Mama K :)) ❤️🔥

come back to me

okay last thing i will say on the subject for tonight (maybe) but i think what most viewers -- and most readers, in all honesty -- fail to understand is that it 1986 is abnormal. it is a weird book. it is not a traditional horror novel with a traditional horror setup and, while of course it IS horrifying in every way a book can be horrifying, that is not its main focus. it 1986 was never meant to revolve around gore or blood or death. it was meant to revolve around the losers club. the protagonists of the novel are what made it so impactful when it was initially published and they are what continue to make it so impactful today. pennywise, as a villain, is only important as it relates to the losers club (and btw it will be referred to here on out as pennywise, despite that not being its actual name, for clarity). because the actual book cannot survive without those central characters, it just can't. it 1986 is about seven people who are extraordinarily, supernaturally, surreally deranged about each other and in love with each other who have their lives irrevocably altered by a trauma they faced together, although separately. but does it really matter, because aren't the characters themselves both one person and not??

to understand king's original intention with the novel is to understand the losers and it 2017 massively, undeniably fails to do so. in an effort to create relatability, and to scare larger audiences, it 2017 (which for this post's purposes encompasses the entire remake franchise) totally disregards the bond and dynamic between the losers club. really, it disregards any element of magic at all. richie and bill get into a physical altercation in which punches are pulled, bill has to force the losers to hunt pennywise with him, mike drugs bill, mike lies to the losers, etc. the list goes on and on. it 2017 wants desperately to be a drama, and therefore its protagonists must face internal conflict. but none of this could EVER have been present in king's novel. the magical ties and promises that bind the losers are such that they not only care about each other but ARE each other at times. they can read each other's minds, bev thinks at one point. they -- and i know this is a sensitive subject for many but it's worth mentioning -- quite literally have a platonic orgy to solidify their bonds with one another. they are strange. the relationship between these characters depends entirely on forces outside of their own control. to suggest that they could fight like schoolchildren, per it 2017, goes against the very fabric of it 1986. these characters cannot fight like kids. they are, of course, barely even kids (and still completely kids). it's confusing. that's the point.

fine, then. we aren't allowed a weird dynamic with the remakes. where does that leave us with each individual protagonist, then? well, quite frankly, nowhere. the losers are completely intertwined, and erasing their relationship does absolutely nothing beneficial to the characters' personalities. the decision to loosen the bond between the characters -- to make them seem more like casual friends than soulmates -- comes at a detriment to every single character. and i mean every single one (yes, also bev). this goes back to what i was saying earlier about how, oftentimes, the losers seem to be one functioning body. what is bill if not the leader of this group? where is richie if not fitted into the overall group ecosystem? nothing and nowhere, apparently. the losers become childish mockeries of who they were meant to be. for example: stan's entire personality in the remakes is "jewish." that is quite literally his entire thing. so now we have a movie with shitty characters based off a book that is ostensibly known for its characters. already, we are off to a terrible start.

but it doesn't stop there! see, the problem is, pennywise depends on the characters just as the characters depend on their relationship just as their relationship depends on its magic (see the pickle we've gotten into?). the bone-chilling, spine-tingling terror of book pennywise is that it's always one step ahead. it knows your fears, sure, but it also knows what you love. it knows your hopes and dreams. it knows what you do in your free time and it knows how you interact with your friends and it knows all your inside jokes. and sometimes it shows up just to play! sometimes it's barely even menacing. sometimes it is just there because it can be, because each loser's relationship with pennywise is its own kind of individual horror, and pennywise wants them to know that. here is where the fear originates: you cannot run from it because it knows you and sometimes maybe it is you. you cannot escape something that has lived inside of you all along. and that sounds cliche, and quite possibly one of THE simplest horror metaphors to nail, but here is where it 2017 truly screws the pooch. without fleshed-out characters, it is impossible to do pennywise any of the justice it deserves. suddenly, it has no point of access to the losers, because they have no personalities to target. pennywise loses everything that made it terrifying in the first place, because it cannot exist without the losers. instead it relies on a mouthful of sharp teeth and a silly dance that will hopefully scare the audience. pennywise, after some slightly personalized meddling (and i mean SLIGHTLY. a painting?) to freak the kids out, attacks every loser in almost exactly the same way. that defeats the point of the story.

the audience does not leave a screening of it 2017 with any lingering feelings of dread or despair or i-should-leave-the-lights-on-tonight. the audience leaves with a classic slasher satisfaction and the knowledge that pennywise is really good at Eating You, if it so chooses. but there's none of the personal panic that there should be upon consumption of any version of stephen king's it -- there's no vague, half-formed thought that maybe it is waiting for YOU. not just anyone, but YOU. pennywise has been entirely impersonal and random for the entire movie. why should you be afraid?? it doesn't know YOU. it can't. and so the remakes fail. of course they do! they were fucked from the moment the losers' slates were wiped almost entirely clean.

but hey, i'm sure they tried their best?

i absolutely love reading everyone's tags from my brucie in 1940s art so here's one for clark!!!!!!!

even away from his superhero persona, clark kent does his share of rescuing via helping a lost kid find his way back to his parent

tho the kid seems to be enjoying himself

imo, there really is a disconnect between the way book eddie is described and It chapter 2 eddie is portrayed.

to me, eddie is sweet and sensitive at his best, but has a short fuse when he’s poked too hard and bites back with spunk and verve to defend himself or his friends. it chapter 2 eddie just….has no fuse. he’s just always angry at any and everything and anger is his default state, not him at his fiercest.

in the book, eddie is skittish and afraid most of the time, but that’s what makes his outbursts of confidence and bravery so meaningful when it really counts. he’s willing to drop all those fears to save his friends. and to be fair they did give him this same arc in it chapter 2, but most of the time they showed him being too afraid and screwing things up for everyone so we only got one moment of bravery before he was immediately killed.

idk. maybe i just wanted to see eddie attack the giant eye in the movies. 💀

the kiddos!

Commission! Re8/ethan winters tattoo design for @monsterfuxxxxer (shared with permission!)

chilling in the keyblade graveyard with grandpa

I am not my body, not my mind or my brain

Not my thoughts or feelings, I am not my DNA

I am the observer, I'm a witness of life

cleaning out my files and found an old animatic whoops