Comments about the "IT" movie

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

Mel217

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2017
904
5,756
Again, I just want to reiterate that I think this movie will be fine, but I'm not sure why some of the earlier posters got so defensive, and went so far as to say as I was preaching on this site. I just honestly think that this book would have been much better told in a mini series (by the director of the first season of True Detective, which is one of the greatest TV shows of all time.) I read this book, and am in love with it. But with that said, I appreciate all the detail and work SK put into it and think a miniseries would work better. If you disagree with me that's fine, but please just give me reasons so we can discuss this civilly instead on getting all upset. For instance, in a 2 hour movie, I don't think Henry Bowers can be devolved enough for us to feel any sympathy for him. I worry that in a movie, Bowers will just come off as some crazy kid who is pure evil and who we all want dead. But in the novel, much of this stems from a terrible childhood led by the truly evil man, Butch Bowers. Again, I'm not defending Henry, but I just feel that in a movie as compared to a mini series he won't be devolved enough for the audience to really appreciate were he comes from as we saw in the novel.

No great book IMO can be done justice on the big screen no matter how talented the director, producer, or actor(s) are, which is why I always encourage people to read the book if they enjoy the movie! (Plus, for a lot of people, myself not exactly excluded, seeing the movie first helps create an easy to remember face when reading the book. This goes double for any book that has a LOT of people in it and sometimes it can be hard to keep those names and faces straight. First time through the book I had a really hard time keeping Bill and Ben straight, but once I watched the 1990 movie I was all, "Oh, right. Bill = John Boy and Ben = Jack Tripper.")
2 or 3 hours is not enough time for a lot of character development, but unfortunately when movies are many hours long most people respond negatively. Character development can be (and often is) exhilarating on paper, but IMO kind of boring on screen. After so much time, you start losing your audience. A mini series would be awesome, but sometimes it's fun to get the "short version" via a movie and (for me) it's sometimes fun to see what different directions the movie takes in order to wrap up a very long novel in a relatively short period of time.
Forgot to add: as bad as it sounds there have been a few movies, or movie reviews, that prompted me to read the book. When Nostalgia Critic tore the Langoliers apart, I immediately watched the movie and read the book and found a story that I really, really enjoy!
 

recitador

Speed Reader
Sep 3, 2016
1,750
8,264
41
Again, I just want to reiterate that I think this movie will be fine, but I'm not sure why some of the earlier posters got so defensive, and went so far as to say as I was preaching on this site. I just honestly think that this book would have been much better told in a mini series (by the director of the first season of True Detective, which is one of the greatest TV shows of all time.) I read this book, and am in love with it. But with that said, I appreciate all the detail and work SK put into it and think a miniseries would work better. If you disagree with me that's fine, but please just give me reasons so we can discuss this civilly instead on getting all upset. For instance, in a 2 hour movie, I don't think Henry Bowers can be devolved enough for us to feel any sympathy for him. I worry that in a movie, Bowers will just come off as some crazy kid who is pure evil and who we all want dead. But in the novel, much of this stems from a terrible childhood led by the truly evil man, Butch Bowers. Again, I'm not defending Henry, but I just feel that in a movie as compared to a mini series he won't be devolved enough for the audience to really appreciate were he comes from as we saw in the novel.

i don't think it would be too hard to slip in a scene or two with his crazy dad. not sure they're going to, but i can see there being time for it. have they given us a length yet? it could be over 2 hours, lots of movies are these days. reasons i think this is going to do fine: they've got attention to detail going. pennywise's costume actually reflects the book this time around, someone said one of the kids was wearing a "Freese's" shirt (i missed that, i need to watch both trailers again, btw, anyone post the second one here yet?). we're getting more book stuff already than last time. neibolt street house being a big one. it feels darker and scarier than the old tv miniseries based on the trailer, so it seems like they're setting the mood better. there's probably more details that i just didn't pick up from the trailer, but the overall vibe i get from it is one that's faithful to the book, even without using all the details from it, so i think everyone might be pleasanty (unpleasantly? it is a scary movie after all) surprised
 

