MovieChat Forums > It (2017) Discussion > Why did they make Ben the one to tell ev...

Why did they make Ben the one to tell everyone about the towns history?

posted 7 years ago by Mister Babadook (2704)
8 replies | jump to latest

Cause to me thats a big reason that Mike felt so forgettable, in the original it was Mike who was all obsessed and interested in history and gave the whole speech about the town of Derry. It gave his character something unique.

But in this they just gave that role to Ben and left Mike with nothing, even though Ben already had the fat kid getting bullied angle and his secret love for Beverly. Ben had stuff to keep his character busy, but then they also gave him the role of the history buff which left Mike with nothing really that interesting or nothing to do really.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Perhaps the screenwriter is racist? AND anti-semitic, judging by how little my second-favourite character, Stan, has to do as well?

In all honesty, in the book and in the second part of the miniseries, having Mike be the historian of the group and explaining everything to the others was very rewarding.

[–] Reaperscout (607) 7 years ago

Something tells me that with Mike helping his grandfather out with the farm and all that, he'll stick around in Derry while Ben takes off when they get older (graduating from high school and going off to college, getting jobs outside of Derry, etc.). And when Ben leaves, Mike will take over as the expert on Derry history and read up on all the history of Derry when he isn't helping his grandfather and there is downtime from helping. It's possible everything can be "corrected."

Something that bugs me about the movie is that Bill becomes a writer when he gets older and they don't really go into that at all in the movie. The closest they come is him drawing in a notebook. But they never said what his interests were. Did they change that, or is his interest in writing still there and just something that happens off screen and they didn't bother to mention it because maybe it wasn't important to the plot or no good chance to mention it? Would've been nice to foreshadow him wanting to become a writer/author. They could've shown his interest in writing when they showed him drawing a picture of Beverly in his notebook. There should've been maybe a title of a short story at the top of the page and then some writing.

I'm hoping that they "correct" this too in the sequel about Bill. It seems that everyone else they got right on foreshadowing. Richie becoming a comedian and Stan's suicide, for example. Forgot what Eddie does job wise when he gets older, but I think he still lives with his mom. Eddie and his mom leave Derry though. Maybe after the events of the first movie, Eddie's mom makes them move away and get out of Derry. Beverly mainly goes on to be with men that are abusive like her father, so they can still go there with her, which they didn't really need to mention in the movie. She's the only one out of the group they didn't really need to foreshadow.

But I'm thinking and hoping the sequel will "correct" everything with Bill, Ben, and Mike.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I think you've been watching The Shining movie too much recently, you sound like that Grady fellow. ;)

[–] Faridah (1369) 7 years ago

I agree this is one change I did not like. I didn’t like Mike living with a grandfather either. I don’t know why the screenwriter would change that. I really liked the Mike in the mini series better. This one felt more distant.

[–] captkirk42 (51) 7 years ago

To be fair the book (and the mini-series) kept switching back and forth between what happened when they were kids (as they had remembered them from their adult perspectives) to the "current" events in their adult lives. Mike was the only one of the group that remained in Derry. He is the first one to start remembering and contacts the others.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I don't know. I think screenwriters will make changes just to feel like they are improving the story and making it their own. It's a bit of an ego thing.

[–] femmemuscle (110) 7 years ago

It's just racist hollywood, plain and simple.

Stephen King kind of made me wonder why he didn't make Mike a successful character in his book.. Mike was the "custodian" and left to tend the house, so to speak.. while everyone else went abroad and each one was successful.

I, too, hope they switch the roles in the Sequel. At first, i thought, the reason why the history was given to Ben was because maybe the actor who played Mike probably might not have been convincing enough in the monologue or the scene in the library. But it was obvious the director used Ben to steer the characters over to his place to look at the history. As well as play-up the embarrassment of the New Kids on the Block with Beverly.. (which was actually pretty funny..)

Don't know if the director was queezy about showing the world a bunch of white kids being educated by a black kid. Let alone going over to his house in the movie. To be honest, it's a possibility the director had no clue how african americans in general, actually lived in small towns, back in the 80's or the 90's for that matter. Instead of doing the research, he probably just made it easier for himself, as well as the audience. Gawd knows the director didn't want the snow flakes to be uncomfortable. They're the biggest box office draw, world-wide.

[–] Oscar (114) 7 years ago

Usually I roll my eyes a bit when people talk about "Racist Hollywood", but in the case of this movie, it really does feel like racism on the part of the filmmakers.

Shortsighted too - Mike hanging around Derry and looking into its history gave him more information for when they're adults. Sure, people's interests change as they grow up - it'd be just as realistic for Ben to stop caring about history and Mike to start, as it would for Mike to continue to love it and Ben to remain indifferent; but the latter makes for a better and more cohesive narrative.