarity, balance, or flow"? Do hope to hear some feedback about this. Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Character Descriptions Incorrect

The character descriptions in the Cast section are incorrect. I assume they're based on the book, but changes in the screenplay mean that the book descriptions are no longer relevant to the film. There are numerous examples, including Stan's bird calls no longer playing a role in the film and Mike no longer the historian of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.20.213 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall any characters named Judith, either. Someone mentioned the painting woman form Pennywise uses to attack Stan is Judith, but the article identifies the painting woman as the monster from Mama. 24.71.180.185 (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Mama In IT?

Is there any official confirmation that the woman from the painting in IT is Mama? whatculture.com - the citation used on the Mama page - doesn't exactly strike me as a reliable source, and even that doesn't say that it's Mama. 24.71.180.185 (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

inappropriate content!

In the Plot of IT 2017 film, there's a sentence says: A kind boy but overweight! I hope you edit this, and remove "but". Ali Three Times (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Fate of Beverly's Father Alvin Marsh

I might have missed something (so, if I did, please tell me), but it's not clear that Beverly killed her father with the porcelain. It was a hard hit, yes; but no confirmation of death was given [that I picked up], and Pennywise assuming Marsh's form is not necessarily an indicator, since he [Pennywise] does similarly with Eddie in the Neibolt house, despite Eddie still being alive at that time. Left the edit dual-purpose for now. Sskoog (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't see the end result of her father, but we do see him moving the last time he's on screen. One could surmise that since Bev was taken by Pennywise and Billy didn't call 911, that he died from the trauma and loss of blood. Wikipedia is not in the habit of making assumptions, however. I think the article should be changed to say that she incapacitated him, as opposed to the current wording. 104.50.252.153 (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The above IP editor is me; I decided to create an account again (I had one years ago but don't remember the log-in details and have since changed e-mail addresses). Any further comment I have on this topic will come from the new username. I didn't want there to be any confusion. BatmanManchesterUnitedFan (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have made the suggested edit. Thanks for the feedback. Sskoog (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since "It" is so successful at the box office, and the genre in general is arguably blooming so well, would it be possible to create a Wikipedia page for listing US #1 horror films, specifically?PeterMan844 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017

It says when Beverly incapacitates her father after he attempts to rape her that "is she abducted" this should be She is Abducted 2601:204:C003:7E90:C07C:4834:4F54:4366 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 02:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017

In the plot section...

"While in Bill's garage, the group determines that It moves about unseen by using the sewers around Derry's well, on which 29 Neibolt Street is build, to move around unseen."

...change build to built. 205.132.171.177 (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2017

In the plot section...

"She is abducted by Pennywise, with Bill reassembling the Losers and mount a rescue."

change "and mount a rescue." -> "to mount a rescue." 205.132.171.177 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate character backgrounds

This was brought up earlier, but never resolved. The character descriptions in the article seem to be gleaned from both the book and the film, and mashed into one; albeit inaccurately. For instance, in the book Mike is the history buff who knows the background of Derry and puts the pieces together about It. In the film, it's Ben who does that. However the article describes Mike as the historian of the group who relays information on the past, instead of Ben. Stan's entry talks about his bird book, something never spoken about in the film. Patrick is described as having a fridge full of dead animals, something from the book but not the film. Richie was never referred to as "Trashmouth Tozier" in the film; but is in the book. Nearly the entire cast section needs a rewrite to reflect the film, and not the sourcing material. If the differences in the film confuse visitors to the article, that could be addressed in a section on differences between the film and book, or with a small disclaimer at the top of the cast section. BatmanManchesterUnitedFan (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

additional content

In the Plot of IT 2017 film, at the end of the plot, there is a sentence describing a kiss between two people. This has nothing to do with the film or its plot. I hope this is edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.253.169.20 (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It actually does have something to do with both the film and the plot. The romantic tensions between Bill and Beverly were touched on throughout the film, as well as the seeming jealousy of Ben to the obvious attraction between the two. The Kiss at the end of the film is wholly and completely relevant to the storyline and there's no reason for it to be edited out. BatmanManchesterUnitedFan (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Production section prose

