MovieChat Forums > It Chapter Two (2019) Discussion > People who choose not to see this at all...

People who choose not to see this at all, ever, when they've seen the first

posted 5 years ago by [deleted]
14 replies | jump to latest

It really baffles me why people would do this. This movie is NOT a sequel, it is a continuation of the story, and so you have to see it to get the full story. To not do so (after seeing the first part) would be like only reading half of a novel or something. True, it might not be as good, but get the full package at least!

Did TV watchers watch only the first part of the miniseries in 1990 and not bother with the second? Did cinema audiences not bother to go to the second part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows? Or Kill Bill? Or that Twilight movie? Tell me if you did.

I can understand if cinema prices are an issue and you might want to see it on streaming or DVD, but if you saw the first part in the cinema, why not the second?

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

I hated the first one and don't care about what happened next.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Fair enough, not everyone likes this sort of mild horror. Most detractors of these movies somehow want Pennywise to be one of those moronic 1980s bogeymen like Jason, Freddy, Michael or even Chucky. GOD, those movies SUCKED! :)

[–] moviefanatic505 (6000) 5 years ago

The original nightmare on elm street is considered a classic. Critical acclaim as well as acclaim cultural impact and acclaim by the public. You are in the minority in thinking that. I will go ahead and believe the majority over you. Sound good?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Maybe, and they have their audience, but there are other types of horror around.

[–] CodyXBrenda (225) 5 years ago

Sorry but those 50s monster movies were boring as hell! Not saying they were awful, but they were still very bland and don't hold up as well as they did, over 50-60 years ago and they don't connect with modern audiences that well, the same way Micheal, Jason, Freddy, and Chucky do. They may have been crap to you, only because you probably grew up in the 50s and/or 60s and not the 80s and/or 90s, like the rest of us did. We're all children compared to you, grandpa!

I mean a lot of people nowadays would rather listen to New Wave music than Doo-wop. I mean Doo-wop sucked! It was really crappy, boring ass music from the 50s! The only kind of Doo-wop I actually enjoyed was from Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons and that's it. Times have changed. It's no longer the 70s and hasn't been for over 40 years. The passage of time can be cruel, huh!?

If watching silent films from the 1900s-1920s is the equivalent of playing Atari 2600 games from the mid-70s to early 80s, then watching monster movies from the 50s and 60s is the equivalent of playing NES games from the mid-80s to early 90s.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Cody, I was born in 1972. I just didn't like or even see Jason or Freddy. Michael got boring, fast, although Chucky was good in the first one.

[–] CodyXBrenda (225) 5 years ago

Micheal got boring after Halloween 4, Jason was good until around part 7, Freddy stopped being scary, after part 3, same with Chucky.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Actually, to correct myself, I have seen the original Elm Street movie: Freddy was an interesting concept.

However, I never saw the Jason movies, because he just sounded so boring, going around killing camp counsellors. What is a fucking camp counsellor, anyway?

[–] Chloe (127) 5 years ago

I went into the first one with cautious optimism but was severely let-down by a combination of lack of atmosphere, ridiculous amounts of cheap 'loud clang noise' jump scares and terrible CGI. Knowing that Chapter 2 is from the same creative team, why would I pay to see a product I know is sub-par? This is a prime example of a horror movie aimed at a mass audience who don't watch horror movies. Having to accompany a scare-moment with a loud noise on the soundtrack means you've failed as a filmmaker at creating suspense or tension, or you don't give your audience enough credit to know they're supposed to be scared in a given scene so you have to startle them with a loud clang.

Also, I've read the book and seen the '90's mini-series, so I already know the story in-and-out. I don't need to see it again when it's so poorly done. If the first had been competently executed I would have been more than happy to see Chapter 2.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

The 90s miniseries was poorly done, actually. Besides, I love the cast and the characterisation in these new movies. The miniseries SUCKS now.

[–] LemmyLugosi (411) 5 years ago

Sheeeeit, the 1990 miniseries SUCKED then, too.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It creeped me out when I first saw it, around the time it was broadcast around 1990-91 in the UK. I liked it then, but this was long before I read the book. But it has definitely dated quickly. I'm just pleased that there's a new and modern adaptation that most people like, even if the second movie is not as popular as the first.

[–] furiousstyles (4359) 5 years ago

I guess the share similar views as you do with the rise of skywalker

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I was eager for a new adaptation of IT to wash the crappy miniseries out of my mouth.
I did not see the need for a new Star Wars Sequel Trilogy from the beginning, I've hated every minute of it.