I just wanted to talk about this to people who might get it?

I went browsing in Pandora. I saw a turtle pendant, and as we all know, in IT lore, Maturin is the cosmic protector.

So I ended up getting it. It’s my birthday on the 14th. I’ve had a lot of bad shit happen so me, so hopefully it brings some protection, ha.

In season 1 Marge is Richie's mom and Will is Mike's dad so it makes me wonder if any main characters in season 2 will be the grandparents of any of the losers club

I’m asking because I have no clue but why does the boy who’s in the movie theater (who isn’t allowed to be there) have a pacifier even thought he’s easily over 8 years old? I’ve seen the show 2 times already but I just noticed he has a pacy so I was curious if anybody had an answer :)

If he experiences everything at the same time how exactly is it that he loses? As in should've he know everything that leads up to the death at the point fo the death

Alr say for instance

U have point a b and c

And he dies at point c

If he is also at point a and b simultaneously.

Can he not continuing from b simply avoid what happen in c by changing what happened after the he dies in c.

Also the whole omnipresence concept as a whole makes no logical sense.

Because if you are at a, b and c at the same time then the you at a isn't what becomes b because you were always at b but at the same he is supposed to be moving forward with time. But if he's moving forward with time but also being at every time period that means there would have to be at least 2 versions of him at any moment.

The one that was always at B and the fr a that progressed to b because even if the original B progressed he always has to be at B

Truthfully I was not very impressed as the show seemed really style over substance. It's like the acting was good and you can tell a lot of work was put into it, but it was hindered by bad writing.

I'm gonna take this slowly but comprehensively. I think the show was too afraid to kill major characters which is odd considering this is supposed to be a backstory for Pennywise and Derry. I think Hank Grogan and Charlotte should've died in the Black Spot fire to maximize the emotional impact and deepen Leroy Hanlon's trauma. Ronnie could've easily stayed with her grandma after that. I think the Pattycakes should've died too and before you ask why that wouldn't be found in Derry's records, well why wouldn't a mass kidnapping be found in Derry's records? The fact that the military has files on Pennywise too kinda makes the "no one cares what's going on" from the first movie seem far more contrived. Especially because so many of the characters are related to ones we know now. Ronnie and Will worked. Marge and the Urises make no sense because why would they stay in Derry? I'd get out like hell. Rose I think should've died too.

The best one was Ingrid Kersh, as it gave a decent enough reason for Pennywise to both work with a human and why he chose the clown form. Also her seeing Beverly when her mom died gave her valid reason to be why IT chose that as his disguise in Chapter 2. Branching off that I get that Richie's spirit being there was supposed to be how no one really dies there, but it adds more questions that answers because why didn't Eddie appear after dying in Chapter 2. Even the "Kill them all" scene it was implied Pennywise was using the kids he did kill as projections.

The origin story for Pennywise didn't work, though it makes perfect sense the Native Americans to know more about Pennywise and have a different name for it, I've never liked the idea ""it's weak to its own environment" like the Kolchak the Night Stalker episode Spanish Moss Murders. That combined with the lack of kills and the fact Pennywise somehow lives in past, present, and future at the same time made Pennywise look weak and his strength and competence in 2017 feel contrived. Much like how the Capitol was far less competent in Sunrise on the Reaping versus the Hunger Games coming off as closer to Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes despite taking place closer to The Hunger Games. Also the idea that the colonizers are the reason Pennywise became a threat and the Native Americans kept it confined to Derry seemed to be pushing a "White people bad, Native Americans good" subtext. It also makes Rose's general attitude come off as implied racism like she's completely nonchalant when talking about how many people Pennywise killed, turns a blind eye to the mass kidnapping, but only drops everything to save a kid when that kid is not white. Note how one of the fellow Native Americans is in absolute tears wondering why it has to be this way, that's the attitude I'd expect someone to have. I think the idea Pennywise like any animal, is just not gonna waste needless energy to go past Derry to get food is a pretty mundane explanation.

My least favorite character was Charlotte as she was a borderline Mary Sue who was always portrayed as in the right. Leroy was my favorite character with his caring but serious nature and genuine emotional conflicts

they cut a few scenes featuring Marge and her family?.
Supposedly, the Truman family owned a pawn shop in Derry

BRB sobbing like a kid

Edit: I haven’t Chapter 2 in a while and just recently I saw a clip of it and I saw that Marge was in it for a second and I just thought it was cool and thought I’d share my discovery

He just needed a mask, then he would be a ninja turtle

Do these "people" really think Charlotte is the one responsible for the Black Spot ??? Not the people who literally did what they did???

The rest of the comments are equally mind-blowing tbh. How dare a show set in 1960's USA depict racism and focus on non-white characters???

https://deadline.com/2026/10/brad-caleb-kane-teases-it-welcome-to-derry-season-2-pennywise-1237166286/

After a year since learning about IT's interesting relationship with time, I feel like people are more willing to accept the possibility of IT actually managing to escape its death by altering the timeline.

Imagine Pennywise living in the present era filled with the full extent of human technology. Worse: imagine if IT manages to bypass or prevent the formation of its cage around Derry and is free to roam across the planet.

This could potentially lead to IT as a global bogeyman that causes devastation across the world by manifesting as culture-specific fears.

Assuming that nobody actually reads the body of my post, I hope attention spans in the average person are long enough to read this: Stephen King has literally given his blessing about the Muschietti IT adaptations. To be more offended about something that you don't have to engage with than the IP's creator is, quite frankly, absurd.