@Gothicfilm: I apologize if a few items were adjusted incorrectly, but please stop restoring to a worse version of the article and simply fix what I changed incorrectly. The article as you have reverted to reads horribly (again WP:PROSELINE) and I did more valid changes, such as moving around info contextually, removing wording such as "in an interview with X" which the Film project frowns upon (beyond it being poor writing), than what I think you perceive to be invalid. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

As a reader, the most important thing to me is that the article be accurate to the facts and the sources. Having the text remain accurate is far more important than PROSELINE, which is an essay, not a guideline or policy. The writing, done mostly by others before I got involved, was not "poor" or horrible, words that should be reserved for far worse I've seen elsewhere. Several of your revisions changed what the sources said, such as "Transformation of Port Hope into Derry ahead of filming in the town began on July 8, 2016". (Since it was actually done by that date.) And several of the specific dates are of real interest, such as when it was announced the first director left. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The text can be accurate, without resorting to PROSELINE writing. For instance, in the second paragraph of the "Muschietti project" section, do we need to know the exact date Roy Lee noted the script was being rewritten? No we don't. We can just state it was said in February 2016. More times than not, the exact date of a statement/announcement is not notable, or something that would be notable 10 years down the line. Also, there is still the bad writing of saying "in an interview with X". One does not need to state where this information was said, as the source attached to it can cover. An example where this is okay is in the "Fukunaga project" section at the end where info from TheWrap is noted, for context of the material being stated. And even still, not everything said on a certain date needs to be listed in that chronological order. It can be moved around to other areas where it would be more beneficial for the reader, as I did with a couple paragraphs. So yes, all in all, the copy-edit version is a better presentation of the material than what it is now, and as I said, if in that copy-editing I misrepresented information (which you've pointed out to me), I apologize. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

What's most beneficial to readers is for the article to be accurate to the sources. I find your statement all in all, the copy-edit version is a better presentation very concerning. Nothing is more important than accuracy. As for the dates, while not all of them are needed, I find several to be of real interest. For example I want to compare the dates for when one director left and the next came aboard. I can't do that in a meaningful way if I only have the months. (And May 25 is not the end of the month, it's almost a week short of that.) I don't think it was an improvement to bury Fukunaga leaving the film in the middle of a paragraph. Much better to have that in the beginning of a new paragraph. You had other things in there as well that were taking value away from the article for me as a reader. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect details regarding Ben Hanscom

Under plot, the details is the Ben sees a headless corpse in his basement. This is incorrect, the corpse is encountered in the basement of the library, in the records section. Andrewjdunbar (talk) 17:18, 18 September 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)

Agreed, the name of Bob Gray is not mentioned in the movie Andrewjdunbar (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Names of Characters in Plot Section

Hi everyone,

In the plot section all of the characters are introduced first by their full name (e.g. 'Bill Denbrough') then subsequently just by their last name (e.g. 'Denbrough'). I know this is the technically correct way to refer to characters, however I was wondering if it would be more appropriate in this case to refer to them by their first names (e.g. 'Bill') rather than by their last name. If we take Stranger Things as an example (as they are very similar), the kid characters are referred to by their first name in the plot summaries on Wikipedia (e.g. Mike Wheeler is referred to as 'Mike', not 'Wheeler'). This is the because the character is more commonly called Mike in the show than he is Wheeler. In that same show, it is appropriate to refer to an character like Jim Hopper by his last name because this is how the other characters refer to him in the show.

I propose that we change the plot summary of this page to refer to all the 'Loser Club' characters by their first name as this is appropriate for the film. I think the bullies can still be referred to by thier last name (e.g. 'Bowers' instead of 'Henry' for Henry Bowers) because again, this is appropriate given how they are referred to within the film itself.

Happy to discuss Whovian99 (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Is IT adventure?

