|
clockworx posted:I never got to see the Stand, so after the discussion here I thought I'd watch. Wow, it's real bad - even performers who I've seen have solid performances elsewhere are pretty bad. Agreed. Same with "IT". Lost of wasted talent on screen for some reason giving really bad performances. Maybe there were limited takes due to budget constraints or maybe they just had bad directors. I was also really confused watching The Stand because it took me forever to piece together that they had combined two main characters into Laura San Giacomo's role and I had fairly recently re-read the book. Not sure what led to that decision either. EDIT: Origami Dali posted:I mean, it was made by the guy whose best movie by far is Critters 2. The Stephen King miniseries has the ability to turn any actor into garbage mainly because they were either made by TV hacks or low rent horror directors. That answers that then.
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
That is really loving cool. I haven't been this hyped for a movie in quite a while. Maybe TDK. Loving everything I've seen so far. Everything. I know enough not to be duped by trailers in general but the loving TONE they've set and even the little storm drain clip we got just seemed really spot on. Hard to picture too much of drastic drop off in that context. Surprised they didn't push the release date closer to Halloween though. Speaking of that, the only bad thing likely to come out of IT is gonna be the over abundance of Pennywise costumes Oct. 31. Has King seen IT yet or commented on IT?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Kevyn posted:I think one of the trailers included a quick intro with him talking, so he seems to approve of it. I had forgotten about that. Not sure if King's approval is a good or a bad thing to be honest but in this case I'll take it as a plus since the book relies so much on atmosphere and, to a slightly lesser extent, characterization. If they nail those, they've got 2/3 of the movie working pretty well. The remaining third would just be getting the pacing, the acting, the effects and, above all else, the believability element down. Which is a weird thing to say, granted, about a killer clown who lives in the sewers, a giant spider, a space turtle and a gang bang. But most of the "far out", hard to film elements are in part 2. Part 1 is essentially about childhood fears and insecurity, where monsters really ARE under the bed, and IT looks like they have that on lockdown right now. Part 2 is gonna be much, MUCH trickier to pull off.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Darko posted:King has horrible taste in movies, but he said it was great earlier this year. And he hated The Shining. That's what I mean. He's a great writer and I love him to death but his opinions and involvements with his movies have been rather hit and miss. Always been weird to me that the best of the King movie adaptations were always the less "scary" ones (Green Mile, Stand by Me, Shawshank, Misery, Delores Claiborne). I can see Gerald's Game translating well along these lines and don't hate the book like most people do. Comes out on Netflix Sep 29 apparently. Still baffling how no one has done "The Long Walk". I bet some student film maker could pull it off really well. Doesn't need a budget at all really. Apparently the rights are tied up. You could make that film for dirt. Even a short film could work. Wonder if any film school students have given it a shot?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Bisse posted:TBH I feel a major failing of many of King's books is his desire to finish off by revealing the monster and having some sort of battle with it. ^^^Big time.^^^ Worse is when it takes on all these new forms and characteristics it's never exhibited before. I liked both The Shining movie as well as the book for decidedly different reasons and thought that Kubrick's take on it was masterful. I still notice new stuff every time I watch it and I love movies like that. There was just so much going on with the tone, the framing, the lighting, the great acting, the sound (Danny's big wheel on the carpet and the hardwood), all the constant symmetrical shots and especially the sheer scale of the Overlook itself and its contradictory, bizarre, physically impossible layout. The SIZE of the hotel made it feel like a monster in and of itself and Kubrick captured that brilliantly. Movie fucks with your head because it's doing so many little things to you at the same time it's punching you in the face. I think it's my favorite Kubrick film; or at least the one I watch the most often. HArd to argue with Dr. Strangelove though. Is there a Kubrick thread? Very very psyched for IT but very worried about part 2. Are they filming them concurrently or one at a time? Is Mama worth checking out? EDIT: And dismissing King as "airport trash" is loving ridiculous. He's written his fair share of crap, for sure, but calling his work "trash" is the sort of thing snobbish people say about things that are popular as well as good. Like when an alternative band scores a top ten hit. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
