CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › STEPHEN KING'S IT Pre-Release Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

STEPHEN KING'S IT Pre-Release Thread - Page 17

post #801 of 859

We've already seen It done as a miniseries and save for Tim Curry, it hasn't aged especially well. Cut out the fat and there's a great two-hour horror film contained within the 1958 section. Let's hope that's what we're getting next September. 

post #802 of 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J View Post
 

We've already seen It done as a miniseries and save for Tim Curry, it hasn't aged especially well. Cut out the fat and there's a great two-hour horror film contained within the 1958 section. Let's hope that's what we're getting next September. 

Yeah...  The problem is most of the King mini series were reasonably cheap and horribly acted.  Stranger Things isn't going to age like the IT mini series has.  

 

Also, Tim Curry holds up big time from that movie.  It's the Losers that don't.  

post #803 of 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post
 

Yeah...  The problem is most of the King mini series were reasonably cheap and horribly acted.  Stranger Things isn't going to age like the IT mini series has.  

 

Also, Tim Curry holds up big time from that movie.  It's the Losers that don't.  

Yeah, Tim Curry's the best part but I don't mind the kids that much. I actually prefer them to the more experienced and well-known adult actors. 

post #804 of 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J View Post
 

Yeah, Tim Curry's the best part but I don't mind the kids that much. I actually prefer them to the more experienced and well-known adult actors. 

Sorry that's what I meant.  The adults are the worst part.  Pony tail Bill.  

post #805 of 859
Read the script, on a long cross country flight. I thought it was all right. To be honest, I was shocked how faithful it was. Aside from a few meaningless name changes, everything came straight from the book changed only so much as to assist in adaptation (the way the rock fight goes down, etc.) It maintains minor things like the Black Spot and axe murder flashbacks, Eddie's mother's munchausen by proxy stuff, Butch Bowers and more, while cutting some stuff I don't much miss, like the stuttering, the smoke hole, and after we spent twenty pages debating the presence of Freddy, the movie theater. I think it's very competent, and clearly shows a love of the source material. Hell, they could even include the gang bang if they want, in the second film. I wonder if that's what Fukanaga wanted to include.

Because otherwise, I can't imagine what the hold up was. If this was the script, it's exactly the book, and you can sell it like Stranger Things, no problem. This handles the problems of adaptation pretty deftly - hell, it even sets up the deadlights - and captures a lot of the spirit of the book. I wouldn't be surprised if this is damn near what they're using now. I know there's a leper involved there, but otherwise this feels like an easy blueprint to work with.

One thing's for sure, it all comes down to the clown. Tim Curry and this script make a damn good It. Anything less, will feel less, and maybe even overly safe. This is barely a step past the miniseries, it's even a potential PG-13. There better be some damn intensity to these Pennywise sequences. He Pounces From Out of the Darkness only works with the right actor and right tone. There's a scene at the end where a bully gets devoured by a million spiders. It's a great sequence, if you get something looking like The Thing or Alien. Hope this director is up to it.

But in the end, it seems like a movie worth watching. The miniseries is a very beatable benchmark.
post #806 of 859

Bill not stuttering fundamentally changes his character, and I'm kind of baffled that they would change that. At least we know this wasn't the script they eventually went with.

post #807 of 859
I, too, found it baffling. Bill's stutter marks his struggle to become leader to the group, something for him to overcome. To loose it gives him a far too easy archetype. Plus, the trait made him endearing.
post #808 of 859

Plus, wasn't that the one thing that made him a "Loser"? He was described as being tall, handsome and charismatic. Without the stutter, he's probably one of the popular kids, and isn't hanging out with guys like Eddie and Richie. Bill is his stutter.

 

It's also disappointing to hear Ben gets slighted (again), as he's my favourite character in the book. He's the heart of the Losers, and is probably the most heroic and noble.

post #809 of 859

I'm starting to wonder if Mike is also going to get the short end of the stick. He's something of a latecomer in the 1958 portion of the book and the main reason he has such a substantial role is because he acts as the narrator for a good chunk of the adult portion. Without the adult section, I'm wondering if they'll nix having him go to a different school like the miniseries did. 


Edited by Mike J - 12/29/16 at 11:29am
post #810 of 859

Whatever happens, we'll always have the Indian mini series:

 

post #811 of 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3cii View Post
 

Whatever happens, we'll always have the Indian mini series:

 

Why are we ever making an adaptation ever again?!

post #812 of 859

According to wikipedia:

 

Quote:

 Ashutosh's friends arrive for Siddharth's 7th birthday, they realise Woh has returned in form of Siddharth. They go to the same caves and find out from the mother of Woh that he is her son who faced trouble from the society due to his short height. He committed suicide and became an evil spirit. The friends convince him to leave Siddharth's body and help him attain salvation. Siddharth is saved and the story ends on a good note.

