IT remake 2017

[thabear04]

http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/0...phen-kings-it/

Things are really floating for Andrés Muschietti’s two-part remake of Stephen King’s It. A few weeks ago, the filmmaker posted a few pieces of concept art and set photos for his adaptation, and now he’s gone ahead and unleashed a terrifying first look at Bill Skarsgård as the nefarious titular force, Pennywise.

The soon-to-be 26-year-old actor spoke to Entertainment Weekly about the “extreme character,” specifically its complicated mythos: “He’s not even a clown. I’m playing just one of the beings It creates,” he explained, adding: “What’s funny to this evil entity might not be funny to everyone else. But he thinks it’s funny.”

Skarsgård also addressed the big shoes waiting to be filled with sewage water. “Tim Curry’s performance was truly great, but it’s important for me to do something different because of that,” he remarks of the veteran actor’s iconic role in the 1990 mini-series. “I’ll never be able to make a Tim Curry performance as good as Tim Curry.”

Better yet, the kid’s hit the books, as he contends: “I’ve been doing some clown research. I’m not sure if there was so much clown phobia before the novel. There’s obviously been this thing where people find clowns are unsettling, but nobody explored it the way Stephen King did.”

As previously reported, this adaptation will split King’s original 1986 novel into two movies. The first will follow the children being stalked by the titular shapeshifting monster, while the second will pick up decades later, when those same kids are confronting their same demons as adults.

Jaeden Lieberher, Finn Wolfhard, Jack Dylan Grazer, Wyatt Oleff, Chosen Jacobs, and Jeremy Ray Taylor lead the pack as The Losers Club which Skarsgård’s Pennywise and Owen Teague’s bullish Patrick Hocksetter will prey upon. Their adult counterparts have yet to be cast and it’s still unclear if they will prior to the first installment’s release.

Filming is currently underway in Port Hope, Ontario, which the production team has turned into Derry, Maine. Dread Central recently stumbled upon a number of juicy set photos, confirming the time frame (Summer 1989) and the appearance of one terrifying form of It (ahem, he’s carrying an axe). Take a look at a handful of shots below.

The first half of Stephen King’s It hits theaters September 8th, 2017.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by Molitoth

I agree, and broadened the audience.
A couple f-bombs here and there... fine... but too many unnecessary instances made this script.

I suppose we live in an era where F-bombs being dropped as common filler in kids sentence formation is the norm, but I still can't help thinking it sounds super trashy and reflects on a tad of ill parenting.

I'm glad they didn't. I was disappointed in the few people who thought this was a good movie to bring their 5-10 year olds too. Making ti PG13 makes it a full blown kid fest.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Rausch

King isn't about jump scares - he's all about the slow build. Making you think about the room, make the decision on going in the room or not, and then explaining it as you enter the room.
.

I enjoyed the movie, but the slow build was not there at all, except maybe the first scene with Georgie at the sewer. In the book when the Bowers gang first grabs Ben there is a slow build as to how far he will go. His friends all start to freak out when he pulls out the knife and starts to cut him. In the movie the scene is extremely rushed with no foreboding or anxiety inducing build up.

[Molitoth]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

I enjoyed the movie, but the slow build was not there at all, except maybe the first scene with Georgie at the sewer. In the book when the Bowers gang first grabs Ben there is a slow build as to how far he will go. His friends all start to freak out when he pulls out the knife and starts to cut him. In the movie the scene is extremely rushed with no foreboding or anxiety inducing build up.

That is the problem with comparing books to movies. You cannot fit all of that expected detail into a 2:15 movie. IT is a damn huge book too.

This is why full blown TV shows are far superior to movies when it comes to detail. Think of Breaking Bad being forced into 2 hours. Yikes!

I'm so glad they remade this film... but think of how awesome it could have been as a Netflix series (Stranger Things)

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by Rausch

This is what worried me.

King isn't about jump scares - he's all about the slow build. Making you think about the room, make the decision on going in the room or not, and then explaining it as you enter the room.

