So, are we not talking about the Chitauri?

So, like, remember back in 2012 when aliens called Chitauri attacked New York?

As shown in this helpful documentary.

And remember how we all basically just rebuilt New York and got back to normal after yelling at the people who did it?

Again, helpful documentary here.

So...are we not talking about how aliens are real, and anyone who knows an abductee is getting the "I F*CKING TOLD YOU SO!" speech constantly?

Also, apparently Christopher Walken was wrong, and Whitley Striber isn't crazy.

Like...really? As a society we're ignoring that completely and just getting back to normal? Never mind that a guy who shilled for war bonds in WW2 somehow reappeared no older, or how a green giant is here, or how there may be actual magic, godlike people, we're just done talking about aliens?

Maybe I'm in the dark, but shouldn't there be all sorts of talk about this? Like, some cult that worships the aliens? Or a Million Mom's-style protest group boycotting anything that has aliens in it, because Jesus didn't ever talk about aliens, so they're all going to hell?

Poor bastards. They're going to lose like 3 rentals over this.

I live in Michigan, and we haven't had any aliens here that I know of, but still, this can't just be a New York issue. I haven't heard Colbert or anyone talking about it.

He'd rather promote new movies and political views. Typical.

I don't know...maybe everyone is just too busy trying to put Tony Stark in jail for making a killer robot.

Yet, they keep making documentaries about it.

If we've given up on talking about Aliens as a society, that's fine. Just someone tell me, okay?

Or at least tell Roland Emmerich.

The Dark Tower Trailer

Yes, the trailer for The Dark Tower has dropped. Watch it, it's only a few minutes long.

Short answer, I'm conflicted.

I'll keep this spoiler free, as it's been a while since I've read the books, and Bahamute is reading it now. If you want something with spoilers for the books, and more speculation, this Wired article has you covered. I may do an in-depth analysis of the books, ala my IT blogs, when I'm done with them.

I love the casting of Idris Elba as Roland and Matthew McConaughey as The Man in Black. I like the style of the trailer, as it evokes the epic nature of the series, and the lines I can remember seem correct (it's been a while).

My biggest issue is that they're showing footage of events that happen in later books. If this changes the ending of the first book, which is looks like it has too, I hope they're planning ahead for those ramifications. Also, I really like the ending and the events they're likely skipping over.

TLDR: I can understand simplifying the story for the movie, but I don't have to like it.

I also hope The Tower is discussed more fully in the movie, as the line about what it is and what it does is far too brief.

Also, what the fuck is up with this?!

That says Pennywise, and is clearly part of a statue of Pennywise holding his famous lure, balloons. But...WHY?! I'm kinda excited to know.

Also, Roland shouldn't be on earth now. That seriously screws up later books. But again, if they're planning and it's part of the medium shift, it can work. Can. With hard work and planning/

On the plus side, I know what this is, and it looks perfect. Too bad it's two books early...(see my earlier remarks).

I need to see a longer trailer, but for sure they're using a lot of stuff from later books, and I'm not happy about that. I hope they're taking that into consideration, as it could really screw up movies two and three if they're not careful. But if they are, this could be really great.

Now, to wait for more footage...

 OKAY, one SPOILER filled thing that makes it all better. DO NOT READ unless you've finished the books. Seriously.

SERIOUSLY.

Okay, if you're sure.

SERIOUSLY. HUGELY GIGANTIC SPOILERS.

There's speculation that this is just another cycle of Roland's journey: a sequel to the events of the books, which explains any changes. Until I get a better idea, I really, really like that one. If that's the case, this will be awesome, no matter what.

The IT Spot: Rereading part 4

Haunt: to visit often.

Haunt: a lair or feeding place of animals.

These definitions are the opening part to one of the interlude sections, where Mike Hanlon, the one who stayed at home, digs into Derry's history. He opens by asking if a whole town can be haunted, and speculating on the animals in the town that killed Adrian Mellon, and that feed there in other ways.

I haunt Derry. I've haunted it for nineteen years. Is my reading feeding? Is Derry a haunt where I return to feed on horror and pain as much as IT does?

In Derry, I am a passive haunter. I return over and over to my favorite wells, King, Gaiman, Craven. I sup on horror easily, and often. I don't kill people, or hurt them to cause fear. I just sup on the false fear other others.

There are plenty of people that would call me a monster for reading (feeding), and King one for creating the haunt. I'm quick to snap at critics that judge me, or my haunts.I defend my haunts, gather with others in reality and online to commiserate over our haunts, to learn of new haunts, better haunts, older haunts lost to time.

Occasionally I create my own haunts here and there, letting others sup while I move on to greener, or redder pastures.

I'm not hear to say the haunts are good or bad, that I haunt for gain or ill. It's just something I've thought about a lot lately.

I am haunted by IT as much as I haunt IT. I think King might appreciate that thought.

SPOILERS

As for observations on the first Interlude section itself, it's mostly Mike speaking to his wailing wall, begging God not to let his fears about the cycle be true, that IT has returned. of course, we know IT has returned, as Mike has already his his fatal calls.

