Pennywise

AchtungBaby said:

I'm completely fine with the movie being updated to 1989/2016. Stranger Things proves the '80s can be worked with and produce fantastically creepy results.

I'm all in on this one.

Click to expand...

Oh, a'yuh. The eighties can work great in a creepy context...that's why they should keep it like the book, and use 1985 for the doggone adult scenes. Doggone it.

I dunno. I just think of all the best King flicks--Shawshank, Green Mile, Stand By Me. Most cats will tell you (me included) that those are terrific films, and I believe they work so well because doggone filmmakers did very little tinkering with the material, and kept the same time frame.

Just my two bits...

Oh, my word....! That smile going up to his eyes...!

Ceefor said:

Oh, my word....! That smile going up to his eyes...!

Click to expand...

Do you think that's red grease paint, or some poor kid's blood?

Blood!!

Ooooo! Thankee sai Mod! Creepy!!!!

Like how it accentuates Skarsgard's lankiness.

Moderator said:

Here's the follow-up which shows more of the costume for Pennywise which is just out in today's EW.

Click to expand...

Very cool! It's worth reading the accompanying story as it goes into detail about the costume. Interesting stuff.

Moderator said:

Here's the follow-up which shows more of the costume for Pennywise which is just out in today's EW.

Click to expand...

That is creepy and dark. A new reason to fear clowns!

I have a feeling this movie is going to be done beautifully!! I love everything about this new look for the upcoming IT!

Can't wait.

I like the new Pennywise. I'm not expecting too much from the new one, so long as he comes across as creepy!

Moderator said:

Here's the follow-up which shows more of the costume for Pennywise which is just out in today's EW.

Click to expand...

I approve this message.

Eh. I'd prefer it actually look like the clown described in the book. Don't get me wrong, that is a creepy looking clown... but still doesn't look anymore like Pennywise than Tim Curry did.

I love this. I love the ancient look with the Harlequin influence, the latter of which I always found vaguely sinister in every illustration I've seen since childhood. I'm definitely giving IT a re-read before the movie comes out next year.

Smart choice to go a different approach than the 1990 version. I like that it's inspired by various styles of clown costumes throughout the ages, emphasizing the ancient evil that's always been there. The spider-like posture is a nice touch too. It interpretates themes the book gives, and stays true to it's color palette: white/silver-y suit, orange pompoms & hair, bloody red smile. I can see it work. I can hear both that child-like, giggly voice from the Adrian Mellon chapter as well as the gurgling, inhuman wet ancient voice coming out of this clown.

GeorgiesArm said:

Do you think that's red grease paint, or some poor kid's blood?

Click to expand...

Hope it's greasepaint.

From what I can gather most of you have high hopes for pennywise and this movie, so I'm curious about your opinions about this whole thing:
My take on it: I agree with him. The new screen writers have bad track records, the new director has not the greatest track record, either. Not to mention how the actor in question acted.
So what are your guys opinion on it?

I probably just answered you elsewhere, but I'll leave it here to for others to read

-----------

Of course it wasn't smart of Nic Hamilton to reply, but that guy is very misinformed.

The studio didn't kick Fukunaga out. He chose to leave, because he wanted the film to be NC-17. He wanted to include a couple of sexual scenes. Not the ones from the book, but a few he came up with himself. The studio said no, and he didn't want to make the movie without them, feeling they were essential to the 'offensive' spirit of the book.

They are still using the Fukunaga script. The mentioned Chase Palmer was Fukunaga's writing partner on the project. Muschietti adjusted it a bit to his vision, and Dauberman only rewrote about 10%, some minor adjustments.

If you appreciate Fukunaga because you're a film fan, you might be familiar with the work of Chung-Hoon Chung. He's the director of photographer on It, so it's at least going to look very unsettling and very beautiful.