It's not about being scared watching it - it's about conquering childhood fears...

Without giving away spoilers, is there an excess amount of jumpscares?

[Ragged Robin]

I'd give it a 7/10. Above average.. at best. Far too disappointing for me tbh. It was exactly what I expected it would be, which was take everything about the original series and then give it a juvenile "modern" treatment: Pennywise is ultraviolent (and barely even characterized), the bullies are ultraviolent, the kids swear every two seconds, every single scene is a scare back to back to back.

Here are the number of problems I can think of off the top of my head:

• Pennywise is no longer creepy. They tried really, really hard to make him as scary as possible but it's all superficial: CGI-added every single scene he's in, the trashy outfit.. everything creepy and ****ed up about Pennywise was removed. He barely even talks. The actor himself looks too young too. Something about the older-looking Pennywise plays well into the creep factor. Beverly's dad was more scary than Pennywise.
• "Sexy teen" being a plot point. Yes, the series made a point of making Beverly desirable to the other characters, but not to this extent where she's using it to manipulate the pharmacist, be slut-shamed at school, etc. The dad featured a little too much, we already got the point in the very first scene he was in.
• Every scene is a scare.
• The kids weren't this stupid in the series (is that a noise? I better go walk towards it.. and then repeat this fifty times over).
• The relationship between the kids. This may be excused because they had far less time to squeeze this into a 2.25hr movie but still, they might as well have cut out Stan and a few of the other kids like Mike. Stan's pragmatic and logical defiance to the reality of the situation was shown for like two seconds, just like the rest of his character. They similarly had a tough time even justifying why Mike is in the script at all. The relationship between Bill and Ben isn't there.. in fact.. no one even seems to like Ben at all. The series made a point to develop their friendship and trust, not sure why anyone cares about Ben in the movie.
• Richie was too much. Just felt like cheap humor. He was originally goofy and annoying in the series, but here he's just kind of shitty. The Stranger Things kid was chewing the scenery. I understand why this is a fan favorite but it just felt out of place for me.
• Completely eliminated the plot thread of each having a weird quirk which later is shown to have gone away when they're older (which subsequently comes back when IT does)

So all in all, its enjoyable and solid, I guess. But if you were creeped the **** out by the original series and loved it despite it's quirks (that horrible second half), can't help but be disappointed with this one. Not scary or creepy one bit.

[BWillie]

If it is anywhere near as bad as the original IT, it will be ****ing horrible. I just don't understand the horror genre, though.

[KS Smitty]

I started reading Stephen King books back in the mid 70's and Carrie was the first horror movie that kept me scared after the movie was over (as a teenager).

The horror genre is my favorite type of movie to see as well as book to read. I always expect a lot less from a Stephen King movie because I have already read the story on which it is based and so much of what is put in (many) books just can't be translated to film.

I didn't find it terribly scary, it followed the book well in some aspects in others not. Bevvie's dad was important to the story as was Eddie's clinging mother, but it didn't touch on Bill's parents grief at all which I thought was important. Richie did not have to be as important but the actor is probably the best known of the bunch so keep him front and center. Lots of other things vs the book but it wasn't a bad movie. The only time I jumped was when the music suddenly blasted after silence (twice). The crude jokes would have been hilarious if they hadn't contained **** so many times.

Pennywise was scary like a pervert or creeper following you around, Tim Curry Pennywise was more like Hannibal Lector following you around. One makes your skin crawl the other makes you crap your pants in fear.

Although it may read otherwise I enjoyed the movie and will definitely see Chapter 2.

[KCrockaholic]

Saw IT today. I really liked the movie itself. Very entertaining and engaging throughout. I'm glad there wasn't a rape scene as some had suggested, and I didn't mind the kids cursing non stop, not a big deal to me. It was actually a comedic horror style to me.

