‘It’ Star Bill Skarsgard Says a ‘Disturbing’ Flashback Scene Was Cut From the Movie

Warner Bros

With “Ittearing it up at the box office for a second weekend in a row, you can expect Warner Bros. to green-light the second chapter of Andy Muchietti’s Stephen King adaptation any day now. (Indeed, the film has not yet been given the official go-ahead, but it is in active development.)

Recently appearing on Variety’s “Playback” podcast, actor Bill Skarsgard — who stars as the creepy manifestation of It, Pennywise the clown, in the new film — spoke briefly about one scene that was shot but ultimately cut.

“There was a scene we shot that was a flashback from the 1600s, before Pennywise [was Pennywise],” Skarsgard said. “The scene turned out really, really disturbing. And I’m not the clown. I look more like myself. It’s very disturbing, and sort of a backstory for what It is, or where Pennywise came from. That might be something worth exploring in the second one. The idea is the ‘It’ entity was dormant for thousands and thousands of years. The [flashback] scene hints on that. ”

Early drafts of the “It” screenplay, originally written by director Cary Fukunaga, who departed the project in early 2015,  and Chase Palmer, have been thoroughly dissected by the online film community. At least one draft contained a scene featuring Pennywise playing a saloon piano in the 1800s to spur on violence, as well as a colonial-set sequence where It devours a child. Whatever the scene was that Muschietti and company shot, Skarsgard — who wouldn’t go into too many details — said it may yet appear in the sequel.

Moreover, the actor expressed excitement over diving into the trippier elements of King’s book, which have yet to be fully tapped by any adaptation of the material.

“The book is very abstract and metaphysical about what it means to exist and the idea of fantasy and imagination and all of these things,” Skarsgard said. “I think that could be cool to explore as well. It’s like, what is Pennywise? He only exists in the imagination of children. If you don’t believe him to be real then he might not be real. There’s an interesting aspect to explore there.”

“It” pulled in another $19 million at the domestic box office Friday, bringing the Stateside total to nearly $180 million.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 49

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. purnama agung says:

    Watch more movies to your liking. click the address below ==> http://BIT.LY/2uB1Q0Z

  2. Daniel McCallum says:

    As a big Stephen King fan and particularly a fan of this book which I first read when I was the same age as the protagonists of this film (and re-read this summer prior to it’s release) I have to say the movie was disappointing. It had some good points but too many bad ones;
    GOOD: The opening encounter between Georgie and Pennywise was perfect and promised good things to come. Richie Tozier was genuinely funny and made me laugh out loud several times. Beverley Marsh; both her character and her storyline/scenes were very close to the book. Eddie Kasbrak’s mum: like Annie from Misery! err…that’s about it. BAD: They changed the year it was set. They pointlessly changed most of losers first encounter with Pennywise. Pennywise’s voice became more and more like Scooby Doo’s. Henry Bowers decline was massively underdeveloped and it didn’t help that he was played by a rat faced chav who you could easily beat rather than someone who was physically imposing. I thought Patrick Hockstetter was Victor Kriss due to looking exactly like the latter and nothing like the former. His death set alarm bells ringing that this was going to be a very sanitised version of the story aimed at teenagers for commercial reasons rather than what it would have been if they had stuck to the scenes around his death featured in the book. The house on Neibolt street looked like the haunted house at Disney World or from a Tim Burton movie i.e. cartoonish not sinister. No scenes with Pennywise as a giant spider or showing his arrival on earth. I could go on (Bowers’s dad the sheriff?!) I would give the film 6 out of 10 and probably less if you really love the book and know it inside out. I would probably watch part 2 to see if it has any redeeming qualities but I don’t hold out much hope!

  3. Robert Stockton says:

    I saw “It” last week with immense anticipation, being a massive fan of Stephen King’s novel and horror movies in general, and I was appalled by this attempt, with its mere tokens of reference to the book. It missed and condensed the most critical elements to the extent that I was waiting for the end within half an hour.

    Even if the 2nd part went into “the trippier/metaphysical” (as talked about by the actor who played the clown) realms of the book (which, based on this obtuse rendition, I sincerely doubt) it could not be redeemed.

    At first, when watching, I was mentally listing all the homages and digressions alike but within thirty minutes I had lost count of the discrepancies and by the end (with it’s horrendous interpretation of “we all float” and the gross physicalisation of Pennywise) they were certainly too numerous to enumerate.

    I could not help but yell “‘s’ ‘h'” at the last frame, in the cinema.