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/it considers it an adventure film. Deloop82 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It: Chapter One

Main article: It: Chapter One

Sorry about the lack of a colon everyone, but when I tried to give the page its correct title, identified by the film itself, and which is the only title people will refer to this film as when It: Chapter Two comes out, but I keep getting redirected when I attempted to rename the page It: Chapter One. Could anyone help me out with this? Rowan North (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

But that's NOT the official title, and the film never identified itself as that. The bit at the end, where "Chapter One" was shown was not a part of the title and simply indicated that the film was the first of a planned duology, which we've known for months. The title of the film is "It," nothing more. Calling it "It: Chapter One" would be original research as there are no sources, official or otherwise, that the title of the film is that. The film is called "It." 104.50.252.153 (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The onscreen title IS the official title. "Chapter One" is part of the official title, 104.50.252.153. — Film Fan 00:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Either way it would seem the film would have to be moved or reorganized for the second part. I think something akin to the Kill Bill articles would be good in this case.★Trekker (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, as we have no idea what the second film is going to be. It could have its own title, like "It Returns" or "It Continues" or something like that. Either way, the official title is not what Wikipedia editors say it is; it's what the film company says it is, anything else is original research. 2602:306:832F:C990:B90D:171:4C48:FFF6 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No I meant that content would have to be moved around if we would make something like the Kill Bill articles which I think would be good. This film seems more like a two-parter than a case where a film simply gets a sequel.★Trekker (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Weren't the Kill Bill films produced as one and then split in two afterwards? The first It is in cinemas but the second is still in the writing phase and will feature only one main cast member returning in a major role - it's pretty different. —Flax5 15:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah you're probably right.★Trekker (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I see what you're saying now re: the Kill Bill articles. I think a wait and see approach is most appropriate here. There's no good reason to rush into changing the page at this point. Especially since it'll probably have to be moved again when the second film starts to take shape. BatmanManchesterUnitedFan (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Pls add Category:2010s psychological horror films

93.172.104.252 (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This falls under supernatural horror not psychological SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 21:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

New IT Sequel Date Confirmed

The new IT sequel date has been confirmed by The Hollywood Reporter to come out on September 6, 2019. Please put this on one of the first couple of paragraphs and on the Sequel content page. Thanks! 'It' Sequel Gets September 2019 Release Date

 Done - Brojam (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Transfering information to It Character Article

I've noticed that there is a lot of information on the title character that can be added to the article on It. This should be added in a development section under a subsection.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

New Section: Criticism Regarding the Portrayal of Mike Hanlon’s Character

Criticism Regarding the Portrayal of Mike Hanlon’s Character

Mike Hanlon is the only main African American character in the movie and book. In the movie, his character is downplayed and without significant importance. This could not be more different from the Mike Hanlon’s character in the book, where he arguably is the central character, keeping the history of Derry and calling the Losers back to Derry when IT returns in modern day. His portrayed as a weak boy who needs to be toughened up by his grandfather is a disgrace to the character built by Stephen King.

Andy Muschietti received extensive criticism for his portray of Mike Hanlon’s character. Although tasked with the difficulty of condensing a 1,138 page book into two films, Andy Muschietti was criticized most for assigning Mike Hanlon’s important job of maintaining Derry’s history to another character, Ben Hanscon. In coming sequel, it appears Andy Muschietti rewrites Mike Hanlon’s character even further changing him from the in control, collected head librarian to someone who is melting down.

1. http://afropunk.com/2017/09/erasure-main-black-character-proof-need-black-horror-films/ 2. https://mic.com/articles/184292/mike-hanlon-the-black-kid-in-stephen-kings-it-has-a-really-good-backstory-the-movie-erased-it#.TM7u4ATYr 3. http://charnelhouse.tripod.com/itprofiles.html 4. http://mashable.com/2017/09/12/it-sequel-plot-details-mike-hanlon/#v57wsEaZZiqQ

Skywink (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Skywink

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 05:38, 1 October 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) 20:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