BlackJosh posted:That is a good idea. And honestly I think with a few things like that it will be easy to flesh out the Adult portion since I thought it didn't have as much going on but there is definitely enough for a whole movie and then some just with the adults after finishing my reread just a few days ago. I just hope the differences in tone and the lack of intertwining the chapters doesn't gently caress IT up somehow. The book DID hop around a bit from a timeline standpoint, and that really worked, but I also don't believe the movies have to necessarily be done that way and follow the same structure in order to work. In this case, IT might actually be better to film them separately since the challenges inherent to telling both parts seem so fundamentally different, rather than going with a full on LOTR approach and doing IT all at once. I honestly don't know. I like the idea of using cut footage for part 2 to tie the two movies together, but I'd also hate to get a great interpretation in part 1 and then entirely poo poo the bed on the second one. I'm also worried that whatever criticisms are leveled at part 1 will overly influence the overall vision of the totality of the project and lead to a ton of bullshit re-shoots or tonal shifts, but I can also see that working to IT's advantage. Regardless, I am stoked for IT.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
porfiria posted:IT is going to make a fuckload of money. There's always a market for horror, the 80s are big, the footage look great, clowns are in, the first trailer was memetic. Oh, God. This is a real word now isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:To clarify, I think in a hundred years, after we're all long-gone, King will be as revered and studied as Shakespeare is today. I got the sarcasm and I agree wholeheartedly. But Shakespeare is not so much "popular" as he is "taught" and "revered". Known. I think the person that wrote that "airport trash" post was sort of positing that...I dunno....something along the lines of "Shakespeare is not read in airports", combined with the misguided idea that once something is popular it's no longer "cool", and drawing edgy, backwards conclusion about King's place in literature from there. It's a dumb opinion but, like you said, it'll come around and King WILL be taught in Universities and higher ed (if he's not already) and deservedly so. There's a LOT of "airport" or "beach" books that are mediocre and instantly forgettable but gently caress that poo poo. King's books are NOT in that category at all. Most of them anyway. I count a lot of his material as some of the most memorable things I've ever read.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Also just from a technical perspective King's writing is head and shoulders above the stuff you'd typically consider airport fiction. There's a ton of writers who have become relatively successful with that kind of thing but their actual writing abilities are extremely amateurish. When you read King you're reading a pro and it's very obvious. Totally agree. King is a master of language, setting, pace and rhythm. Not all the time, and maybe not always with prose, but certainly often enough. If you read Kellerman, Cornwell or Koontz (King's closest "competitor") or something like that that's normally considered pulp, the drop off is quite noticeable, often to to the point that I need to put down whatever I'm reading and can't finish it. A lot of times, it's like trying to watch a movie with a decent enough plot but with absolutely terrible acting and hackneyed scripting, which is the best analogy I can think of it right now. There's nothing "trash" about King beyond simply being "popular" and "liked well enough by people who don't read that much". To me, that's actually a point in his favor though. He gets people who don't normally read to loving READ. And he's really good at it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Don't put words in my mouth OK. Then go ahead and explain what you meant then. You didn't leave me much to draw on and your post was rather drive by in style. I've written a lot about your assertion and why I think it's wrong and why you might have said it, so you should have plenty to bounce off of. I'm genuinely curious why you wrote that. Also, I didn't "put words in your mouth". I supposed and said as much.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Just a friendly reminded that the new Pennywise having a head that is basically the body of a spider and making it subtle and looks good is already really impressive. I didn't even notice that but, yeah, I'm totally digging his look. Confident this thing is going to be good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:Today I found this awesome poster promoting the film at the subway The promotion team should just go around the cities tying red balloons to bus stops and poo poo. Random cars. Sewer grates. Libraries. Put them everywhere. Silkscreen or UV coat the "IT" logo on them if need be. It'd be like the Batman 89 hype only way cheaper to do. Hire me, New Line Cinema. Environmentalists might have a cow about IT though, and rightfully so, but IT'd work. Tom Guycot posted:An interview with King I saw gave the distinct impression pretty much all the encounters are going to be changed to reflect what kids in the 80's would be scared of instead of 50's universal monsters, which sounds amazing if they do it right. I want to see IT looking like a rotting Michael Myers, or Freddie, a clown version of the Xenomorph, leatherface with big orange pom poms on his front. I don't know how far they can go with that kind of stuff though, the 80's scary creature flicks are a lot more copyrighted than vampires, warewolves, mummies, etc. that's a good idea but I was wondering about the issue of rights myself too, as others have mentioned.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
