Pennywise

[GeorgiesArm]

and the new director and screen writer are mediocre in the eyes of film goers and critics.

Director has made one movie where he was forced to impliment elements the movie got criticised for. You gotta be open to giving people a chance. Have you seen Mama yourself?

Main screen writer, as I said, is Fukunaga who, as you said, is critically acclaimed.

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.

Well, it is the reason. And if the film goers knew what these scenes contained, they'd be glad Fukunaga left. I'm gonna guess that includes you. He could've just removed them, but he behaved like a child.

It shows they are concerned with how an audience will look upon NC-17 involving children. And yes, they are concerned with money. They invested. This movie's budget is somewhere between 20-30 million dollars, and the top grossing NC-17 movies made:

1 Showgirls $20,350,754
2 Henry & June $11,567,449
3 The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover $7,724,701

The whole thing would've been box office suicide. But, how does it imply they are not concerned with actual story? It doesn't. Again, they kept the majority of Fukunaga's screenplay.

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.

I've been a huge Fukunaga fan ever since I saw Sin Nombre when it was playing the festivals. When he dropped out, and he gave his reasons, I was severely disappointed. But everything I've learned about this film since the beginning of this year has given me back hope, and proven that Fukunaga's statement isn't the truth.

 

[Stranger.Danger]

Director has made one movie where he was forced to impliment elements the movie got criticised for. You gotta be open to giving people a chance. Have you seen Mama yourself?

Main screen writer, as I said, is Fukunaga who, as you said, is critically acclaimed.



Well, it is the reason. And if the film goers knew what these scenes contained, they'd be glad Fukunaga left. I'm gonna guess that includes you. He could've just removed them, but he behaved like a child.

It shows they are concerned with how an audience will look upon NC-17 involving children. And yes, they are concerned with money. They invested. This movie's budget is somewhere between 20-30 million dollars, and the top grossing NC-17 movies made:

1 Showgirls $20,350,754
2 Henry & June $11,567,449
3 The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover $7,724,701

The whole thing would've been box office suicide. But, how does it imply they are not concerned with actual story? It doesn't. Again, they kept the majority of Fukunaga's screenplay.



I've been a huge Fukunaga fan ever since I saw Sin Nombre when it was playing the festivals. When he dropped out, and he gave his reasons, I was severely disappointed. But everything I've learned about this film since the beginning of this year has given me back hope, and proven that Fukunaga's statement isn't the truth.

No I haven't seen Mama myself. So I honestly couldn't say if it's a good movie, or not. But I can see is that they hired a director with mediocre credentials. But with as many mediocre Stephen King horror movies out there, the fact that the director they obtained a director has such mediocre credentials, does not sit well with me.

Honestly I don't know about the script I've looked about, and haven't found anything about it, so if you could give me a link to it, that'd be great.

When I say they only care about money I got my point acroos poorly. To me it looks like they are only concerned with is your typical Stephen King Horror adaption.

Well, it is the reason. And if the film goers knew what these scenes contained, they'd be glad Fukunaga left. I'm gonna guess that includes you. He could've just removed them, but he behaved like a child.

I honestly don't care If it is NC-17. What I was looking forward to see was a unconventional horror story based on a Stephen King book, and not your run of the mill Stephen King adaptation. But I could be wrong, I hope I am wrong, I would love for this to be an amazing movie.

 

[Robert Gray]

I think the video above comes off needlessly harsh. Do I disagree with the sense of apprehension? No. I think it is a valid concern when accomplished Directors walk away from a project (or demote themselves to Producer or whatnot as has happened in the Dark Tower project). I think it is uncomfortable when the replacement is a relative unknown, or worse someone with a spotty record. These are all portents and omens which often mean we are in for a let down. That being said, I want to point out some rather hopeful things:

1. A 60%+ on Rotten Tomatoes for a Horror film is actually very good. Critics don't, in general, get or like horror. Breaking sixty percent in that genre is actually far above par.
2. We must not forget that the original Halloween was also made by someone almost entirely unknown too.
3. The extra spotlight put on this situation alone by the departure of the previous Director will put real pressure on the new guy (and Studio) to prove they are not idiots.