First sentence of lead

You will never find a Wikipedia film article using the phrase "titled onscreen as..." because the first sentence of the lead should introduce the film by it's official title, which is the title that appears onscreen. That is It: Chapter One. Common titles or other AKAs can then follow. Please explain this edit, TropicAces. — Film Fan 23:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What you've said is incorrect for a number of reason. Firstly, there are Wikipedia film articles that use this format. See Iron Man 3 as an example. The film is most commonly known and advertised as "Iron Man 3", however on screen it is titled as "Iron Man Three", with the number spelled out. The article begins with the following sentance: "Iron Man 3 (stylized onscreen as Iron Man Three)..." and therefore it's acceptable for this film as well. Secondly, saying that this is film is titled onscreen as "It: Chapter One" is dubious. The opening title card (around 10 minutes into the film) reads simply as "It", it's only the closing title card at the end of the film that reads "It: Chapter One". The opening title card is generally considered to be the official one unless there isn't one (this is the case with a movie like Inception. Whovian99 (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Whovian99. The main onscreen title is the one that the overwhelming majority of people saw, and that is the one in the beginning of the film that simply said "It". That is also the title used in all the posters and trailers. Film Fan has no consensus for enforcing his version, and he has reverted several editors that tried to address this. WP does not emphasize the official title. It uses the common name, which in this case is clearly "It". Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME, "It" is the title that should be emphasized in the opening sentence, followed by "also known as It: Chapter One", as that is how it is done at numerous other film pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

That is not how it is done on other pages. The official title (onscreen title) comes first, with any other titles following, unless the onscreen title is stylized. — Film Fan 12:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Not true. Look at the original Star Wars trilogy, and many others. I already explained WP:COMMONNAME above. And in this case, the main onscreen title is the one in the beginning of the film that simply said "It". A fact you choose to ignore. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

"Star Wars (later retitled Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope)..."

All three films use their original onscreen titles first. — Film Fan 14:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The first does, as Star Wars is its WP:COMMONNAME. Empire and Return do not. The full onscreen title comes second, after the common name. And you're still ignoring the main point. In this case, the main onscreen title is the one in the beginning of the film that simply said "It". - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No response after three and a half days. I've put the article name first (which in this case is also the main onscreen title It), followed by "also known as It: Chapter One", per common practice. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Knowing a situation of despair

Does every single character description need to include the sentence "On the character of ___, Muschietti spoke of him/her knowing a situation of despair"? It feels mechanical and, honestly, very awkward. Kumagoro-42 15:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding content

Hi, @Evope: I saw that you just updated this page with new figures but you put your reference in edit summary not in the article. Note: the first figure $671 that you changed to $677 is still eferenced to time.com, so anybody who clicked to verify will see the old figure 671 since you didn't provide new reference. For more on this read WP:INTEGRITY and then come and change the sources accordingly.  — Ammarpad (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2017

change "the second highest-grossing horror film overall after The Sixth Sense" to "the higher-grossing horror film of all time" 128.163.236.251 (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The way it's is correct, 'higher' is also comparative  — Ammarpad (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2017

There is an alternate ending, after the Losers Blood Oath, in which Bill and his parents go on their yearly family vacation to Acadia National Park, which included Georgie. Dramaboy56 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dramaboy56:  Not done. We need a reliable source and, if you could, please type out what text should be added and let us know where in the article it should go. CityOfSilver 14:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted scenes

A stubborn admin has found a chunk of information to be irrelevant. The following is what he's removed twice:

Deleted Scenes

In a deleted scene, it was revealed that Bowers killed the remaining members of his gang after the murder of his father. Additionally, other moments such as Stanley's Bar Mitzvah or Bill's family vacation were removed from the movie. Nine other deleted scenes (and extended cuts) will also be included in the Blu-ray copy of It.

Another scrapped concept included a flashback regarding Pennywise. The original script included Pennywise terrorizing a 17th century mother and her infant – Pennywise then eating the child and vowing to come back once every 27 years.

The worst part is that it abides by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. It's properly sourced and was placed in a different category (production) after being told the "plot" was not the correct place for it. Apparently changing your edit as instructed is thought of as an "edit war" though. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Firstly, I'm not an admin and you have been reverted by another user as well. Like I already stated your sources are not reliable since they are from random users who posted the info on forums. Also, we do not include delete scenes unless they are supported by filmmaker or third-party analysis; the reason for the footage's removal is the relevant element, not the medium. Without any context, it is simply indiscriminate trivia. Wait until we get official details of the home media release with commentary from the filmmakers about these scenes from reliable sources so we can then judge if the info is important enough to be included in the article. - Brojam (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The first source is apparently a copyright violation: the deleted scene uploaded without a credible claim of release. We cannot use that as a source and we cannot link to it.

