I'm not sure about this either.
At least I am not the only one that is skeptical.
I'm not sure about this either.
At least I am not the only one that is skeptical.
Life is a garden...dig it!
It doesnt lend itself well to the screen, the 1990s miniseries is extra sad because watching it (I have) it looks like they really TRIED to make it good but just couldnt
if the worlds gonna end then let's get it over with, i got shit to do
Another unnecessary remake with lots of references to (and appearances and use of) cell phones, the Internet, etc. As they did with Carrie and 'Salem's Lot, and probably also with Children of the Corn.
These articles also mention a Pet Sematary remake, and that one is indeed unneeded, because the original movie is a classic. I doubt they can do a much better job.
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
huh, nope won't be paying to see that one. . .
Why don't they remake King movies that were bad to start with, like The Running Man? Although not King related, they are also remaking just about all of John Carpenter's movies. The remake of The Fog was so bad I felt like throwing up...on the other hand, I knew it would suck and it made me love the original even more.
Moving this to Gem Theater. Thanks.
I actually quite liked the original version of IT. Not as good as the book certainly, but there was some seriously creepy stuff earlier on.
I found this on one of those websites, which I found a bit irritating. I'll spoilerize it in case you don't know the story.
It's a small issue, but I wish they'd get there story facts right. Another site mentioned the monster being called 'It'. I always figured that was just the way the kids and people referred to it rather than having noun status.
Ok, I've gone way too far into nerd mode now....
I'm willing to try it but I don't know how they're going to have the movie without Tim Curry... what a man...
This is my blog/page:
This is my donation page:
There would have to be some serious condensing to make it into one movie. It would be cool if the actually battle involving the ritual of Chud was in the movie not the ending they had in the mini-series. One thing will stay the same for sure. There is no way they will show how the children "bond" to find their way out of the sewers.
Well let's just hope this never sees the light of day. And I think it could easily turn out to be alot worse than the miniseries. Think about it, that at least had a runtime of about 190 min. If this is going to the theaters it's going to have a much shorter runtime, which means even more of the story would have to be edited out. And I just don't think that would translate well to the screen.
The only way I think that it could be done properly, would be to make a series out of it, and toss it on HBO or similar channel. I think those series typically have about 13 episodes per season, with a runtime of around 50 min minus the credits. Which would give us about 10-11 hours of actual footage. They could easily adapt the whole story, and being on a cable channel they would have a lot more leeway to show scenes of a more graphic nature.
We all float down here
I agree with the guys who have said that most of King's stories do not turn out well on the big screen. I use to think it was the goofy effects that were around but we know this is not the case now. I am just now into the DT series so today was the first time I have read Childe Roland. It is so easy to see where King's mind might have been while reading this. Why is so hard for the movie guys to understand King's mind?
I agree. I hate the fact that the adaptations of his stories end up sucking so badly on the big screen (or small screen). For those who have not read the stories it leaves a bad taste in their mouth about his work, and in turn they lose interest. A lot of people I know who have never read a King story, but have seen the poor adaptations have the same statements: "I just can't get into SK." or "It didn't seem that good to me. I don't see what you see in his stuff." or even "SK's stuff just sucks!" I've voiced pretty much this same sentiment (as far as the general public's replies) on the DT movie thread. I think that the hard part of having a good story line is done for these guys. All they have to do is use the story/book as a good guideline for the scenes and go with it with good casting and staying true to the storyline. But somehow it gets lost in translation somehow. I'll check it out, as I feel I HAVE to, being a fan and all. But we shall see. I agree that Tim Burton did an outstanding job, even if a little over-acted at times. The Stand adaptation was not that great, although they tried. They had to keep it too "clean" or something is why it wasn't as good as it could have been. I can't seem to put my finger on why it just didn't seem "right" to me when I watched it. Yeah, I own it. Watched it a couple of times, trying to get around what it is. I hope this might end up better than the miniseries of It that once was. But time will tell. And on a side note, I sincerely hope that if they ever do decide to make a cinematic version of the DT series that they can do it justice. They would have to make each movie a feature length film to do so, so it would be like the STAR WARS installments, or the Harry Potter ones, I guess. But if they do decide to then I hope SK camps out and does a lot of "consulting" or directing, or whatever. No one better to guide it along than the man who's mind it came from in the first place.
Because of you I'm Alive. For you I'm awake-Godsmack
What shall a man have if he gain the entire world but lose his own soul?-Book of Mark
I will fear no evil. Cuz I'm the baddest muthafucker in the valley-Jarhead
King's clown horror 'to be film'
When angered, King's evil clown has fangs and claws
Stephen King's clown horror novel It is to be turned into a film by studio Warner Brothers, according to industry paper The Hollywood Reporter.
The 1986 novel follows childhood friends drawn together as adults to fight the murderous clown Pennywise.
The book was made into a three-hour TV mini-series in 1990, with Tim Curry.
Since then the film rights have bounced around Hollywood, but Warners have now signed The Invasion screenwriter Dave Kajganich to adapt King's novel.
Kajganich is also working on an adaptation of King's Pet Sematary, first adapted for screen in 1989.
The novel It, was a best-seller when it was first published.
In the story a group of children, who call themselves the Losers, are menaced by It, a sewer-lurking creature of pure evil which can take the form of the children's greatest fears.
Nearly 30 years later, the creature returns but the adults, who promised to fight it whenever it appeared, have only hazy memories of their childhood encounters.
The miniseries was once voted the scariest TV programme of all time by Radio Times readers.
The plot was originally set in 1958 and 1985 but the film version will be set in the present day, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
Great news everyone and im super excited. Heres to hoping it stays much closer to the novel though im not sure how the "group love" scene could take place.
The story is too big to tell in such a short period of time--just wont do it justice. But if they make it I will see it, because how can I not see it? But I dont have a lot of faith that it can be done right. I'm just glad that WB got it and is planning to do a feature; last I'd heard SciFi channel was going to do a two-hour TV movie, and that was definitely more frightening (not in a good way).
I think a big part of the problem is that a lot of the screenwriters and directors that make King films arent die hard fans to begin with...which limits their vision. That's why I'm so happy that JJ Abrams is going to do the DT, because he has been very vocal about being a huge fan of the series. I think a fan could get it right. Look at the high quality of all of Frank Darabont's adaptations.
The only exception to this rule, of course, is Mick Garris, who couldnt direct traffic in a one-horse town, let alone a decent movie. Fan or no, there has so be some directing ability, too.
Hi ,I agree with lady hitchhiker Tim Curry was a damn good Pennywise, id watch the new movie just to see how it turns out but i know it will lack the same level of creepyness he gave It. Also a question if anyone can help, The film "The Mist" is that some crazy reworking of "The Fog" or a separate short story/novel i haven't heard of?
Did Frank Darabont direct "The mist"??
Frank Darabont did direct The Mist, and it is not a remake of The Fog. The Mist is an adaptation of a novella of the same name written by Stephen King. It appears in the collection Skeleton Crew. Great movie and a great story...I highly recommend both.
Thanks, glad to find that out. Now i know what to look for Nice i just ordered it for a total cost of 3 quid
It'll take a lot more than words and guns,
A whole lot more than riches and muscle.
The hands of the many must join as one.
And together we'll cross the river.
Puscifer, "The Humbling River"