  4. Elaine says:

    Not all the kids cursed like a sailor. If you notice, mainly it was the two or three characters who were the “comic relief ” part of the group. Point is, like adults, there’s always going to be different individuals. There’s always going to be a Stifler in the group…whether at school or work or in your family. And it’s ok. It’s an R-rated movie based on a Stephen King novel. I’m glad the writer & director didn’t soften it just because there’s kids in the story.

  5. Ashley says:

    I really enjoyed the movie. Fantastic acting & good story. Bill Skarsgard was perfect for Pennywise.

    • Robert Stockton says:

      It was ‘softened’ and Hollywood’d beyond what can even be expressed in under ten thousand words.

      And, TERRIBLE acting. The Bill character could not lisp to save his life! And, Beverly… Sheesh.

  6. Melissa Gallagher says:

    I love horror movies,but this movie did not scare me at all . I laughed instead of being scared. It was made great. Great actors.Just not scary.

  7. Michael says:

    I loved the first _it_ I’m going to watch the new one today with my wife who hates clowns, the whole purpose of the movie is to be suspenseful and to make you realize how much of imagination you have as a kid. When you grow up you forget and think everything in this world is okay…. as a adult it’s like wearing blinders we only see what we want to see…. The things that are important, bills and raising children. And yes all the kids I hung out with cursed… until I saw an adult then I shut my mouth cause I didn’t want to be slapped or told on by them to parents who take the hide off my back for not have manors in front my elders….

  8. Marion Lee Shepherd says:

    I have always been afraid of clowns. Just Pennywise alone is scary to me. Loved the first “It” and want to see this one. Still will never be close to clowns except on screen.

  9. Elaine says:

    That’s what I liked about the movie. The kids acted like real kids. It wasn’t some PG Spielberg schmaltz. And when Pennywise ripped Georgie’s arms off…oh man…I was all in. This isn’t some Goonies shit.

  10. LOUIS SOLANO says:

    I went to see “IT” and if you put sh before those two letters thats what I thought about the movie. No offense to Skarsgard I like the kid a great deal. His performance isnt the problem. The movie fell flat. Everyone I know that has gone to see this movie say the same thing. “It was ok’ That about sums it up or you could say it was “ehhhh”

  11. Doctor Doom says:

    Wait, was there flashback in IT?

  12. Naynay says:

    What is the thing they missed
    Is it real?

  13. Tiffaney Castaneda says:

    Movie would have been so much better if the kids had spoken like kids and not had the mouth of a truck driver. Super disappointed. It was hard to enjoy anything else with F words every other sentence. Won’t be seeing part 2. Very bummed because I was really looking forward to this.

    • Andrew Whitworth says:

      That is how kids talk. Not all of them, and that’s reflected as well, but yeah, they ain’t the saints you seem to think they are.

    • Kate says:

      Tiffany, KEEP your opinion. Notice all of the replies are people being A-ok with young kids cursing. However these same people complain about how horrible today’s youth is and why we have chicks like the cash me outside girl as role models, twerking and what not. Its because everyone has become lukewarm to the direction our youth is in. Also moron commenters, not ALL kids curse ;). Praise THOSE kids and stop rooting for the kinds you and your parents were like

    • Peter Essex says:

      You can’t be serious. Have you ever hung out with teenage pubescent boys?. No word of a lie every other word is the “F” word. In fact, the “F” bomb should be the least of your worries. Some of the langauge by today’s youth is truly astounding making even the “C” word redundant. Unfortunately for you, teenage boys are a lot worse than the lads depicted in IT. Trust me, I am one.

    • Jack Mehoff says:

      Kids usually always swear to impress other kids, retard

    • Jacen says:

      I was born in 1969 and raised in Bakersfield by a moderately conservative, somewhat blue collar family. My friends and I were all foul-mouthed before we started junior high school. This blue streak among us came from our parents, siblings, and other kids, but only marginally from the movies we watched (thanks to Star Channel, R-rated films could be viewed at any time of day, not that we needed it to picked up new and interesting words). Additionally, in sixth grade we dreamed up an X-rated version of Star Wars (called the Erotical Adventures of Star Wars) thanks to the local paper advertising the X-rated cinema on the same page as the regular ones–and right next to the comic strips. What doe this mean for you? That your understanding of how kids talk and what they might talk about–going back generations–is limited and a bit presumptuous.

    • Ryan Castaneda says:

      Kids have some of the worst mouths out of all humans. “Trying to be cool or impress friends.”