 

Sounds about right.

post #813 of 859
That's probably why Fukunaga left. They already realized his vision.
post #814 of 859

   Bill not having a stutter doesn't make any sense to me, since that is why he was one of the losers. As soon as I typed that an idea came to me. Maybe Bill was one of the popular kids but George's death makes him sad and introverted. Since Pennywise's presence makes Derry a mean little town, the other kids start to treat him like shit.


Edited by Chaz - 12/30/16 at 4:51pm
post #815 of 859
That's certainly what's going on with Henry (Travis, I mean).

It's just not something I think is essential to the fabric of the story, or to Bill. If anything, I didn't mind not reading a lot of Ddd-ddd-did on the page. I get what it adds, but I didn't miss it at all, or think it detracted from the story in any way.
post #816 of 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

It's just not something I think is essential to the fabric of the story, or to Bill.

 

I'm sorry, I just don't get this opinion at all. Bill stuttering isn't some character quirk King just tossed in there, it's who Bill is and what defines him as a person. It's the reason why he's a "loser". Him overcoming his stutter is how he ultimately defeats It. It's also something he tries to overcome just so he might gain his parent's approval, and in hopes they might stop being so cold to him. Plus, when he gets older, it comes back when he is asked to return to Derry, one of the ways Bill reverts back to being a kid. So, I strongly disagree that his stutter isn't essential to his character.

post #817 of 859
I could see it being useful in the Adult sequel. I'll give you that.
post #818 of 859
post #819 of 859

I'm still not 100% sold on the idea of a kids film and an adult film. A large part of the story of the adults is that they don't remember everything, and getting flashes of memory takes us back to when they were children. Feels like something might be lost in translation if its just the kids and just the adults.

 

Rated R, though? Take my money. Just NO KID ORGY

post #820 of 859
Yeah, I agree about the kids vs. adults films. Really, the only thing of interest with the adult story is when they return to Derry, and have their individual strolls back to Mikes, and have their individual warning encounters. And even most of that has flashback memories involved. The rest of it is them slowly regaining their memories, which is all flashback stuff. I guess it will be 30 minutes of catch up/phone calls calling back to Derry, 45 minutes of reunion, 30 minutes of final battle?
post #821 of 859

Lots of that stuff is terrific though. The witch house, in particular, make sit into the movie. But more than that, if it's anything like the book, the shift from childhood to a world of adult concerns is very much the central theme of the novel. If anything, the adults are even more terrified of Pennywise, because he doesn't fit into their worldview. It's a hard thing to dramatize, as the structure you're proposing points out, but if they figure it out, it's fucking awesome.

 

This was what I was most excited for Fukunaga to do, frankly. I feel like a lot more people are capable of making a good movie out of the kids stuff. Witness Stranger Things. The sequel would demand a filmmaker with vision. The jury is still very much out on this guy, but until I've seen him fuck up the first one, I'm optimistic. 

post #822 of 859
Perhaps they could coax Cary into the sequel fold. A guy can dream.
post #823 of 859

Anyone seen the teaser for Castle Rock?

 

 

I'm curious how they're able to use Pennywise in this. And I guess post-It he's moved on to Castle Rock from Derry?

 

Best not to think about it too hard.

post #824 of 859
I think the trailer is just listing memorable King characters, not characters who will necessarily appear in the show.

The show is apparently based on King's short stories.
post #825 of 859

But we hear dialogue that appears to be from the show. It's certainly not from the movies starring those characters. Annie Wilkes saying she lives right down the street would suggest this is either pre-Misery, or a rejiggered version in which Misery never happened.

post #826 of 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

But we hear dialogue that appears to be from the show. It's certainly not from the movies starring those characters. Annie Wilkes saying she lives right down the street would suggest this is either pre-Misery, or a rejiggered version in which Misery never happened.

Could be just for the teaser.

post #827 of 859

It could be, but...

 

I don't understand why you guys are approaching a preview that advertises itself as being about Stephen King connections, and includes snippets of new dialogue that comes from a completely new context than earlier appearances of these characters, and decide that it's all a fakeout.

 

Occam's razor says this will be a show about Stephen King characters living in the town of Castle Rock. There will be lots of probably on-the-nose references to events from the books/movies, and lots and lots of padding until the characters eventually get to their original incarnations.

post #828 of 859
That sounds awful.
post #829 of 859
It might be. But that's besides the point. I want to know how it can be interpreted as anything but that?

Do you watch that and think, wow, this must be about a transgender couple trying to adopt Siamese twins?
post #830 of 859
I wasn't paying close attention to the audio. I just assumed it was depicting us flying through the mind of Stephen King.
post #831 of 859
Listen again, Mr. Pretentious!
post #832 of 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

It might be. But that's besides the point. I want to know how it can be interpreted as anything but that?