Nomik

Carry on
Jun 19, 2016
3,973
22,555
47
Derry, NH
i don't think it would be too hard to slip in a scene or two with his crazy dad. not sure they're going to, but i can see there being time for it. have they given us a length yet? it could be over 2 hours, lots of movies are these days. reasons i think this is going to do fine: they've got attention to detail going. pennywise's costume actually reflects the book this time around, someone said one of the kids was wearing a "Freese's" shirt (i missed that, i need to watch both trailers again, btw, anyone post the second one here yet?). we're getting more book stuff already than last time. neibolt street house being a big one. it feels darker and scarier than the old tv miniseries based on the trailer, so it seems like they're setting the mood better. there's probably more details that i just didn't pick up from the trailer, but the overall vibe i get from it is one that's faithful to the book, even without using all the details from it, so i think everyone might be pleasanty (unpleasantly? it is a scary movie after all) surprised
Here you go! (You said that you wanted to watch them again)
 

recitador

Speed Reader
Sep 3, 2016
1,750
8,264
41
i saw the shirt this time. good catch on someone's part. i also like how they flash the bower crew on screen when they mention monsters in the second one. i feel like these kid actors might be better at giving "oh sh!t" faces and portraying terror
 

Nomik

Carry on
Jun 19, 2016
3,973
22,555
47
Derry, NH
i saw the shirt this time. good catch on someone's part. i also like how they flash the bower crew on screen when they mention monsters in the second one. i feel like these kid actors might be better at giving "oh sh!t" faces and portraying terror
I agree. I know we may have our attachments to the original cast, but I'm willing to give these actors a chance.
 

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,651
358,754
62
Cambridge, Ohio
Again, I just want to reiterate that I think this movie will be fine, but I'm not sure why some of the earlier posters got so defensive, and went so far as to say as I was preaching on this site. I just honestly think that this book would have been much better told in a mini series (by the director of the first season of True Detective, which is one of the greatest TV shows of all time.) I read this book, and am in love with it. But with that said, I appreciate all the detail and work SK put into it and think a miniseries would work better. If you disagree with me that's fine, but please just give me reasons so we can discuss this civilly instead on getting all upset. For instance, in a 2 hour movie, I don't think Henry Bowers can be devolved enough for us to feel any sympathy for him. I worry that in a movie, Bowers will just come off as some crazy kid who is pure evil and who we all want dead. But in the novel, much of this stems from a terrible childhood led by the truly evil man, Butch Bowers. Again, I'm not defending Henry, but I just feel that in a movie as compared to a mini series he won't be devolved enough for the audience to really appreciate were he comes from as we saw in the novel.
...it was discussed civilly...I simply used your own words in my opening....no offense intended, nor do I consider another train of rational thought "defensive"...having said that, lets go to our separate corners and see how the fight goes at the box office....
 

osnafrank

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2017
7,121
50,822
47
Germany
My new favorite word! :)

039.gif
 

Steffen

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,233
12,800
The other posts have covered my take on this subject quite well, so I won't reiterate. But I will say this: like many other people, I was disappointed when Cary Fukunaga left the project, but then I got a hold of a version of the script he worked on (don't ask how; it's out there). Let's just say that I'm sure CF would have made a terrific, stylish horror film, but as an adaptation of SK's work, it would have failed badly. CF was a little too concerned with putting his personal stamp on the film. From the trailers we've seen, I replacement director Andy Muschietti has done a splendid job of capturing the essence of the story and they seem to have put together a stellar cast. Either which way, we'll find out in September. I'm looking forward to it.
 

Zone D Dad

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2017
359
1,829
Chicago Suburbs
I can't wait for this movie. It's been a very long time since a new release had me this excited, and i believe it's possible to make a reasonably faithful adaptation that captures the spirit of the novel, even though there must be omissions due to the limitations of the format. Think of Darabont's The Green Mile, which I think best illustrates that it's possible to maintain fidelity to the source. It is by far my favorite SK novel, but there are plenty of scenes that can be ignored in a film adaptation that won't sacrifice the integrity of the story.
 

recitador

Speed Reader
Sep 3, 2016
1,750
8,264
41
I can't wait for this movie. It's been a very long time since a new release had me this excited, and i believe it's possible to make a reasonably faithful adaptation that captures the spirit of the novel, even though there must be omissions due to the limitations of the format. Think of Darabont's The Green Mile, which I think best illustrates that it's possible to maintain fidelity to the source. It is by far my favorite SK novel, but there are plenty of scenes that can be ignored in a film adaptation that won't sacrifice the integrity of the story.


this is true. i know a lot of us *want* some interludes, but realistically we also know that they aren't inherently necessary to tell it, as a for instance.
 