    • JoAnna says:

      I spoke that way. I also thought the kids in this movie played their parts very very well. And they cracked me up.

      • Paige S says:

        When me and my friends were 10 to 13 year olds (all girls) in the late 1970’s early 80’s we all swore like sailors and smoked like chimneys. That’s what kids did back then. I wouldn’t expect the Losers Club to be any different.

    • Brandon says:

      I spoke like that when I was 13. Had 10 year old neighbors who were even worse. I watched movies like Boyz in Tha Hood & Menace II Society and never said “that’s not how teenagers act because I don’t act that way”.

    • David says:

      I don’t know what kids you were hanging around when you were growing up, but I saw (heard) many kids overly swearing. Jist like every city you go to has a different mentality, every city would have different kids who thought of things in a different ways.

    • Blorp says:

      So a child getting his arm ripped off by a clown is fine, but the F word was offensive? I don’t know where you grew up, but that is how kids speak when adults aren’t around. Using bad words when you are that age is a new, exciting thing. That’s why they use them so excessively.

    • Mr. Coleman says:

      Hahaha. That IS how kids talk. That’s what I liked about It and South Park. It reminds me of my youth.

  14. Aly says:

    Would love to have the back story, maybe in Chapter 3??

  15. Mark says:

    No one cares about a Pwnnywise backstory. Good it was cut.

    • Robert Stockton says:

      Pennywise’s ‘back story’ is ALL IMPORTANT and shows that in relation to our understanding of “The Universe” she is ‘eternal’! God, imagine this verbose monstrosity trying to encapsulate ‘the Turtle’… (I suspect the cute 3 or 4 (IRRELEVANT) references to the Turtle will be the only ones, let alone an actual honouring in the plot/script of the movie, which is an INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY MISSED, just like the first movie.

      Tackling “It” in movie form was really a doomed endeavor. This being said, it could have been a HELL OF A LOT better (and the first movie, with all it’s limitations, WAS better). It really would have been hard to come up with a more derivative, disappointing piece of $#It.

    • Smuncher says:

      I care.

    • JoAnna says:

      I care. Stop trying to speak for everyone

    • David says:

      “You” don’t care about IT’s backstory.

  16. Elizabeth Bailey says:

    I think the movie was well done. More of a coming of age than a horror movie. I think the cast was stellar! Bill Skarsgard hit IT out of the park, to be sure. Although the movie strayed from the book and wasn’t as scary (although, I did jump plenty) as I had hoped, I still thought it was really good. I want to see it again to catch all the Easter eggs.

    • Robert Stockton says:

      The “Easter Eggs” were almost insulting, made all the worse by the dumb choice of setting it in the late 80’s instead of the late 50’s. Talk about pandering. Errrgghh.

  17. MovieBabble says:

    I wonder if the scene will be in the extended cut that is announced to be released with the blu-ray. That version is supposedly 15 minutes longer.

  18. Maria Aguilar says:

    I’m going to watch this movie on Saturday.
    I’m scared!

    • LOUIS SOLANO says:

      Dont be its not really all that scary. I think that was the whole reason I was so disappointed. Not scary.

      • MIIGHTYMOUSEvG says:

        I just went to see the movie last night and growing up I was scared of IT my sister’s tortured me with watching that movie when I seen it I was disappointed wasn’t scary more comedic then scary me personally they could of done better

      • I don’t think it was meant yo be scary. Scary is easy. Some ominous music, something jumps out of a dark space unexpectedly, you jump in response, ho hum. IT is more about the intensity. It’s deeply disturbing. I’ve never in a movie seen a 7 year old’s arm bitten off leaving him screaming and spraying blood for example. Little kids are usually safe in gory movies.

  19. Pris P says:

    I like that they didn’t pg13 it. Very entertaining movie and suspenseful. I hope the second one is more gritty

    • Robert Stockton says:

      The “Easter Eggs” were almost insulting, made all the worse by the dumb choice of setting it in the late 80’s instead of the late 50’s. Talk about pandering. Errrgghh.

      It could have been rated M15+ for God’s sake! And I’m not talking about more or less gore. The gore is absolutely second to the worldly reality of ‘psychological evil, anguish, damage and horror’ so eloquently (and R-ratedly!) exhibited in the book).

      Get the audio book. It is brilliant. Once you read/listen to that, you will not want to see Part 2 of this abomination.

  20. Anna says:

    Loved It. Laughed a lot. It was great.

More Film News from Variety