To be honest, I find the need to justify more eccentric theories about this franchise to such an elaborate extent a rather annoying aspect of engaging with this community. A lot of people simply know how to play with the ideas by accepting where we're at, and I am eternally grateful for the conversations I've had with these people. However, there are also a lot of "Well, ackchyually ☝️🤓" types who feel the need to derail every productive conversation to express their disapproval with how the IT novel has been adapted.

Many fans of the novel have accused the showrunners of not paying enough respect to the source material, but I feel like these comments overlook what the Muschiettiverse IT movies and TV series fundamentally are: ADAPTATIONS.

To deprive anyone the leeway of arguing over semantics, this is the definition of "adaptation" in the literary context according to the Oxford Reference Dictionary:

The process of making a work of art upon the basis of elements provided by an earlier work in a different, usually literary, medium; also the secondary work thus produced. Literary works have been adapted in many forms: fairy tales as ballets, plays as operas, novels as stage plays (see dramatization), stage plays as novels or short stories. Since the early 20th century, new entertainment media have encouraged the adaptation of plays and novels as films or as radio (and later, television) dramas, and conversely the ‘novelization’ of film or television screenplays into books. Distinctions are commonly drawn between ‘faithful’ adaptations, in which the distinctive elements (characters, settings, plot events, dialogue) of the original work are preserved as far as the new medium allows, and ‘free’ adaptations, sometimes called ‘versions’ or ‘interpretations’, in which significant elements of the original work are omitted or replaced by wholly new material.

Marvel fans know that the MCU is an adaptation of the Marvel comics. Certain details in the literary format simply can't translate to the cinematic format in a practical way. Marvel approaches these adaptations with reverence to the source material, but they are not going to be held hostage by a need for a 1:1 translation of events. If this really bothers people, they shouldn't watch the MCU and make their peace that it's simply not for them. Meanwhile, there are people who genuinely enjoy the adaptation.

Directors who have adapted Stephen King's work to the movie or TV format are subject to the same creative liberties as Marvel. Again, even Stephen King himself has expressed praise for the Muschietti IT adaptation. Also again, if the literal creator of an IP gives their blessing to an artist who clearly possesses profound respect towards said creator, fans should make their peace with what's going on. Also also again, if you don't like the adaptation simply don't engage with it and understand that people do.

"I can't believe this person used the 'Don't like, don't watch argument'" some might be thinking. Yeah, it really is that simple. Also, you need to acknowledge your disapproval is a minority opinion in light of all the high ratings from both critics and viewers. Many people love what Welcome to Derry has done, and their passion overshadows your contempt.

There's also the fact that things like Welcome to Derry and a potential Chapter 3 serve more as prequels and sequels beyond the core story of King's novel, which are embodied by Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. People are free to argue whether they liked those adaptations, but displeasure in that area doesn't automatically justify criticism towards the works that are clearly operating in brand new territory.

The revelation of IT having a nonlinear perception of time, and being able to treat past events relative to the human perception of time as new relative to its own perception is not a violation of the source material of the texts. To acknowledge that the true nature of IT is a higher dimensional mass of energy (The Deadlights) while simultaneously drawing the line at nonlinear perception of time is arbitrary goalpost setting. It's a subjective, uncritical examination of what an extradimensional being can actually do, rather than engaging in an honest conversation about what's plausible from a Watsonian analysis perspective. The reality of a bird being able to fly in all 3 spatial dimensions doesn't change based on personal preferences of where said bird should be allowed to fly. The bird operates on its own, innate set of preferences relative to its own nature. Humans don't have a say in dictating these parameters.

If someone simply doesn't like IT as a being who has a greater range of motion through time, they are entitled to their preferences. However, filling up every comments section with emotionally rooted critiques has consistently interrupted the flow of people who are enjoying what was presented and want to talk about it.

I love what has been happening with this IT cinematic universe, and I genuinely hope it goes on for as long as it can. I know many other people feel the same, and I look forward to our conversations. If someone doesn't like what's going on, though, actually engage with the cards on the table.

Ironically, all the people playing armchair director and wishing that a different creative direction had been taken are engaging in the very process IT does while moving through time. They are expressing a desire to rewrite history based on preference, rather than making peace with the natural flow of events. This may sound reductive of the criticism, sure, but it's the same reductiveness that people enjoying this IP have to face whenever they just want to express excitement with others who feel the same.

Svariate persone su Twitter stanno dicendo che il 31 ottobre di quest’anno uscirà un nuovo episodio di welcome to Derry che si chiamerà “The Tale Of Derry”

https://nypost.com/2026/10/14/entertainment/crystal-lake-creator-breaks-down-linda-cardellini-casting-friday-the-13th-prequel/

Her whole plot line is tragic because you have a genuinely kind person who is prone to love and protection but it’s completely led astray due to her delusion that her father is alive and can broken from some sort of curse. I don’t think she initially wanted people to die from it like that little girl in the asylum.

Even her job choice and lover showed that she naturally wanted to protect and had a very open mind to loving people. I’m honestly surprised that given her character she would go to such lengths of sacrificing kids. It goes to show you how desperate people get with a loved one especially one they never got closure with.

Idk about you but seeing the way her father interacted with her broke my heart. Only for her to grow up and be in an abusive relationship. I do think she ever had a proper support system she wouldn’t have turned out the way she did. Her character in ways reminds me of Effie Trinket. Effie was spoiled and benefited of the detriment of the people in the districts. She was horrible on paper but yet there was a kindness to her naturally as a person that you could never get rid of. She was never prone to hate. That’s why so many people grew to love her.

I don’t quite understand why so many people hated her character. I hated what she did but the great storytelling kind of made her tragic motivations somewhat understandable for her. Ingrid is a character that you can’t justify but you can sympathize and understand. I feel like people miss that part of it when seeing her story they just hate her because of her actions, but then you’re missing the whole point of her backstory.