The It remake

[Brian861]

The poster without Pennywise is pretty cool I think.

[mae]

[Merlin1958]

It looks good but I think the kids in the miniseries fit the book better. I can look at Richie and Eddie and easily identify them as being who they are in the book, I can't do that with any of the guys here except for Ben and Mike for obvious reasons.

I have to agree. The mini-series was very well cast, IMHO. However, time moves on and on. We may yet learn to love this bunch. I'm willing to give them a chance.

[Heather19]

I agree, the kids cast in the miniseries were excellent. The adults not so much. Not sure how I feel about all these kids yet. But I'm hoping at least they're all strong actors so that will make up for it.

[mae]

I think all the kids look great and fit the part. It's tough to make any judgement from a few unconnected shots.

[Ari_Racing]

It looks good but I think the kids in the miniseries fit the book better. I can look at Richie and Eddie and easily identify them as being who they are in the book, I can't do that with any of the guys here except for Ben and Mike for obvious reasons.

I have to agree. The mini-series was very well cast, IMHO. However, time moves on and on. We may yet learn to love this bunch. I'm willing to give them a chance.

You know, I used to think the mini-series was cool and then I watched it again a couple of years ago for the Pennywise bust model I made and I got a bittersweet taste. Then I watched it once more less than a year ago and it got even more bitter. I didn't like most of the performances and I felt Tim Curry wasn't as great as I remembered. It's an adaptation that didn't get old too well in my opinion. It was way more scary and attractive when I was 11 years old (something that does NOT usually happen: see Pet Sematary for instance).

On the other hand, my expectations for this adaptation are higher than ever. The trailer nailed it IMO!

[Merlin1958]

It looks good but I think the kids in the miniseries fit the book better. I can look at Richie and Eddie and easily identify them as being who they are in the book, I can't do that with any of the guys here except for Ben and Mike for obvious reasons.

I have to agree. The mini-series was very well cast, IMHO. However, time moves on and on. We may yet learn to love this bunch. I'm willing to give them a chance.

You know, I used to think the mini-series was cool and then I watched it again a couple of years ago for the Pennywise bust model I made and I got a bittersweet taste. Then I watched it once more less than a year ago and it got even more bitter. I didn't like most of the performances and I felt Tim Curry wasn't as great as I remembered. It's an adaptation that didn't get old too well in my opinion. It was way more scary and attractive when I was 11 years old (something that does NOT usually happen: see Pet Sematary for instance).

On the other hand, my expectations for this adaptation are higher than ever. The trailer nailed it IMO!

I thought it had a pretty darn good cast, but wasn't directed well, or maybe it was just that it was a made for TV production. To me even the older "kids" were pretty well cast, but the production was a little lacking. Shame really.

[Mattrick]

Bill Denebrough is played by Jaeden Lieberher: this automatically makes the cast better because he is awesome. The kids in the TV miniseries were good, but we're definitely going to get a very special group in this film.

I find it amusing that the kid playing Henry Bowers is also in The Dark Tower.

[Merlin1958]

Bill Denebrough is played by Jaeden Lieberher: this automatically makes the cast better because he is awesome. The kids in the TV miniseries were good, but we're definitely going to get a very special group in this film.

I find it amusing that the kid playing Henry Bowers is also in The Dark Tower.

Well, the out of work, on public assistance, pot smoking Canadian is the authority here so who am I to have an opinion? Clearly, he and his cat know where it's at. He is also running a tournament that is up to date and sound. Clearly, his opinion and mandate are to be followed.

[Heather19]

Do you guys think we're going to see Patrick Hocksetter and his portions of the book in this movie. He's one of my favorite characters just for how scary and disturbing he is. I saw his name on the poster in the trailer, but fear that may be most of what we get from him for this film.

[mae]

[mattgreenbean]

She skipped right over it, but mike hanlon is standing outside of the bar where all the black people inside were locked in and burned to death that mikes father witnessed in his youth.