He speculates on how it may kill the others, giving a reason for each...aside from Stan. He just asks who won't return: 'Stan Uris?' and leaves it at that. Did Mike always know Stan would choose to kill himself rather than face IT? Is that why he spends so little time dwelling on it, not listing Stan's wife, or home, or tidy mind that couldn't quite forget as the others did?

I think he must have known. Stan mimed killing himself at 11 years old, when they made the pact. He was always a little too far into the land of grownups. For Stan, going back was worse than death: it was the death of logic and adulthood. In the end, he chose to die in the comfort of his home, rather than the dank sewers. I can understand the sentiment...if it didn't mean breaking the ka-tet and leaving his friends much more vulnerable, possibly dooming them, the town, and the innumerable victims of IT still to come.

The repercussions aren't laid bare, but they are there. Did more children die because the losers club was down by one? Did Mike get stabbed because of it? Did Eddie die because Stan broke the protection of the ka-tet?

I think so.

SAFE

This has been a long entry. That will happen, as for the first time I'm trying to take a real investigative approach to IT: with over 1000 pages of reading (and nearly that many left to go), my observations are bound to start meandering. I'll try to keep these diatribes to at most every other blog. Join me tomorrow for something else from pop culture, politics, or whatever else draws my attention!

Strike?

So, we may be on the cusp of another writer's strike (at the time of this writing).

Time to call the strike breakers. Or not.

The last time this happened, a lot of shows had shortened seasons with lasting aftereffects. LOST season four was seriously screwed up, and had plot holes it never really recovered from as a result. We also lost episodes of 30 Rock, Breaking Bad, House, The Simpsons, and a bunch of other shows I don't watch or don't care enough about.

The last strike was about residuals from DVD sales, and absolutely something that is important, and strikeabel. Writers deserve their due payment just like any other profession. This strike is about changes to master-contracts. Shows have shifted from on average 22 episodes per season to smaller orders, ala Netflix and other streaming platforms. Writers get paid per episode, so you do the math.

The specific issues writers are dealing with are:

1. The number of episodes, and therefore, episode fees are half the traditional number on many series.

2. These fewer episode fees are being amortized across more than two weeks per episode.

3. Writers are held exclusive and under option even when not working on these short season series.

4. Residuals are too low in the emerging rerun markets.

5. Script fees remain unequal to the network rates for the growing areas of the industry.

There are also issues with the Guild's heathcare being bankrupt. Isn't entertainment glamorous?

Essentially, this could be a repeat of last time: shows shorted, or cancelled. There's not a lot we as viewers can do for the moment: not streaming or watching your favorite shows won't show support. I'd say just keep an eye on the news, and if there's a way to show support (if the protest goes through), I'll let you know.

The IT spot: Rereading, part 3

So, I've breezed past Bev Marsh beating the crap out of her POS husband Tom (from Tom's POV, mostly), and Bill explaining to his wife that he has to go home to deal with the promise he made as a child, yet can barely remember.

These spots are more faithful, though abbreviated, in the mini series, especially Bev's bit. Her husband remains in the novel, following her to Derry to exact revenge. I miss that in the miniseries, as he doesn't suffer half as much as he deserves there.

More interesting, and less present, is the return of Bill's stutter. As a kid it's ever present (aside from a few key moments), and as an adult it gets worse over time. Not that it's noticeable in the performance of Richard Thomas, who mostly sounds like he's choking, if he bothers to try at all.

Moley moley moley mole.

SPOILERS

One of the most important factors in this section is Bill explaining things to his wife Audra: of all the married or attached members of The Loser's Club, he's the only one who tries. He even admits that he could probably remember everything right then if he started talking to Audra, but is afraid to do so.

With Bev and Tom, it's obvious why there was no explanation, but Eddie and Stan were married too. Why not explain more, or try to dig out the memories?

Stan, of course, does remember enough, or at least, that's what Mike later speculates, which is why he kills himself. Stan's mind was too tidy to let go as a child, and too ridged to handle the return as an adult.

Eddie loved his wife as well, but any effort to explain would have trapped him in the house with her, so fleeing was best.

Bill was the one to face IT in the Ritual of Chud. He was in the Macrospace with IT and the Turtle Maturin. His connection to the Turtle is strongest. I think that's why he could have dug out the memories then, if he really tried. Or at least why he believes he could have.

The other important factor is that the Loser's club Ka-tet is already broken, and the sense of that is filtering down. Bill and Mike aren't sure if Stan will come (and of course, he doesn't). That's something we face every moment we're with young Stan: we know he will kill himself, and break the club, leading to any number of horrors they have to face as adults. If he had lived, would Eddie have survived? Would Mike have been stabbed? Would the destruction of IT been easier, the town's death more cataclysmic?

Interesting questions, friends and neighbors, but not ones we'll get the answers to.

SAFE

I've officially finished rereading The Shadows Before. Now to head on to Derry: the First Interlude. I can't remember which interlude this is, but no matter what, it'll paint the bloody history of Derry in it's true blood-red colors.

I missed this book.