Discussion Film / It2017

Probably because that's the reason in the novel. Arguably the movie should stand on its own, but the film does make it clear that the Losers Club members are all outcasts and for Stan it's due to his religion. Presumably it can be inferred that Bowers bullies them for the same reasons.

There's a big difference between "doesn't beat his son as regularly as he might" and "heroic." I don't see how he qualifies as the latter.

Since you only said something about a thing off topic I say yes.I said he no longer beats his son.

I've improved on the text of the example and uncommented it, I hadn't seen this discussion. I think the text as it stands qualifies for an example and, having seen the film without reading the book, I personally saw Henry's dad as being rather heroic and somewhat of an Asshole Victim to Henry'd psychopathy: there's no evidence in the film for Henry's dad beating him, the scene where he shoots at Henry's feet can be easily interpreted as a good man trying his hardest to teach a lesson to a violent boy where he doesn't know what went wrong, and he is genuinely trying his best to find the missing kids and to comfort the people of Derry. I'd say he qualifies. In fact, I might update the example some more.

He fires. A gun. At his son.

I shouldn't have to explain why that's not "strict yet reasonable," and it's certainly not heroic. That's abusive. In a different way, and with a different motivation, than in the novel, but he's not a goddamn hero. For firing— and let me repeat this— a gun at his son.

True without a doubt but one could point it was only to punish his son for trying to shoot a cat and while Butchs way of punishing was bad he does not approve of his sons behavior and other than this does not show any abuse and take note adaptional heroisim does NOT mean a chracter is herioc just better than there orginal counterpart.

Should be noted that Incandescent Brood was thebassboy ban-evading and has since been bounced.

Agree that he is not portrayed as actively heroic (especially now reviewing the trope rather than the idea), just a different character interpretation.

After watching a cut scene it shows that his dad does beat him at home so i would say no.

I recall him groaning in pain too, so I don't know why people are jumping to the conclusion that he was killed.

I can only speak for myself, but I thought he might be dead because Beverly is being relocated to live with her aunt. Though I fully acknowledge that it might be Beverly's own choice to move, and that she's reached out to her aunt, to me it felt like a more logical explanation that he died. That, and he received massive head trauma that went unattended for who knows how long? Without Word of God giving a clear answer, I personally feel it could go either way.

He survived.

No, her name is Gretta Keene.

Huh. A character named Judith was supposed to appear in Part 1, but I don't recall seeing her in the film.

Judith is the name of the deformed flute woman from the painting, played by Tatum Lee.

Huh. I'd read that the painting woman who attacked Stan was Pennywise disguised as Mama from Andy Muschietti's film of the same name, played by Javier Botet.

Ha, no, not at all. The Mama movie didn't exist in 1988, but it's clearly some kind of easter egg. Judith also sounds a lot like Edith (the name of the Mama ghost).

IIRC it was supposed to be an Easter Egg to the director's previous horror movie, rather than anything from the 1980's.

That said, http://whatculture.com/film/it-19-wtf-moments?page=4 seems to be the ultimate source of the statements that the painting-woman is Mama, and that doesn't strike me as a reliable source.