movies/tv Stephen King's 'IT' Remake

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,392]

Many of you probably know that they are making a remake of Stephen King's IT, which originally was a mini-series movie on TV and it is based on the book of the same name. The original film, while not perfect, has some really good moments that are genuinely creepy and Tim Curry was basically the perfect actor for Pennywise the Dancing Clown, he made the film his. The new film is supposedly going to be far more accurate to the book and therefore, more brutal.

Well, the trailer for the remake is officially out. How does it look?

Now, I am not sure what you all think, but I feel this trailer is the epitome of GARBAGE. This trailer is simply what every other horror movie trailer in the past 15 years has been. Loud noises, jumpscares, flashing images, and a 'OOHH SO INTENSE' musical score to accompany it. No subtlety or creativity, just the same old Hollywood schlock. Also there is a moment that is hilarious in the trailer that seems so out of place that it makes no sense.

It really is a shame because IT could make for such a great psychological horror film, but we apparently are getting some generic jumpscare BOOfest instead. What do you all think? I seriously hope this movie kicks the trailer in the face and turns out to be good, but trailers are suppose to give us a glimmer of the movie itself and this particular preview was bad, in my opinion.

 

[GrimGrimoire 4,973]

Meh it looked OK to me and some of the scenes did remind me of the book and give me hope it will mesh up pretty well for what it has. I never really liked the mini series that much and preferred the book overall so we will see. I don't expect it will meet up with what the book offers, but it honestly can't considering they have to leave out so much due to time constraints.

[ChocolateCrane 156]

I just hope they can deliver in the movie itself. It was Steven King's Magnum Opus, imo.

I don't see how a mere 2-3 hour movie can capture Its magnificence

Edit: I just watched the actual video you linked, Kyoshi (I at first assumed it was that 10 sec teaser from like over a year ago). And I gotta say, It actually looks pretty decent. Much better than I expected at least. Only real problem I have is the actual redesign of Pennywise himself. Tim Curry's big creepy alien head will forever be scarier than "generic creepy clown #7,345". I hope they capitalize on all the special effects they now have in the modern era to make Pennywise's mindfuckery all the more disturbing. Would be cool to see them really explore how his REAL form looks (the spider thing from the mini-series always sat the wrong way with me).

Quote

The new film is supposedly going to be far more accurate to the book and therefore, more brutal.

^That's what I like to hear. I assume an NC-17 rating is in order if they REALLY plan to go all out on accuracy... Somehow, I doubt it tho lol

Edited March 30, 2017 by ChocolateCrane

[ChocolateCrane 156]

41 minutes ago, GrimGrimoire said:

Meh it looked OK to me and some of the scenes did remind me of the book and give me hope it will mesh up pretty well for what it has. I never really liked the mini series that much and preferred the book overall so we will see. I don't expect it will meet up with what the book offers, but it honestly can't considering they have to leave out so much due to time constraints.

 

You think they will leave out the majority of scenes after the timeskip in order to compensate for the insanely low run time they are restricted to? Based on the trailer it seems like they are focusing on the MCs' life as children; or do you think they will attempt to go back and forth like in the novel?

There's really only so much you can expect from something like this; it's like trying to fit GTA 5 onto an NES cartridge...

[Randimaxis 8,652]

As both an AVID King fan and a Hollywood skeptic, I feel that the trailer is simply that - a trailer. It offers enough of a glimpse to get some folks going, yet doesn't elaborate enough for hardcore fans to make any clear judgements.

Commonday tactic: they know fans will see this and go looking for more - which will generate Net Interest and stimulate site hits on anything mentioning it.

Essentially, it is EXACTLY what it's supposed to be... a tease.

That being said, I plan to see both this and the inevitable sequel, because I do enjoy seeing how folks interpret King's work - good and bad included. Only way to know for sure if it's class or crap.

Judging a movie by its' trailer is like judging a book by its' cover; wait until you experience the movie before guessing how it'll be.

That being said, there are some... "interesting"... parts in the book that I'm curious to see how (and IF) they adapt them for screenplay - though the inclusion of what appears to be a nod to The Black Spot is rather nifty, as well as the house on Neibolt Street.

I, for one, am waiting with baited breath. 

Baited with parrafin-waxed paper boats. 😉

[ChocolateCrane 156]

47 minutes ago, Randimaxis said:

As both an AVID King fan and a Hollywood skeptic, I feel that the trailer is simply that - a trailer. It offers enough of a glimpse to get some folks going, yet doesn't elaborate enough for hardcore fans to make any clear judgements.