The second source seems to be essentially a blog, not a reliable source, per WP:SPS.

The third source cites a forum posting at Reddit, which is clearly a self-published source.

Every film has cut scenes. They are rarely noteworthy. If they are, reliable sources will discuss them. I don't see such sources at the moment. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2017

92.11.106.184 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2018

Change the "scheduled to be released on 4K and Blu-ray January 9, 2018" to "and was released on 4K and Blu-ray January 9, 2018". 2604:2D80:803B:8374:6C4B:CFCF:4245:3870 (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Films about child sexual abuse

Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having..."

Yes, the film includes child sexual abuse, the homeless, mental illness and lots of other things. However, the film is not a consistent part of descriptions of the film. If you've seen the film and were describing it to someone, you would likely mention it is a horror movie, involves children, bullying, clowns and a few other things. You'd have to get pretty far into your explanation before you come to child sexual abuse. The overwhelming majority of sources don't get there. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I've removed three other categories that would also not likely match up to themes present in general descriptions of the movie, and were added to this article only because such things occasionally appear in the movie. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"Jake Sim" redirects here.

Why does "Jake Sim" redirect here? I know he did voice acting for this movie, but shouldn't we have a page for him? He does other voice acting jobs, such as Tommy Tibble in Arthur (TV series). Scrooge200 (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

If filming has begun...

... should there not be a page for It: Chapter 2 given that generally film pages get new ones when a film enters production? Gistech (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

g

}} 2A02:C7D:EC0:FC00:D080:59D:A11A:90A5 (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Adjustment

The section about after the encounter could use an adjustment: what really happened was that they squabbled after the encounter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.112.97.49 (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request ended in April 20 2020

117.13.157.82 (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is semi-protected until April 20, 2020 at 11:05 UTC.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hobo character

By describing the character as a rotting leper without using quotes to indicate that it's an "in-universe" description, is misleading. When writing about fiction, MOS:WAF states that writing from a real-world perspective is to be preferred. Such narration must employ out-of-universe style and include real-world descriptors. Characters should not be presented as if they are real persons. Since such descriptions are presented with a mix of elements related to the fictional narrative alongside elements related to conception, development, and reception, editors must be sure these articles clearly define the fictional aspects with out-of-universe language to avoid confusion.

Describing the Hobo character as a "rotting leper" does not abide by this principal. Relying on the mistaken impression that this is the character's name, the prose states here that the character is named "Hobo, a rotting leper". This is due to the novel, where the Eddie character thinks to himself that the individual whom he sees resembles a leper. But that association comes from Eddie's internal thoughts — the book source never uses the word leper to describe the character using the book's voice. The movie does not describe the character in this fashion either, as it uses "Hobo" in the credits.

For those arguing for WP:COMMONNAME, although the character verbally solicits Eddie for sex while masturbating in the novel, those common, in-universe descriptions of the character as a pedophile have not been applied here, namely because the characters in the film omit this exchange. Eddie's internal thoughts regarding the character's supposed leprosy are also omitted from the film. Those arguing that the book's tenuous association of the character with leprosy should be continued with the film's association of the character discounts the fact that the film's conception is entirely different.  Spintendo  03:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Notification about RfC on a related page

There is an WP:RfC on a related page here: Talk:List of box office records set by It#RfC about redirecting. The question is whether List of box office records set by It should be turned into a redirect to this page, specifically the box office section. TompaDompa (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2019

The entire article is currently in bold. This, presumably, does not follow the Wikipedia style guidelines and I would suggest it is changed. 164.39.41.210 (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 13:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2019

Change Chung-hoon to Chung. Chung is the cinematographer's surname, not given name. Chung-hoon is his given name. 153.33.12.20 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's vs. Its

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 22:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019

Change they realize they are all being stalked by the same entity, which they refer to as I". to they realize they are all being stalked by the same entity, which they refer to as "It". 2001:569:7D76:F200:DBE:A6CB:C967:4D34 (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! NiciVampireHeart 14:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Box office