Mel217

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2017
904
5,756
I agree. I know we may have our attachments to the original cast, but I'm willing to give these actors a chance.

As am I! I love the original cast as that's who I now picture in my mind when reading the book (also some funny interludes, courtesy of Nostalgia Critic), but the story is so huge, and so in depth and in detail that I'm hoping the new cast will take it a step further.
I feel like a jerk but when I watch the movie, I find myself laughing at inappropriate times because I picture this:
tumblr_mzfxr9x9e61tq4of6o1_400.gif
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
I'm not worried about the cast. I just hope the script doesn't lose focus on the stuff that made the book great, i.e. the relationships and stuff about growing up, growing old, and finding youth again. Pennywise, to me, is nothing but a McGuffin. The monster is the catalyst around which we can see the human issues in a heightened context of drama and time. Don't get me wrong, I think It is one of the great monsters of all time, but that isn't what made the book great.
 

doowopgirl

very avid fan
Aug 7, 2009
6,946
25,119
65
dublin ireland
Kubrick's version of The Shining didn't follow the book much, but I do find it to be a really well made movie with really great atmosphere and timing. I thoroughly enjoy the movie, but I enjoy the book more :) The book hedge animals freaked me out, but the hedge maze was a good solution for the movie when it came to something that wouldn't (and didn't) work well on camera (especially in the late '70's and early '80's before so many special effects.)
I'm with GeorgiesArm 100%; essence and mood matter. The Langoliers CGI was silly but the premise of the book was truly something that freaked me out. Letting your imagination go and think "What if that happened to me" really can make you start feeling weird about normal things like climbing on a plane.
I agree. Langoliers was such a creepy premise. The best of King's work always makes me think 'what would I do?'. Langoliers was, IMO a little too long and had a lot of terrible acting, but the mood was right. Hoping for the best for It.
 

Mel217

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2017
904
5,756
I agree. Langoliers was such a creepy premise. The best of King's work always makes me think 'what would I do?'. Langoliers was, IMO a little too long and had a lot of terrible acting, but the mood was right. Hoping for the best for It.

The movie was pretty long, agreed. I love Bronson though, so Mr. Toomey is totally boss in my world ("scaring the little GIRL?!" is my ringtone. Freaks the heck out of people if I'm in a quiet store and I forgot to turn my ringer volume down, LOL.)
I have the same issue with the Langoliers as another poster has with It (when it comes to book vs. movie), the character development, while long and important and well-written in the books, doesn't translate to screen very well. TV Mr. Toomey was a nut, book Mr. Toomey was a stressed and mentally unstable person that you kinda felt sorry for. Henry Bowers in the 1990 movie was a jackass of a child that had no real background as to why he was such a little snot (other than the comment that his dad will whip his butt when he gets told to stay after school). The book? Way more information. It's tough for movie producers to bring as much of that as possible to the screen without losing the audiences interest.
 

doowopgirl

very avid fan
Aug 7, 2009
6,946
25,119
65
dublin ireland
The movie was pretty long, agreed. I love Bronson though, so Mr. Toomey is totally boss in my world ("scaring the little GIRL?!" is my ringtone. Freaks the heck out of people if I'm in a quiet store and I forgot to turn my ringer volume down, LOL.)
I have the same issue with the Langoliers as another poster has with It (when it comes to book vs. movie), the character development, while long and important and well-written in the books, doesn't translate to screen very well. TV Mr. Toomey was a nut, book Mr. Toomey was a stressed and mentally unstable person that you kinda felt sorry for. Henry Bowers in the 1990 movie was a jackass of a child that had no real background as to why he was such a little snot (other than the comment that his dad will whip his butt when he gets told to stay after school). The book? Way more information. It's tough for movie producers to bring as much of that as possible to the screen without losing the audiences interest.
I agree with everything you just said. Mr. Toomey was the best character. I like a little background about why people are the way they are.
 

Mel217

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2017
904
5,756
I agree with everything you just said. Mr. Toomey was the best character. I like a little background about why people are the way they are.

The only real background we got of TV Toomey was his flashbacks, and his father was a bigger nut and a louder screamer than he was :p His book father was way more of a presence and somewhat terrifying in his own right. It was good to see his father in the movie, but so much got missed, and his mother was never mentioned which is a shame because IMO she was at least 50% responsible for the way Mr. Toomey turned out..