Commonday tactic: they know fans will see this and go looking for more - which will generate Net Interest and stimulate site hits on anything mentioning it.

My guess would be in the trailer, they are trying to cater to the more mainstream modern day movie goers with the "generic jump scare/ shifty scenes" thing. I would hope the movie itself will have a bit more to it; and how awesome would it be to have the actual GOOD parts of the movie NOT ruined by the trailer for once -.-

 

50 minutes ago, Randimaxis said:

That being said, I plan to see both this and the inevitable sequel, because I do enjoy seeing how folks interpret King's work - good and bad included. Only way to know for sure if it's class or crap.

Sequel >.>? They had plans for a sequel? You mean an "IT" sequel, as in it's being split into two parts, or do you mean there is another Steven King adaptation coming out soon thereafter? I haven't really been keeping up with things lately lol

 

54 minutes ago, Randimaxis said:

That being said, there are some... "interesting"... parts in the book that I'm curious to see how (and IF) they adapt them for screenplay 

I doubt anything will be explicit. I can see them trying to keep things as "accurate" as possible, given the time constraints of course. But certain things will likely be presented in a rather vague or fleeting manner (as opposed to being completely absent, like in the mini-series)

 

Speaking of the mini-series, I just decided to go and watch it again online for the first time in many years. My memories were a bit cloudy on it and this rewatching session helped me clear quite a few things up. Firstly, the runtime of the mini-series was only 3 hours. I remember it being significantly longer than that. Therefore, considering that feature films have been known to go on for upwards of 3 hours (see Peter Jackson's King Kong) it alleviates some of my worries regarding the potential lack of shifting 30 years in the future and back again. I will admit the mini-series did feel pretty rushed in some places (particularly towards the middle and ending), so a feature film would likely feel even MORE rushed -.- Secondly, the mini-series had a wonderful way of incorporating many slow buildups to scenes with large payoff; it also had the characters occupying a world that looked bright and cheerful at times (which is in stark contrast to the flitered greyish look this new movie has). My worry is, with the entire movie having this filter plastered over it, will this diminish the impact of some of the really frightening scenes? Bright and vibrant visuals trick your mind into a false sense of security and then they follow up with mindfuckery for a super-effective combo. Thirdly and finally, I hope that this new IT doesn't go out of its way to try and "appeal" to the new generation by throwing in a ton of modern things to "make it more relatable"; that would be disastrous. I could just imagine Eddie pulling out a smartphone or Bev belting out a "Yass!" and me throwing my arms up in defeat whilst walking out of the theatre in shame xD (Let's hope they keep things authentically "50's" and "80's" respectively)

[PawofBastet 6]

I read the book ages ago, I'll have to pick it up again and see how well it stands the test of time and nostalgia. I'm still on the fence whether to see the new movie in theaters or wait for the dvd release so I don't make a fool of myself in the theater. I'm not overly fond of clowns.

 

[Jeric 46,851]

4 hours ago, ChocolateCrane said:

It was Steven King's Magnum Opus, imo.

The Stand tho D:

8 minutes ago, ChocolateCrane said:

My guess would be in the trailer, they are trying to cater to the more mainstream modern day movie goers with the "generic jump scare/ shifty scenes" thing. I would hope the movie itself will have a bit more to it; and how awesome would it be to have the actual GOOD parts of the movie NOT ruined by the trailer for once -.-

 

This is what I think that they were doing as well. During the slide show scene, the reveal of Pennywise was subtle and drawn out, and his appearance in the gutter was a jump, but I noticed that shadows were obscuring detail making it feel more ominous than a typical jump scare. These little things, along with the actor for Pennywise, give me some hope for it. I think it looks interesting. 

 

1 hour ago, Randimaxis said:

Baited with parrafin-waxed paper boats. 😉

Oh you!

[Jeric 46,851]

14 minutes ago, ChocolateCrane said:

Sequel >.>? They had plans for a sequel? You mean an "IT" sequel, as in it's being split into two parts, or do you mean there is another Steven King adaptation coming out soon thereafter? I haven't really been keeping up with things lately lol

 

I heard talk that this film is focused on the young characters (the flashback scenes), and the intention is to create a second movie for the actual conclusion. Don't quote me on that though. 

[ChocolateCrane 156]

2 minutes ago, PawofBastet said:

I'm not overly fond of clowns.

xD I will jump to the assumption you mean you are frightened of clowns?