Does anyone else feel this section is way out of WP:PROPORTION? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It (franchise) Article Created

An article has been created for the It film series/franchise. Please edit appropriately and fix up any issues. A talk page will also be created. Article can be accessed here: It (franchise)

Kaito Nakamura (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2019

"It is the first film in the It film series as well as being the second adaptation following Tommy Lee Wallace's 1990 miniseries." Incorrect. This is the THIRD adaptation of the book, as there was a 1998 Indian version named Woh. https://www.freepressjournal.in/cmcm/flashback-remember-woh-the-indian-tv-adaptation-of-stephen-kings-it https://www.filmcompanion.in/indian-adaptation-of-stephen-kings-it-zee-tv-woh-1998-liliput-titular-clown-shreyas-talpade 2604:6000:130E:49B0:B8B8:9111:8523:D626 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC) 2604:6000:130E:49B0:B8B8:9111:8523:D626 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. "Loosely based on something the filmmakers never actually read or saw" is not actually an "adaptation", is it? I don't think there's a generally-recognized term for "adaptation of a cover blurb". "Rip off" is the closest I can think of and that's not really acceptable encyclopedic language unless we can cite and attribute it to some-one, which neither of these reference do. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: This is a dishonest rejection rationale. Both of the reliable sources I cited here state the Indian series is an adaptation. None of them ever said "Loosely based on something the filmmakers never actually read or saw." In fact, while both sources say they didn't read the novel, it did say they watched the 1990 miniseries, which in turn is based on the book. As the Film Companion states: "Barretto [one of Woh's primary creators] was unconvinced. He didn’t think clowns, which he associated with the circus, could be frightening. What changed his mind was watching the 1990 two-part American It miniseries." So they did see the miniseries, and used that as learning about the primary contents of the novel. The two main creators of Woh didn't have to read the book for the series to be considered an adaptation. The content of the series itself determines if its an adaptation. If it has the exact same major beats as the miniseries (a killer clown and seven teens who fight it both as kids and adults), it IS an adaptation. 2604:6000:130E:49B0:1DEB:A692:EBE6:D235 (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want to add this to the article, as I said earlier, you need to create a consensus in favor of inclusion. You don't need to convince me. I am not the keeper of this page. Please refer to the page explaining consensus and how to build a new consensus. Semi-protected edit requests specifically ask that for ...any change that might be controversial, obtain consensus before placing the template. This is a request that falls within the necessity of obtaining consensus, which you have not yet attempted. If such a consensus develops, I or another editor will no doubt be happy to make the requested change. You also possibly also missed this part of your second source: It all started with Mohla coming across a copy of King’s novel. The 10-line synopsis on the back hooked him instantly... he had no desire to read beyond those 10 lines if you strip away the selective quoting above, the "never actually read or saw" statement seems fully supported. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

---

It (2017 film) → It Chapter One – Same as and match with It Chapter Two, it makes the title straightforward so no longer need to use bracket and date to disambiguation it: "(2017 film)" -- "It Chapter One" is also common, just google: It Chapter One Editor-1 (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Looking at the cited sources, IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc., it is clear that the name of the film is simply It. As far as I can tell, no one called it "It Chapter One" before there was an "It Chapter Two", and no one calls it "It Chapter One" now either, except to disambiguate it from It Chapter Two. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe at the past it was called "It" by the most sources, but nowadays it is mostly called "It Chapter One" because there is another It (It Chapter Two) and calling it "It Chapter One" makes more sense and is more logical.--Editor-1 (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose since It is the common name. It Chapter One isn't common enough to be a natural disambiguation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Perhaps over time the retroactive name will catch on and become more common, but right now I don't think that it is the common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: We don't rename an article contrary to the actual name simply because we want to make it match another film. Sundayclose (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's or Its?