In short, I haven't written this project off. I will probably see it short of it getting panned by other King fans I trust. The caveat I give to this commentary is that despite the trollish delivery of the guy talking about his concerns, his points all have merit and weight. In addition, I think it is downright weird (and untrustworthy) for some to start trying to attack the departing (amazing) Director and somehow "spin" why his vision wasn't sustainable. That kind of of campaign feels like a shill situation. The man's work speaks for itself. We will never see the version of film he envisioned, but attempting to somehow cast it as subversive is unworthy behavior.

 

[Stranger.Danger]

I think the video above comes off needlessly harsh. Do I disagree with the sense of apprehension? No. I think it is a valid concern when accomplished Directors walk away from a project (or demote themselves to Producer or whatnot as has happened in the Dark Tower project). I think it is uncomfortable when the replacement is a relative unknown, or worse someone with a spotty record. These are all portents and omens which often mean we are in for a let down. That being said, I want to point out some rather hopeful things:

1. A 60%+ on Rotten Tomatoes for a Horror film is actually very good. Critics don't, in general, get or like horror. Breaking sixty percent in that genre is actually far above par.
2. We must not forget that the original Halloween was also made by someone almost entirely unknown too.
3. The extra spotlight put on this situation alone by the departure of the previous Director will put real pressure on the new guy (and Studio) to prove they are not idiots.

In short, I haven't written this project off. I will probably see it short of it getting panned by other King fans I trust. The caveat I give to this commentary is that despite the trollish delivery of the guy talking about his concerns, his points all have merit and weight. In addition, I think it is downright weird (and untrustworthy) for some to start trying to attack the departing (amazing) Director and somehow "spin" why his vision wasn't sustainable. That kind of of campaign feels like a shill situation. The man's work speaks for itself. We will never see the version of film he envisioned, but attempting to somehow cast it as subversive is unworthy behavior.

Needlessly harsh, no not really. The actor stepped right on to his front door, and insulted him. Maybe It'll be a learning experience for him; but, I don't know; I don't care; I just enjoyed the entertainment I got from it.

 

[Robert Gray]

Needlessly harsh, no not really. The actor stepped right on to his front door, and insulted him. Maybe It'll be a learning experience for him; but, I don't know; I don't care; I just enjoyed the entertainment I got from it.

Why shouldn't the actor do that though? The actor, in fairness to the young thespian, is invested in the project. He is part of it. When you are part of an undertaking like that, you are defensive about it and the people you know and like. It is always easy for those of us in the "cheap seats" to pick things apart. Don't get me wrong, I'm no more optimistic about the project than anyone else. I do, however, understand the actor's feelings on the matter. His lack of effective rhetoric is a testament to his age, not his passion or even his righteousness. The truth is we don't know if the film will be any good or not. At least at this time, he knows far more about it than you or I. Moreover, I don't really trust ANYONE who makes their living or chases their fifteen minutes of fame as a professional internet troll (as in the Amazing Atheist). When I comment, critique, or prognosticate I am doing it without pay. I like to flatter myself that I do so with more substance than just language. I prefer logos to pathos. You and I differ in that I got no enjoyment from watching/reading either person's screed.

 

[Stranger.Danger]

Why shouldn't the actor do that though? The actor, in fairness to the young thespian, is invested in the project. He is part of it. When you are part of an undertaking like that, you are defensive about it and the people you know and like. It is always easy for those of us in the "cheap seats" to pick things apart. Don't get me wrong, I'm no more optimistic about the project than anyone else. I do, however, understand the actor's feelings on the matter. His lack of effective rhetoric is a testament to his age, not his passion or even his righteousness. The truth is we don't know if the film will be any good or not. At least at this time, he knows far more about it than you or I. Moreover, I don't really trust ANYONE who makes their living or chases their fifteen minutes of fame as a professional internet troll (as in the Amazing Atheist). When I comment, critique, or prognosticate I am doing it without pay. I like to flatter myself that I do so with more substance than just language. I prefer logos to pathos. You and I differ in that I got no enjoyment from watching/reading either person's screed.

Well, we differ on what we enjoy. Yes he did take part in it, and has invested time in it, but so have other actors of lower and greater caliber; but they don't go off picking fights with people: over criticism when the film is still in production. Don't get me wrong I know there are actors that do, but it is still the sign of a ill disciplined actor. And yeah, he does know more than you and me.

He's actually not a troll. He might be over the top and trolly at moments, but he makes serious videos regularly.

