To wonder why the orgy scene appears in neither version of 'it'?

[callmehannahbaker]

Just that really. When I read the book it's an integral part. I know it would have to be shot in a very sensitive/abstract way but to avoid it completely seems odd.
I've read why the directors say but it doesn't sit right.

I really really really would not like to see that scene. They are about 12 it shouldn't have even been in the book imo and wouldn't be if it were published today.

As an avid sk fan I can say it's something I never really thought needed to be in the story anyway, so was never surprised it wasn't in either movie. And it's in complete pitch dark so you'd never see it anyway

Exactly-it is in the dark, there didn't need to be a scene as such, it could have just been mentioned.

What? There's an orgy in It?! Well I never

I assume because a pre teen orgy, even sensitivity shot, would have been controversial back in the 80s let alone in 2017.

That bit in the book was awful, but re reading it I am uncomfortable with the near-constant references to Bev's sexuality.

Wow You learn something new every day. Never read the book so had no idea about the orgy scene.

Maybe because the idea of a bunch of pre-teen boys gang banging a pre-teen girl is horrible?

Yeah I think it was best of being cut from the films. I was a bit disturbed by it in the book and it definitely doesn't belong in a film. Its essentially a group of terrified small boys having sex with their equally terrified female friend to avoid being killed by a creepy clown.

Tbf the whole story is horrible!

I think it is more that it's irrelevant. It was added in to get people turned on

It's not integral at all. In fact I found it odd. The bond that was holding them dissolving and her fucking them brought it back? Why? That had nothing to do with the Other, or the Turtle, or even It itself. I don't think the Other chose Bev because she was a girl, so her vagina was irrelevant. And why would the bond dissolve when It wasn't actually dead anyway?

No director in their right mind would put in a scene of underage sex with multiple partners. I hated it in the book and thought it really unnecessary and I am a Stephen King fan and usually love all of his books. I don't know what he was thinking to be honest.

I've always thought that was a weird, unnecessary scene, though I don't think it indicates that SK is anything dubious. Part of the concept of the book (as with a lot of horror) is that it's an exploration of attitudes towards sexuality, and fear, and morality so I can see why SK thought it fitted in with the story, but it's certainly unfilmable.

I dunno SGB

There were SO many references about Bev and her budding breasts ...

Despite SK always saying it was 'completely necessary' to the plot.......it just wasn't. So there's that...

Also no one really wants to see it. Or even have it implied I don't think...

I recently re-read the book and couldn't get over that scene. Totally unnecessary and absolutely vile; who wants to read (Let alone see) about children having sex in turn with their young female friend

What King says:

"I wasn't really thinking of the sexual aspect of it. The book dealt with childhood and adulthood 1958 and Grown Ups. The grown ups don't remember their childhood. None of us remember what we did as childrenwe think we do, but we don't remember it as it really happened. Intuitively, the Losers knew they had to be together again. The sexual act connected childhood and adulthood. It's another version of the glass tunnel that connects the children's library and the adult library. Times have changed since I wrote that scene and there is now more sensitivity to those issues."

Because it was always totally unnecessary even in the book. And it ruined Bev's character development as a woman not defined by men's use of her.

There was quite a lot in the film that shouldn't have been included. Things that are needed to make chapter. Like how she going to go back into her old house now and see IT? Just like there was things not included that should have been there to make sense of other scenes (and no not that bit). I skip that when I read the book

I think that they were very tasteful by having the only “sexy” scene as Bev swimming in her bra and knickers.

If they’d kept it, it would have overshadowed the rest of the film. The media would be asking if the director liked young girls and the actress who played Bev would be constantly asked about her feelings about the orgy when the most shocking scene in the movie was surely when an adult appeared to have seen Georgie just before he was murdered (or did she?)

Even the clockwork orange film was with women instead of girls as per the book!! And not a whiff of rape.

Because Stephen King can't write female characters for shit. They are always defined by their relationship to men. I first read it when I was a teenager and I felt let down that an author I really rated could put that scene in as a valid plot development. It turned a strong character into a mere cipher - a hole to fuck for the Losers, reinforcing what some middle aged bloke stuck in the mindset of a teenager brought up with porn would think was a Rite Of Passage.

Just to clarify the director liking young girls comment- I mean people would be analysing how the orgy was shot and whether or not it was inappropriate.
The movie is rated 15 and the UK age of consent 16. As a matter of interest I imdb’ed the actress whom played Bev and she’s 15. Her age would overshadow the horror of the rest of the book.

And not a whiff of rape.

Um.....yes there was.

It's unnessecary, that's why. Whilst I love Stephen King and get what he was trying to portray with that scene, I don't feel it came off the intended way at all. It was just irrelevant. A bit of a page filler. It wouldn't sit well in a movie back when the first movie was released, never mind the new one, no matter how sensitively it was filmed.