[Mattrick]

Bill Denebrough is played by Jaeden Lieberher: this automatically makes the cast better because he is awesome. The kids in the TV miniseries were good, but we're definitely going to get a very special group in this film.

I find it amusing that the kid playing Henry Bowers is also in The Dark Tower.

Well, the out of work, on public assistance, pot smoking Canadian is the authority here so who am I to have an opinion? Clearly, he and his cat know where it's at. He is also running a tournament that is up to date and sound. Clearly, his opinion and mandate are to be followed.

Watch Midnight Special and St. Vincent and then come back and tell me I'm wrong.

[dnemec]

It's kind of funny; all the 15 year olds on YouTube are calling it a ripoff of Stranger Things.

Tends to happen when you don't read books without pictures.

You deserve positive rep for this, but I need to spread it around first. Laughed my ass off!

[herbertwest]

It looks good but I think the kids in the miniseries fit the book better. I can look at Richie and Eddie and easily identify them as being who they are in the book, I can't do that with any of the guys here except for Ben and Mike for obvious reasons.

I have to agree. The mini-series was very well cast, IMHO. However, time moves on and on. We may yet learn to love this bunch. I'm willing to give them a chance.

You know, I used to think the mini-series was cool and then I watched it again a couple of years ago for the Pennywise bust model I made and I got a bittersweet taste. Then I watched it once more less than a year ago and it got even more bitter. I didn't like most of the performances and I felt Tim Curry wasn't as great as I remembered. It's an adaptation that didn't get old too well in my opinion. It was way more scary and attractive when I was 11 years old (something that does NOT usually happen: see Pet Sematary for instance).

On the other hand, my expectations for this adaptation are higher than ever. The trailer nailed it IMO!

I agree with you.
A few movies didnt age so well, and I think that we all adore IT because of the memories attached to it and our early relevance and scares to it. I've watched it a few years ago, and althought the first part is really good, the second half... bla, not so much.

[mae]

[CyberGhostface]

A few movies didnt age so well, and I think that we all adore IT because of the memories attached to it and our early relevance and scares to it. I've watched it a few years ago, and althought the first part is really good, the second half... bla, not so much.

I think the second half was doomed to be inferior just by the set up. In the book the kid sections are considerably better but King's approach was

1. Adults
2. Kids
3. Adults
4. Kids
5. Adults/kids switching back and forth

As opposed to having 500 pages of the kids and then switching to 500 pages of adults for the rest of the book.

Given that the new movie seems to be borrowing the miniseries approach of kids first and adults second I wouldn't be at all surprised if the second movie gets considerably less positive reaction.

[mikeC]

Do you really watch these videos? Just curious.

[Iwritecode]

I don't know why I just now realized this but with the time period change of having the kids part set in the late 80's, they are exactly the same age as I was/am. The kids in the novel were around 12 or 13 right? I turned 12 in 1989.

[Iwritecode]

I got about halfway through this video and I'm already annoyed. First of all, she mentioned a couple of times about Bill having some sort of injury and that's why he wasn't out with Georgie. I thought he was just sick? Was he injured in the novel and I'm just not remembering it?

Also she talks about being on the cusp of kids being allowed to play outside alone, sailing a paper boat and going to the library. I maybe agree about the paper boat but the other 2 things I remember doing all the time. That's just how things were back then. I can't figure out how old she is but she seems a little too young to really remember 1989.

Edit:

ugh... It just gets worse as she goes on. It's obvious she hasn't read the novel or doesn't remember much from it and that most of her knowledge is from the mini-series. She doesn't recognize the house on Neibolt St. at all. She doesn't know which of the kids is Eddie even though it shows him taking a hit from his inhaler at one point. And she complains that it's Bill instead of Mike showing the pictures on the slideshow because Mike is the historian of the group. Well in the novel, it was Bill looking through an old photo album that got "possessed" by Pennywise and obviously in the movie they just changed it to a slide projector.

[mae]

I enjoy them. I dunno.