 

[recitador]

well, that video certainly doesn't make me want to watch more of his stuff. rants in type are bearable, but come off overly angry and terrible when spoken aloud if done wrong, and this . . .yeah, not enjoyable. the actor overstepped, sure. but prophesying doom and gloom and train wrecks for everyone! before a movie has even put out a trailer is such a waste of time and energy. how many people had to eat their words regarding the casting of heath ledger as joker? i can see people's problem with the costume, i don't share it. it has a very old timey feel, while still holding true to certain details. It is ancient, so this fits. based on casting alone they're clearly going to include a lot more elements of the book than we got last time, so i'm holding judgment for now. bill skarsgaard (sp?) is a decent actor from what i've seen, he played a pretty good creep in hemlock grove, so i'm fine with that for now too. the 80's update and the kids/adults split don't rock my world, but i'll hold out for a trailer or some more material before i decide my feelings. about the only thing bothering me at this point is how they keep referring to pennywise as if he's the monster, when pennywise is just another face, but that could be chalked up to not trying to be too complicated for people who aren't hardcore about the book. i mean, it's king but not on watered down network television for once, so thank christ for that rare treat at least. mr. king, if you ever read this, for the love of god, get off the networks' tit already, because censors suck, and you can spin gold out of four letter words.

 

[Ben O'Dimm]

My thoughts:
Have you ever watched a scary movie as a child and it scared the hell out of you, but watched it years later it wasn't scary in the slightest? I think in a way that's what they don't want to happen. I believe they are trying to reach way past us King lovers to reach all people. Yes, it is a remake but they want the remake to be one that can appeal to everyone. I think the 80's is a good time because it sequences them into being adults during this time frame. Now that reaches a whole new audience because it is not set 50-80's; it is now. For us lovers of all things King, we hate it and want it to be how Sai King wrote it but I think they're trying to reach the many young adults who hardly ever pick up a book. Just a thought. I am extremely excited for this to come out. I have been waiting and waiting for the arrival of this and of The Dark Tower (releasing on my birthday). Did anyone else feel this way?

 

[GeorgiesArm]

Finally a hint what Pennywise might look like when he's friendly and luring:

From the producers instagram: Instagram

 

[Steffen]

Finally a hint what Pennywise might look like when he's friendly and luring:

From the producers instagram: Instagram

Man when the movie comes out I sure as hell hope they have this Jack-in-the-Box for sale, cause I want one!

 

[Dana Jean]

Man when the movie comes out I sure as hell hope they have this Jack-in-the-Box for sale, cause I want one!

Me too!

 

[John13]

Sorry to say that any movie that does not focus on the dramatic elements of IT and the fact that the kids are suffering from various traumas, will not do the book justice. We need to see the clown chasing these kids and mocking them. I envision a scene similar to that with Jack Nicholson breaking the door in shining were the clown shouts" I am Derry. All adults know that i exist here but noone will protect you. I come every 30 years to create childhood traumas to the new generation. Adults are get used to it and noone will stop me"

 

[recitador]

they can exposition their way out of that by discussing it among themselves, or with side characters. more than one admitted to mike during the interludes that they knew. even discussing the cycle and lack of awareness of it would be enough. i'd be a little disappointed if they had to hammer the concept home that hard. and pennywise did something slightly like you're referring to anyway when they looked at the photo album together and he started changing into the things they individually encountered while boasting about how they couldn't stop him. he mocked them and tried to scare them off a few times really. the writing on the fridge after patrick also comes to mind

 

[John13]

I dont know about others but i found the idea that the parents know but do nothing more scary than the clown himself. This was briefly mentioned in the TV series. Here i believe that must be a bit more highlighted

 

[Steffen]

For those of you who may be interested, here are some additional tidbits. This is taken from a Facebook fan page for the film, which reprints official releases by the Muschietti siblings from their twitter accounts.

The link shows some reaction to the footage aired over the weekend at the SXSW exhibit. The graphic highlights some key points during an interview with Director Andy Muschietti.

Instagram

 

[GNTLGNT]

 

[Steffen]

Yep, seeing that outside a shabby old house in broad daylight would definitely equate to pure pants-pissing terror.

 

[Bev Vincent]

Pennywise Preys Upon Georgie in Terrifying New 'IT' Image - Bloody Disgusting!

 

[carrie's younger brother]

Great image!

 

[DiO'Bolic]

I hear rumors that Lego is considering their own adaptation...

Spoiler