Please see the current consensus at Talk:It_(2017_film)/Archive_1#It's_vs._Its. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Typos prob

Cast... Pennywise should be proof read. Stephenfryfan (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stephenfryfan: Could you point out some of the typos in Pennywise. Sundayclose (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Pennywise shows up, he's front and center, and he does his show. He has an act So it's weird all the time, and every little thing implies a further threat."[67][68][69][70][71] Stephenfryfan (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't know if it's only one. Stephenfryfan (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a direct quotation, so I adjusted it to make it identical to the quotation. Otherwise we can't change quotations. If you find others let us know. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, correctly. I was indicating of absence of full stop. It was a typographic mistake. Thank you. Stephenfryfan (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Late to the party, I know, but I just wanted to point out that per WP:QUOTE, it's okay if we fix little things like this in quotations. I think it would have been acceptable in this situation being that "So" is capitalized, implying "act" is immediately followed by a period. "Trivial spelling or typographical errors that do not affect the intended meaning may be silently corrected," and we can use [sic] tags to indicate anything present in the source material that we didn't want to mess with because it might change the meaning of the statement or the perception of the one giving it (e.g. I imagine we would leave typos in for people known for their lack of grammatical accuracy if that is important to the understanding of their life in some way). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: I don't disagree, but I think "fixing little things" should be interpreted conservatively. Sometimes inserting or omitting something like a comma can change meaning. It brings to mind a piece of legislation passed by the U.S. Congress that accidentally omitted a comma, resulting in a dramatic change in meaning. The result was a situation that ended up in court, eventually requiring Congress to approve a rewrite. I personally would always use [sic] to avoid making a change that I might realize changes the meaning. You never go wrong with [sic]. Sundayclose (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough; it is definitely a case-by-case sort of thing. Some will be much more obvious than others. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2021

The film is directed by Argentinian Director Andy Muschietti 200.5.230.230 (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sundayclose (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Cast section discussion

I'm starting a discussion with the Wikipedia community with the issues of the cast section because of the "DO NOT REMOVE THESE NOTES" hidden messages that are in the source code. As of writing this, the section is incredibly bloated and un-readable to introductory readers:

• There are gigantic paragraphs for some characters (Pennywise's description is so long it's criminal) yet extremely short descriptions for characters like Ben Hanscom.
• Descriptions become quote farms at several points, and many quotes can be paraphrased and presently in a far short length.
• There are details that don't even describe the characters themselves and belong in other sections. For example,
  • "In an interview with Rolling Stone, Lillis spoke of Muschietti not wanting herself and her co-stars to spend too much time with Skarsgård: "We actually weren't allowed to see him until our scenes, because we wanted the horror to be real.""
  • "Wolfhard shared the first image of the Losers Club on his Instagram account, with the photo captioned as "The Losers Club take Toronto", showing the cast of actors who will be playing the protagonists of the piece"
  • "Oleff recalled his first scene shot being a speech at his bar mitzvah: "I had a ton of lines to memorize and they even added a whole new paragraph while we were filming. I was like, Oh boy. After a while it got a lot easier to say over and over gain [sic] it was, like, 10 hours filming that scene.""
• The phrase "On the character of [insert name here], Muschietti spoke of him knowing a situation of despair, on top of the terror of It and the fear of heights," is repeated so many times. Why? We know the kids are all in a bad situation. This does not need to be repeated several times.
• I cannot stress enough how this section is too dependent on quotes. Why does "Ben is bullied at school" need to be a quote?

The bloating of the cast, as well as the subsection "Andy Muschietti (2015–2017)" indicates there needs to be better section dividing and WP:INDISCRIMINATE parts need to be cut. This is especially true as sections about Development before filming feel like a set of news annoucements without any attempt at putting them together in a concise, which WP:FILMPRODUCTION frowns upon: "A production section should provide a clear and readable narrative of how the film was developed, setting out the key events that affected its production, without detailing all of the day-to-day operations or listing every piece of associated news and trivia." 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

Lolitsajay55 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a horror movie about a clown that haunts every 17 years.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Uh..... Yeah, that's already in the article. Also, it 27 years, not 17... 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2021

I wanna edit something 41.13.80.68 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

Request to include the article It (soundtrack) in the film's music section.171.61.238.250 (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

also remove the infobox as it is already included in that article 171.61.238.250 (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)