banned from Starbucks posted:I always thought pennywises whole "horrors greatest hits" schtick was dumb. You have a creepy rear end clown then you sideline it for a plastic skeleton and a guy with a crappy wolfman mask...or a freddy mask? He's tapping into the primal fears of children, dude. Maybe this film is not for you. Did you read the book? EDIT: using a few King tropes is actually a really clever idea. Someone else brought it up before and I like IT. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Kevyn posted:It only has one arm They stole my idea. And added a raincoat.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
1stGear posted:I reread The Gunslinger recently and am reading IT for the first time. Stephen King rightly gets a lot poo poo for the failings in his writing but those two books are reminders that when he was on, he was good goddamn writer. I'd say he's on 85% of the time. Even when he's off, his command of the language, his rhythm, his pace and his structure I usually find to be absolutely masterful. He's one of those writers that can write a weather forecast and still make it compelling and his skill, I find, is one of the greatest living testaments to the sheer value of hard work and practicing at something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
GoingPostal posted:Oooh. The stinger is adult Mike Hanlon putting down his notebook and getting his phone. It'll be this. Or Stan's suicide. Good call.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I've had dreams about that loving clown since I started the book. Like legit nonstop. You're being tenderized. Sucks, cause I like your posts and will miss you when you're floating.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Beaten. You fucker.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
^^^IT'll be this.^^^ It is a little strange that they haven't done anything about part 2 though. That's not really common is it? If you already PLAN on two films? I can't think of a precedent. I'm a little concerned because I think if part 1 does as well as I think it will, then part 2 will have pressure to include "star power", celebs will lobby for roles, and the vision of the director in the wake of the inevitable internet criticisms, nitpicking and dogpiling may get sacrificed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Fart City posted:That, and the fact that the adult portion of the story has a very different kind of momentum, with more grounded threats like Bev's husband being thrown into the mix. It's been awhile since I've read the book, but I remember the supernatural elements being somewhat more reserved. Other than the dinner scene and when Bev goes back home, there aren't many other "set piece" moments until the end, right? Quite the opposite. the second part is far less grounded and way more supernatural.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Fart City posted:Maybe my recollection is blurring things together. The book isn't really divided in half, but intermingles the childhood and adult sections throughout. true. Back half of the book features a giant space turtle, magic asthma guns, a giant clown spider and a ride into outer space though. and a gangbang
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Kevyn posted:http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/movies/a12148709/it-clown-child-photoshoot/ father of the year right here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:This seems most likely I'll take that bet.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Fart City posted:I've been rereading the book in preparation for the movie, as it's been a couple of years since my last go-around and a question popped into my head: does anybody know the reason behind Pennywise taking the name "Bob Gray" as an alias? I get It disguising itself as a clown to lure in children, but by adopting a "real" name for that form, there's a weird implication that It like, maybe based Pennywise on someone It had previously encountered? Like was Bob Gray a "real" person in Derry that It assumed the identity of or something? I know it's most likely just an eloquent bit of flavor-weirdness on King's part, but it's kind of a weird bit to drop into It's character. Is it an anagram for "Grab Boy"? Probably a reach. Those fuckers. Stole my loving idea. Brilliant marketing though. Cheap, cost effective and viral. Even people unfamiliar with the material will wonder what the gently caress is going on. "What's with the all red balloons?" Gonna go see this this weekend before Irma drowns my home.