[St. Troy]

The child/adult arrangement is interesting. The novel's structure created an arc largely based on the characters' childhoods, with scenes of childhood set up or framed by scenes of adulthood recollection; action and significance didn't have to be split 50/50. Adapting it so that one part is entirely children and one entirely adults strains the adulthood material for that reason; the meaning to the adulthood material in the book was largely infused by the way in which it was informed by the adjacent childhood material (or so it seemed to me).

But my memory, however, is an unfaithful servant; even after having re-read the novel only last year and seeing the miniseries shortly before that, I'm not so sure about all of this. Specifically, I wish I knew/recalled:
- how many pages were devoted to the children and how many to the adults (I'm guessing it's at least 2/3 children)
- how many minutes (of the miniseries) were spent on each group
- what went on (in the novel) between the adults other than struggling to remember, reacquainting themselves with each other, and remembering childhood events (which was essentially childhood material, not adult material) - whereas childhood included characters' pre-It backgrounds, the beginnings of their friendships and the formation of the Losers Club and the establishment of non-It difficulties such as Henry and Beverly's father, the adulthood didn't feature this kind of growth and evolution; it was pretty much just closing the circle (which was fine for the book given how it was structured; I am not implying a fault with the novel)
- just how the miniseries handled it, because I know they preserved some of the "frame childhood events through adulthood recollection" in part 1 (which worked well) and then had only sparing looks back to childhood in part 2 (which virtually everyone seems to have found inferior, although I didn't mind it)

I don't have any trouble imagining how an adults-only It 2 could succeed; it's not like horror movies don't usually have adults to begin with. One difficulty is in taking enough time on establishing who the Losers are as adults without dragging it into boredom (Bev's battle with Tom provides conflict and deserves screen time, but imagine spending 5 minutes watching Eddie evading his wife, then 5 on Ben at the bar, then 5 on Bill on the movie set...). Certainly there are ways around this; they could open with adult Mike watching the disappearances (much as part 1 of the miniseries opened), and bring the others into it one by one, going from there, establishing their adult selves with sparing info. Still, it needs to be dealt with.

A second film should make use of things completely or mostly overlooked (heh) by the miniseries, such as Tom coming to Derry, Henry's attack on Mike at the library and what became of Henry afterward (not sure if they can use Christine as a getaway car without comedic effect though), everything Mike learned about Derry after the Losers Club disbanded, and (hopefully) a 2012 (the movie)-level FX-heavy Derry apocalypse scene.

I also imagine a specific vibe for a 2nd movie, separate from the nostalgic 80s vibe that the first must have; more of a "disillusioned with life" type thing lurking behind the simple battle they are pulled back into, almost fatalistic, the way the last segment of Pet Sematary (the novel, not the film) made me feel (I realize this isn't a helpful description), kind of a feeling that, while It can be defeated, the general "it's all wasting away no matter what we do" feeling can't be. But maybe this is too much of a downer (just be glad I'm not making these movies - but if I was, I think (for every adaptation, really) I'd prefer an 8-12 hour cable miniseries).

[Iwritecode]

I'm really curious how they will handle the ritual of Chüd or if it will even be included at all. To me that was the worst part about the mini-series. They didn't do a good job explaining what IT really was and people that I've talked to that didn't read the novel assumed that IT was just a big spider.

Although I have no idea how they could possibly transfer that to film in a way that makes sense.

[mikeC]

I enjoy them. I dunno.

God bless you. I just don't get it.

I really like the balloon shot in the trailer, subtle horror I dig it.

If anyone wants to read the True Detective S1 hlmer's script it's been posted.

http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/220...es-way-online/

[mae]

I enjoy them. I dunno.

God bless you. I just don't get it.

Not sure there's anything to get, it's just people's reactions. They're fun to watch. Similar to our discussions here in this thread, but in a video format.

If anyone wants to read the True Detective S1 hlmer's script it's been posted.

http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/220...es-way-online/

Looks like it's already taken down. No backups anywhere?