Muschietti's film Mama was alright. I like the atmosphere of it, the story, the characters. Script has some problems, obviously due to stretching a 3 minute short to a full length movie. With the tweaked Fukunaga/Palmer script It should be able to achieve greatness. Here are some comments from him, answering the worries of the studio going for a conventional jumpscare movie:

The movie I pitched the studio is an elevated horror film that stays true to the essence of Stephen King's book, yet bringing a few new elements to the story. I will direct a movie that is based on the Palmer-Fukunaga script with the addition of some ideas that reflect my vision of the movie. I cannot talk about the reasons why the studio and Cary parted ways but I can tell you, the depth and quality remains uncompromised. Trust me when I tell you, I wouldnt have stayed 10 minutes in this project if I thought that i would be held back from doing an elevated, original and truly horrifying movie. I'm a huge fan of Stephen King and this book and if I sensed that they wanted to mess with IT to favor a conventional horror spectacle I would have walked away. There is more to it than what you read in the press, and, for good or bad, a lot of nuances and details never go public. For now, I can tell you, bear with me, you're not going to be disappointed, It's going to be *beep* awesome.

Click to expand...

It is very hard to talk about someone else's vision of a movie. The way Cary intended to execute the script is something that only he can talk about. I can say my version of IT highly emphasizes Pennywise's most terrifying virtue which is it's ability to materialize into your worst fear; I want to take people in a journey into Pennywise's world through a disturbing, surrealistic and intoxicating experience that will leave nobody at ease.

Click to expand...

I empathize with your concerns and in fact I feel the same way. Rest assured our film will be very focused on the human drama. For me it would be unconceivable to tell a horror story that lacks a powerful emotional core. Every single one of the losers has a special place in my heart and I want to honor this by exploring their minds and hearts in depth, further than anyone ever did before. I think you won't be disappointed. Cheers!

Click to expand...

I love IT as much as you and I feel very honored by being given the chance to adapt it the way it should. Do not be afraid. Nobody here wants to make an easy horror movie, I wouldn't have stayed a minute if that was the deal. I'm here because I want to make a version that will blow people's minds. Believe in it the way I do, you won't be sorry! Cheers.

Click to expand...

Now we patiently wait for the movie so we can see how it turned out

GeorgiesArm said:

I probably just answered you elsewhere, but I'll leave it here to for others to read

-----------

Of course it wasn't smart of Nic Hamilton to reply, but that guy is very misinformed.

The studio didn't kick Fukunaga out. He chose to leave, because he wanted the film to be NC-17. He wanted to include a couple of sexual scenes. Not the ones from the book, but a few he came up with himself. The studio said no, and he didn't want to make the movie without them, feeling they were essential to the 'offensive' spirit of the book.

They are still using the Fukunaga script. The mentioned Chase Palmer was Fukunaga's writing partner on the project. Muschietti adjusted it a bit to his vision, and Dauberman only rewrote about 10%, some minor adjustments.

If you appreciate Fukunaga because you're a film fan, you might be familiar with the work of Chung-Hoon Chung. He's the director of photographer on It, so it's at least going to look very unsettling and very beautiful.

Muschietti's film Mama was alright. I like the atmosphere of it, the story, the characters. Script has some problems, obviously due to stretching a 3 minute short to a full length movie. With the tweaked Fukunaga/Palmer script It should be able to achieve greatness. Here are some comments from him, answering the worries of the studio going for a conventional jumpscare movie:









Now we patiently wait for the movie so we can see how it turned out

Click to expand...

Fukunaga: “I was trying to make an unconventional horror film. It didn’t fit into the algorithm of what they knew they could spend and make money back on based on not offending their standard genre audience. Our budget was perfectly fine. We were always hovering at the $32 million mark, which was their budget. It was the creative that we were really battling. It was two movies. They didn’t care about that. In the first movie, what I was trying to do was an elevated horror film with actual characters. They didn’t want any characters. They wanted archetypes and scares. I wrote the script. They wanted me to make a much more inoffensive, conventional script. But I don’t think you can do proper Stephen King and make it inoffensive.

Click to expand...

So he was wrong or misspoke about Fukunaga, still doesn't change that one is a critically acclaimed director, and the new director and screen writer are mediocre in the eyes of film goers and critics.

I'm sorry, but the reasoning that they battled over just only a few sex scenes, sounds like bullshit. Even if it was that still does not bode well, what it shows me is that they are more concerned with money then the actual story.

Honestly I do hope this movie will be great, hell be a masterpiece, I along with many others would love for this movie to amazing; but, with all the things that have happened surrounding this film, I doubt it.