Do you watch that and think, wow, this must be about a transgender couple trying to adopt Siamese twins?

Hell of an example, I will give you that.

post #833 of 859
My take was the same as yours, Bart. And yes, I expect this to be bad. Were it just a bunch of short story adaptations, I'd be psyched.
post #834 of 859

It's J.J. Abrams, so it could be anything at this point. I'd have to go back and look as to who controls the majority of the Castle Rock properties as IP, unless they've all reverted back to King recently and he's kept it quiet. It's a limited series, so I wonder if this is meant to both tie into Dark Tower and IT.

post #835 of 859

This may shed some light on what CASTLE ROCK is going to be.  I stumbled on this on a horror blog without any sourcing, so who knows if it's legit.

 

Quote:
 J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot and Hulu are teaming up for Castle Rock, an original anthology series based on the location. Sam Shaw and Dusty Thomason are writing. The series will weave together characters and themes from King’s novels set in Castle Rock. Each season will follow a different set of characters and storylines while interjecting themes and specific characters from previous seasons.
post #836 of 859
Ehhhhhhh

Bad-sounding ideas have turned out good before. But that sounds lame.
post #837 of 859
Could go either way-- that teaser is cheeseballs, but the synopsis sounds okay (if it's on the level). There is some pretty good precedent, though, for using more than one of a writer's novels or stories as the basis for a show, and making some pretty radical changes in the adaptations along the way, "Justified" and "Hannibal"... Granted those are more of a continuing story for a handful of characters rather than an anthology, but they could still serve as some kind of model.

Worst case scenario is that it is some kind of prequel-y thing, full of cheap references and with none of the payoffs of the original stories. "Gotham" for the Stephen King universe. Seeing Abrams's name on anything doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence. I'll probably give it a chance, though.
post #838 of 859
Best case scenario for this would be Fargo. It would have to be a lot more sophisticated than this looks though. This appears more at the Under the Dome level. Or maybe it's just an assy announcement trailer.
post #839 of 859
Holy shit, I forgot about "Under the Dome". I could see this going that way, too.
post #840 of 859

Under the Dome makes Baby Jesus cry

post #841 of 859

11/22/63 was a solid to great adaptation of the book, and it was on Hulu.

post #842 of 859

Hulu did do a great job with 11/22/63.

post #843 of 859
Ehhh... more like an okay job adapting it. Franco was miscast, his sidekick was a terrible character, and they omitted the best section of the novel.
post #844 of 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Best case scenario for this would be Fargo.
Yeah. I could see that being cool.

But I keep imagining what Slim suggested as the worst-case scenario: GOTHAM for Stephen King characters.
post #845 of 859
The big-picture takeaway here is I was right, you were wrong, and you need to exalt me forever.
post #846 of 859
giphy.gif
post #847 of 859

Of course I can't stop thinking about who they should cast for this. I'd really like to see Elizabeth Marvell (House of Cards, Homeland) play Annie Wilkes - she was supposed to do it on Broadway with Bruce Willis, but had to drop out because of commitments. She's fantastic, and I think someone like her would mitigate some of the problems with that character. And I could see someone like Jason Mitchell or Andre Holland play a younger incarnation of Red from Shawshank Redemption. I like J.K. Simmons for Leland Gaunt of Needful Things. 

 

Come to think of it, that might be the best approach if they're going limited/anthology series. Do each season as a straight prequel, but mix up the genres, with little references and characters connecting the world, much the way characters pop up or are referenced across King's novels. So your Shawshank prequel could be a 1940s domestic drama intercut with a "new guy in prison" story - illustrate what pushed Red to the point of double homicide, or show his early days in prison while we watch the disintegration of Andy's marriage. Your Misery prequel could be almost entirely on Annie Wilkes, sort of a 1960s, Polanski-esque psychological horror story set in a hospital. There's a ton you could do with The Shining and IT, obviously. 

post #848 of 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chet Ripley View Post

Ehhh... more like an okay job adapting it. Franco was miscast, his sidekick was a terrible character, and they omitted the best section of the novel.

Oh.....well I DID like this miniseries. 

post #849 of 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post

Oh.....well I DID like this miniseries. 

I like it well enough. Sarah Gadon, while somewhat different from her character in the novel, is amazing in it. Also, the actor playing LHO put in a great performance.

With that said, the best part of the novel was cut out of the series. And that part covers a little more than a third of the novel. So yeah, in my opinion the miniseries was a little bit of a missed opportunity, but it's better than a lot of King adaptations.
post #850 of 859
Was it the part with him directing a lot of high school theater?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › STEPHEN KING'S IT Pre-Release Thread