As a kid I always hated clowns. I would tell other people I hated em too. And they would always jump to the assumption that I was afraid of them. It boggled my mind that there are such a large subset of people who are actually terrified of clowns. I just hated them due to the overly juvenile nature and shallow "entertainment" they provided. Like, if I was at the circus, I would be saying "Ugh, when are the clowns leaving so the REAL show can begin? I wanna see some damn elephants and people shot out of cannons, not be subject to the comedy hour at some toddler's birthday party -.-"

15 years later and I still think pretty much the same way, lol. 

[ChocolateCrane 156]

2 minutes ago, Jeric said:

I heard talk that this film is focused on the young characters (the flashback scenes), and the intention is to create a second movie for the actual conclusion. Don't quote me on that though. 

 

^ That would be freaking BADASS!

Imagine if the first movie was 3 hours and then the sequel was also 3 hours? Now THAT would be a feast for the senses; and enough leeway to do the novel JUSTICE for once! >.<

[Jeric 46,851]

Just now, ChocolateCrane said:

 

^ That would be freaking BADASS!

Imagine if the first movie was 3 hours and then the sequel was also 3 hours? Now THAT would be a feast for the senses; and enough leeway to do the novel JUSTICE for once! >.<

I tried to look it up and according to IMDB Part 1 is set in the 80's and Part 2 is set Present Day and will be shooting in Bangor, Maine. 

I can see comparisons being made to Stranger Things now (which was compared to Stephen King films  )

[ChocolateCrane 156]

1 minute ago, Jeric said:

according to IMDB Part 1 is set in the 80's and Part 2 is set Present Day and will be shooting in Bangor, Maine. 

 

Oh NO! That will be disastrous! Q.Q

(I hope IMBD is wrong for once...)

 

26 minutes ago, ChocolateCrane said:

Speaking of the mini-series, I just decided to go and watch it again online for the first time in many years. My memories were a bit cloudy on it and this rewatching session helped me clear quite a few things up. Firstly, the runtime of the mini-series was only 3 hours. I remember it being significantly longer than that. Therefore, considering that feature films have been known to go on for upwards of 3 hours (see Peter Jackson's King Kong) it alleviates some of my worries regarding the potential lack of shifting 30 years in the future and back again. I will admit the mini-series did feel pretty rushed in some places (particularly towards the middle and ending), so a feature film would likely feel even MORE rushed -.- Secondly, the mini-series had a wonderful way of incorporating many slow buildups to scenes with large payoff; it also had the characters occupying a world that looked bright and cheerful at times (which is in stark contrast to the flitered greyish look this new movie has). My worry is, with the entire movie having this filter plastered over it, will this diminish the impact of some of the really frightening scenes? Bright and vibrant visuals trick your mind into a false sense of security and then they follow up with mindfuckery for a super-effective combo. Thirdly and finally, I hope that this new IT doesn't go out of its way to try and "appeal" to the new generation by throwing in a ton of modern things to "make it more relatable"; that would be disastrous. I could just imagine Eddie pulling out a smartphone or Bev belting out a "Yass!" and me throwing my arms up in defeat whilst walking out of the theatre in shame xD (Let's hope they keep things authentically "50's" and "80's" respectively)

 

[PawofBastet 6]

4 minutes ago, ChocolateCrane said:

xD I will jump to the assumption you mean you are frightened of clowns?

I would agree with that yes. I've always seem them as more of characters of tragedy than of comedy. It was an odd growing up, I know people who like clowns for what they perceive them to be, but I can't change my perception of what they seem to me. So reading 'It' for me was a bit of a challenge because of the main antagonist. But it was worth it :).

 

And I agree if they did that with the 3hr movie and sequel it would be awesome. Still waiting with a hopeful heart for the Dark Tower too

[Nightshroud 331]

Which movie did penny wise turned into a spider clown? I've seen bits of part 1 

[ChocolateCrane 156]

1 minute ago, Nightshroud said:

Which movie did penny wise turned into a spider clown? I've seen bits of part 1 

It would be the second part, when they are adults. If you are talking about the mini-series then at the very end lol.

[Nightshroud 331]

I have a question would it become like Carrie? Waaaaay to many remakes

[ChocolateCrane 156]

7 hours ago, Nightshroud said:

I have a question would it become like Carrie? Waaaaay to many remakes

Considering that IT has only had one tv mini-series and (now) is getting FINALLY getting one movie potentially being broken into two parts, I would have to say no. To my knowledge, Carrie has had a sequel, a tv film release, and a remake, so that's considerably more than IT has received.

I'm just really concerned about the possibility that things will take place 30 years later than they were supposed to in the book. (How exactly does that equate to being "more faithful to the source material??)

Btw, I retract a statement of mine from earlier:

13 hours ago, ChocolateCrane said:

Only real problem I have is the actual redesign of Pennywise himself. Tim Curry's big creepy alien head will forever be scarier than "generic creepy clown #7,345".

^That head is pretty damn big lol. Still, Pennywise seems more "gross-looking" in his redesign than "scary". Just my opinion.

[ChocolateCrane 156]

How do you guys feel about the main cast of the film?

 

Compare to:

 

 

^Ben, Richie and Bev seem to have gotten it the worst in the remake. Ben looks more accurately "obese" but he also seems to have lost the character in his face too; not sure if I'm willing to accept that trade off, honestly. In the 2017 version, I actually thought Richie was supposed to be Eddie LMAO. He looks so damn frail in the new version. I can't imagine this new kid being the lovable snarky smart-ass of the group (let alone instigating Henry Bowers...). And then there's Bev... idk man, she just looks like a freakin' Miley Cyrus wannabe lol. Like the modern day tween diva. Seems like a huge contrast to her earnest tomboyish nature of old. She looks a bit too damn old too; like everyone else in the group I could buy as being their legit ages, but she looks like she's 15 or something >.>

 

On the other hand, Bill looks decent enough. Not quite up to par with the brilliant mini-series version, but passable. The one thats supposed to be Eddie has a very fitting "look" for this type of movie. I don't really think he fits Eddie's persona very well tho :/ Mike looks a tad generic in the 2017 ver, and the same could be said for Stan... So, yeah, I guess I am not very fond of this new cast xDD (Hopefully they can prove me wrong with stellar performances)

Edited March 30, 2017 by ChocolateCrane

[Jon the VGNerd 885]

I'm gonna leave this here:

 

 

[TBD 17,254]

I didn't watch the movie to compare but I did read the book. (GOD the ending!) it is one of the dark and psychological bases on a child's aspect. So i guess it's hard for a trailer to express that. "It" is a horror movie, so it would make sense for the trailer to go about showing jumpscare, intense graphic, and flashing light.  But it would be nice to see them add that 80's-90's classic horror feels to it.

I think its look interesting, just as long they don't go to much with the gore to make it "scary".

[ChocolateCrane 156]

49 minutes ago, TBD said:

I think its look interesting, just as long they don't go to much with the gore to make it "scary".

The gore certainly shouldn't be what makes it "scary". It needs to have proper buildup like the miniseries had. I think there should definitely be more gore present in this movie, however. They just shouldn't rely on it to be the thing that scares the viewer (nor should they rely on jumpscares for that matter).

This may seem like an unreasonable request considering what modern mainstream audiences are into, but they DID say they wanted this adaptation to be more faithful to the novel.

Edited March 30, 2017 by ChocolateCrane

[cuteycindyhoney 13,306]

On 3/30/2017 at 1:42 AM, Jeric said:

I heard talk that this film is focused on the young characters (the flashback scenes), and the intention is to create a second movie for the actual conclusion. Don't quote me on that though. 

I just quoted you on that...

 

I read "It" several years ago. The TV movie did not do it justice. I have high hopes for the new film.

 

In my opinion, "The Stand" was the best book to screen adaptation of a King horror story. "Shawshank Redemption" was the best adaptation period.

 

The opening credit sequence of "The Stand" still sends chills down my spine. What a perfect choice of music!

 

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by cuteycindyhoney

[PiratePony 8,475]

I just saw the trailer...and it made me feel like I was watching the book come to life. So many great, terrying, disturbing scenes are going to be in the movie. The Black Spot Fire, the leper, Ben in the Library....some of what has disturbed me so much for over 20 years is now coming to the screen. This is my favorite book (unfortunately, as it's disturbing). I've read it about 5 times over the years. I'm thrilled. 

Whoever edited the trailer was too heavy handed with the music and jumpiness...which I think may have lead to the negative takeaway. 

The cast looks stellar. And looks *right.* 

[heavens-champion 1,905]

Well, looks like moviegoers are gonna get a reminder of why lots of people are afraid of clowns again.