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I want to release a bunch of balloons in a crowded theater. Slow at first. One or two maybe every 30 minutes. and then just have an explosion of Balloons. Do it. Bonus points for filling them with red dyed Karo syrup. Agree that this thing is gonna be huge. The hype is palpable.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:it definitely has to be said that the marketing machine for this movie has been off the hook. plus it feels a little like a right place/right time thing. that's a good point. It does feel that way, doesn't IT? Plus, I think people are getting tired of the Comic Book Movie of the Month and seem to want something different. At least I do. And am. Or whatever the gently caress I'm saying. The marketing seems to have struck a perfect balance between over hyping and simply creating a whisper campaign. Word of mouth hype amongst my friends has been off the chain. EDIT: Plus, with Irma bearing down on my state, I bet I can get the theater all to myself on Saturday as I drown watching IT.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Kevyn posted:You'll float too.  Well played sir. How the gently caress did I not think of that joke? I'm slipping. Fart City posted:It's unique in that for a lot of people in my age group (early-mid 30's), the original TV movie was an indelible media touchstone of our childhood. So there's a built in nostalgia draw, on top of people who are fans of the book, on top of a strong marketing push for those who aren't either. It casts a much wider awareness net than a new, original horror release might. And I don't mean that in a bad or cynical way. No, I think you nailed it and that ties into what Uncle Boogeyman was saying about "right place, right time"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I wanna do that. Do your balloon thing at the theater and put fake blood in them. then post pix/video here. I'm semi considering it myself. not really but that'd be cool
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I'm not gonna do it. I'll be in Vegas when it comes out. Yeah, don't do anything untoward or strange in VEGAS. *SIGH* Fine. I'll do IT. You big wuss.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Imagine telling a terrified friend you got them into premier showing of It and they walk into the Alamo All Clown showing. Bonus points if you're on acid.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Welp, spoilers coming in so bye bye thread until I see IT. IT sounds like IT's A-/B+ or 8/10 across the board, but the thing that's encouraging about the reviews is that they're unanimous in this opinion. No one is saying IT sucked and every review basically says "really good" to "very good", if not entirely a masterpiece. I think I'm gonna go see IT tonight before Irma comes. Thinking I should have the theater largely to myself with everyone in freakout mode and I have nothing else personally left to do except pack my car and evacuate. All my prep is done and it's gonna be cabin fever city for the next 4-6 days so I may as well get out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
FattyPie posted:I'm gonna go see it tonight too down here in Miami. Stay safe man or we'll float too! Not to derail, but you're staying? In Miami? I made that mistake last year in St. Augustine Beach during Matthew and the flood water was a foot from my house. I turned out OK but gently caress doing that poo poo again. I'd get out dude.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Ty1990 posted:Please be safe y'all. Thing with this storm is, there's no where to run except "NORTH". I'm gonna make a wax paraffin paper boat and sail IT down the gutter Monday.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
IT was really good. I was taken off guard at how funny IT was which served to make the horror parts even more jarring and really added to keeping you off balance. I could nit pick IT, since there are flaws, and I'll write a longer review later but I think they did a really great job on this film. Totally worth seeing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
VanillaGorilla posted:This was a really, really solid adaptation - one of the best things that I can say about it as a raving King fan is that many of the changes are actually super, super smart. The theater I saw it in clapped out loud when Bev brained her dad with the toilet lid
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
I didn't stay past the credits. Was there a stinger?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
This movie was awesome and i think the film makers did an exceptional job depicting to the screen material that's really really hard to translate. I could nitpick IT but the flaws are so minor that it barely matters. I was honestly surprised how funny it was and how well that worked to jar the viewer out of a false sense of security. The constant and often abrupt shifts in tone were really unsettling and added to the the sense of disorientation, rendering the whole experience very chaotic and unpredictable. The ratio of laughs to creepiness is genuinely in the area of 40/60 and gives the film a really herky jerky feeling that mostly works to its benefit. A lot of the comedy was due to Ritchie's scene stealing and gradually that got a little tired but overall the cast was great and almost all the kids got a chance to shine. Tonally, it was Stand By Me combined with Stanger Things with added elements that struck me as very new and original which are very hard to describe. I started to write about IT last night when my mind was fresh but accidentally lost my post and forget the horror film I'd decided IT was most like. The scary elements were very effective though, if more often creepy than downright terrifying. I don't agree with most of the criticisms I've read here for the most part, simply because they seem nitpicky. The symbolism was obvious but rarely heavy handed (Bev's bathroom scene aside) and told very well. The central theme of children coming of age and the different fears they experience while growing into their sexuality was spot on. I don't buy the idea that Bev was a damsel in distress either. She was depicted throughout as one of the strongest characters. The pacing was really good, the acting and direction were exceptional, the script was tight, the mood was pitch perfect, the violence was heavy on occasion but not gratuitous, the make up and effects were terrific and they did a great job with such a large cast assigning each kid (and parent) a distinct personality. IT could have easily gotten confusing. I thought IT was a terrific piece of film making and plan on seeing IT again. It's a solid A- or 9/10 in my book. Your mileage may vary depending on taste but my theater was buzzing and the conversations I overheard while exiting were very positive. IT's never boring and I can't really recall a genuine low point or eye rolling groaner. Go see it. Do i need to spoiler any of that? Biggest applause went to Bev braining her Dad with the toilet cover
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:And then the lady turns back around, sees the blood, then turns away. Uncle Boogeyman posted:There were some other fun hints to Derry's weird and hosed up adults though, like the couple just driving by and doing nothing when the Bowers gang is beating up Ben. This was another element they nailed, I felt. The way that ALL of the adults were not only untrustworthy and wouldn't protect the children (at best), but were, in many cases, shown to be borderline to completely complicit and openly contributing to the children's fears and weaknesses. IT added to what I took away as the central theme of the film which was basically "childhood and puberty are scary, adults can't protect you, monsters ARE real (and not always clowns) and at a certain age you have to conquer your fears or you'll suffocate yourself." The Pharmacist scene genuinely gave me the creeps. The parent's roles were depicted in such a way that they ALL made things worse. NO adults were any help at all and that's what hitting puberty feels like. The losers are straddling their childhood fears along with the new ones they face as adolescents (and gradually coming to realize that it's "cool" to be a "loser) in addition to all of the ones they're parents are teaching them, except, in every case, the fears the adults are teaching them are congruent but also different to the ones that they stopped believing in as they grew out of childhood. The adults are pouring gasoline on a fire, are no help at all and in fact always hinder. This theme was further exemplified when the Losers debated the ideas of basically kicking the can down the road for another 27 years and submitting to resignation or confronting evil and fear head on as they faced IT, as It is implied that their Derry resident parents did. The adults chose the convenient and easier route of least resistance and suffered more for IT, ultimately passing their failures onto their kids. The whole film was incredibly well executed and the simple, yet wonderfully explained theme that runs throughout, is basically "are you going to live your life in constant fear in the face of reality as IT reveals itself to be increasingly horrible or grow up and confront the things that scare you?" I think that message really came through and that's how I read IT. Sorry to get all SMG about IT but, for once, there IS a tremendous amount of subtext to analyze and this movie really nails the delicate balance needed to communicate that in ways that aren't eye rolling or heavy handed. There's a lot of layers to the film, which is why i want to see IT again and pay more attention to different things.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Pheeets posted:Almost every review I read said "no" and "thank god". My audience seemed genuinely surprised that the movie was in two parts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
Is "we all float down here" seriously that hard to parse? Dead bodies of children + being in sewers = floating in sewage. Yeah, it's also a metaphor but it's a pretty basic message and over analyzing it seems silly.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 17:08
|
|