[Molitoth]

Originally Posted by Ragged Robin

I'd give it a 7/10. Above average.. at best. Far too disappointing for me tbh. It was exactly what I expected it would be, which was take everything about the original series and then give it a juvenile "modern" treatment: Pennywise is ultraviolent (and barely even characterized), the bullies are ultraviolent, the kids swear every two seconds, every single scene is a scare back to back to back.

Here are the number of problems I can think of off the top of my head:

• Pennywise is no longer creepy. They tried really, really hard to make him as scary as possible but it's all superficial: CGI-added every single scene he's in, the trashy outfit.. everything creepy and ****ed up about Pennywise was removed. He barely even talks. The actor himself looks too young too. Something about the older-looking Pennywise plays well into the creep factor. Beverly's dad was more scary than Pennywise.
• "Sexy teen" being a plot point. Yes, the series made a point of making Beverly desirable to the other characters, but not to this extent where she's using it to manipulate the pharmacist, be slut-shamed at school, etc. The dad featured a little too much, we already got the point in the very first scene he was in.
• Every scene is a scare.
• The kids weren't this stupid in the series (is that a noise? I better go walk towards it.. and then repeat this fifty times over).
• The relationship between the kids. This may be excused because they had far less time to squeeze this into a 2.25hr movie but still, they might as well have cut out Stan and a few of the other kids like Mike. Stan's pragmatic and logical defiance to the reality of the situation was shown for like two seconds, just like the rest of his character. They similarly had a tough time even justifying why Mike is in the script at all. The relationship between Bill and Ben isn't there.. in fact.. no one even seems to like Ben at all. The series made a point to develop their friendship and trust, not sure why anyone cares about Ben in the movie.
• Richie was too much. Just felt like cheap humor. He was originally goofy and annoying in the series, but here he's just kind of shitty. The Stranger Things kid was chewing the scenery. I understand why this is a fan favorite but it just felt out of place for me.
• Completely eliminated the plot thread of each having a weird quirk which later is shown to have gone away when they're older (which subsequently comes back when IT does)

So all in all, its enjoyable and solid, I guess. But if you were creeped the **** out by the original series and loved it despite it's quirks (that horrible second half), can't help but be disappointed with this one. Not scary or creepy one bit.

As much as I enjoyed the movie, you made many good points that I actually agree with. After some thinking, I still think the original mini-series was done way better considering the era in which it came out.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Molitoth

I agree, and broadened the audience.
A couple f-bombs here and there... fine... but too many unnecessary instances made this script.

I suppose we live in an era where F-bombs being dropped as common filler in kids sentence formation is the norm, but I still can't help thinking it sounds super trashy and reflects on a tad of ill parenting.

I honestly think they purposefully put in that many f words just so they could get the R rating.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Molitoth]

Originally Posted by -King-

I honestly think they purposefully put in that many f words just so they could get the R rating.
Posted via Mobile Device

Silly, right?

Hell, they may have just gone super edgy and put in the orgy scene and shot for the X rating. =P slackers

[Predarat]

Originally Posted by KCtotheSB

I just saw a clip of the Georgie mauling scene.
There are two things I hate watching in movies: rape scenes and anytime where kids get tortured/killed.

......but I'll suck it up to see this movie.

Me too, always hate the Alex Kitner scene is Jaws.

[New World Order]

Anyone think they pussified Pennywise?

The kids don't really have much internal conflict to hunt and kill Pennywise.

It all seemed so matter of fact.

[ModSocks]

Saw IT last night and enjoyed IT quite a bit.

I actually liked it more than the original (ducks for cover). Loved the humor, didn't mind the cussing. Sure, we could sit here and nitpick it as it wasn't perfect.

The kids always wandering off annoyed me more than anything. "Guys, we gotta stick together"...and then a kid immediately wanders off...every freakin' time.

It was engaging, it was humorous, i thought they executed the time period extremely well and i thought Pennywise was significantly more creepy than the original.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

I actually liked it more than the original (ducks for cover)..

I agree. I don't understand the love for the tv series. It was bad.