1. New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. The message board will be closed:
    From 4pm ET November 9th to 8:30am ET November 13th.
    From 4pm ET November 15th to 8:30am ET November 20th.
    From 4pm ET November 22nd to 8:30am ET November 27th.
    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

  3. Hot Topics is open from 8:30 AM - 4 PM ET Mon - Fri.

    Dismiss Notice

Comments about the "IT" movie

Discussion in 'IT (Part One) (2017)' started by USA1, Jun 10, 2017.

  1. Mel217

    Mel217 Well-Known Member

    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!
     
    kingricefan, GNTLGNT and Nomik like this.
  2. Nomik

    Nomik Carry on

  3. recitador

    recitador Speed Reader

    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
     
  4. Nomik

    Nomik Carry on

    Here you go! (You said that you wanted to watch them again)

     
    kingricefan, GNTLGNT and recitador like this.
  5. recitador

    recitador Speed Reader

    and again and again and again lol
     
    kingricefan, GNTLGNT and Nomik like this.
  6. recitador

    recitador Speed Reader

    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
     
    kingricefan, GNTLGNT and Nomik like this.
  7. Nomik

    Nomik Carry on

    I agree. I know we may have our attachments to the original cast, but I'm willing to give these actors a chance.
     
  8. GNTLGNT

    GNTLGNT The idiot is IN

    ...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....
     
  9. osnafrank

    osnafrank Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Steffen

    Steffen Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  11. LC1958

    LC1958 Member

    Don't forget the Tracker Brothers T-shirt Bill is wearing as well!
     
  12. Zone D Dad

    Zone D Dad Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  13. recitador

    recitador Speed Reader

    i clearly did not study the trailer close enough lol
     
    kingricefan and GNTLGNT like this.
  14. recitador

    recitador Speed Reader


    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.
     
    kingricefan, Zone D Dad and GNTLGNT like this.
  15. Mel217

    Mel217 Well-Known Member

    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:
    [​IMG]
     
    kingricefan, Doc Creed and GNTLGNT like this.
  16. Robert Gray

    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.
     
  17. doowopgirl

    doowopgirl very avid fan

    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.
     
  18. Mel217

    Mel217 Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  19. doowopgirl

    doowopgirl very avid fan

    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.
     
    kingricefan, Mel217 and GNTLGNT like this.
  20. Mel217

    Mel217 Well-Known Member

    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..
     
    kingricefan, doowopgirl and GNTLGNT like this.

Share This Page

Sleeping Beauties - Available Now