Talk:It (miniseries)

message: 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)
thread_title: Novel vs. Miniseries

message: 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)
thread_title: Library

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Remake?

message: 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)
thread_title: Cast

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  IP Edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  It and it 

message: 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)
replies: text: *shoots furiously with slingshot* DIE, BASTARD.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.124.193 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of a sentence from "Other Differences" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Replacing the image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 JPStalk to me 18:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Please keep "Differences between the novel and film" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Eddie Kaspbrak Facebook Page 

message: 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)
thread_title: Disembowel It's Heart

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup and Expansion 

message: 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. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cult following" vs. [[WP:WEIGHT]] 

message: 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. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  27 vs. 30 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additional Literary Sources to Add 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Principal cast? 

message: 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. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's vs. Its, current consensus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Promo Artwork description 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Actual poster 

message: 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)
thread_title:  alternative versions 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fill out parameters in  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)
thread_title:  Production - Mrs. Kersh 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot?