|
Punch Drunk Drewsky posted:As sometimes frustrating as it is, choosing to engage with IT here in the forums has been educational for me. There are some painfully specific things about IT that I wouldn't expect a lot of folks to get but I've been heartened at how sympathetic some responses have been. Nah, dude. You're posting good poo poo about a really good movie based on a really good book that, on its face, is almost unfilmable, especially if one were to try to get EVERYTHING crammed in there. Book is very complex but I just thought it was funny that "we all float down here" was singled out as something open to interpretation given how much other stuff is covered in the novel.
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Steve2911 posted:It felt like they had a really good, consistent script for a spooky adventure film but at the last minute someone asked 'but why are there only two jump scares? What's all this subtlety there for?' A lot of the time it felt like two entirely different movies spliced together. I felt that sort of played to its strength in a lot of ways because the tonal shifts were so jarring. One minute, it was a Stand By Me coming of age film and then IT abruptly shifted gears. Obviously, the film makers had to pare down the book a tad and, overall, I think most of the decisions they made were wise and generally served to drive the story. Almost anything that the film's detractors are citing comes down almost entirely to nitpicking and sacred cows from the book that they think are important. The fact that even make a movie out of this god damned book at all, let alone one this good, is a testament the actors and the director. Very very few people have called IT an outright piece of trash, which I think speaks to IT's quality because, jesus christ, this is a hard book to translate to film. Reminds me of Watchmen in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:SMG I have bad news, Pennywise the Dancing Clown is real and so I'm afraid your analysis is critically flawed. You, sir, obviously are unfamiliar with the concept of subtext. SMG will explain it to you and...bleh.. I honestly can never tell if SMG is ever serious or simply just constantly jacking off with too much time on his hands, but either way his posts suck and come off pretentious either way so I might suggest the ignore button. It worked for me. And I don't suggest, wield or throw that power around lightly.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Croisquessein posted:Made a shirt Hm.... I'm a graphic designer myself so excuse the critique but something seems...off...about it and I can't put my finger on it. Was it a 2 color job? I'd change out the red to something much deeper, make the shadows more dense and make the whole piece less "detailed". Meaning don't describe the face, the boat and the hand so much by filling all that stuff in with white as if it were entirely a line drawing. Use the shadows more to make the white pop and really define everything. The composition is fine. I just think you need to work on the contrast, the color palette and the lighting. If you want to make it uniquely yours, maybe add some rain drop texture to break it up and add a layer to it. Possibly suggest the sewer grate or the curb in a "pattern" sort of way or as a way to frame the piece as well. there you go. Some advice you never asked for.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Fart City posted:Hello, fellow Graphic Design loser. That's "MISTER Loser" to you, thank you very much. I started to offer this and didn't because I know SA hates Frank Miller but the more I think about it I'd suggest that the artist look at some Sin City stuff. Not to ape the style but just for the way he used light and shadow to define shapes and suggest depth. It's too flat I think. Maybe approach it as a scratch board or a even a woodcut. I think just losing some white would go a long way and definitely think adding a "scratched in" rain pattern or even some different sized rain drops on the "lens" would add a lot to it and flavor it up some. Croisquessein posted:No, I appreciate it! Been thinking about just that- I used a stencil for the outline but I wanted it as a suggestion rather than something to fill in. I used a square sponge and the basic white and red fabric paints I had on hand, but you're right about highlights. On my next try I will see if I can use the black background more to define shadows and shapes. Fade the red lines to black toward the top. Also gonna add a hint of red for the hair and some of the collar, and maybe a little of the running water at the bottom. Start with a black board then add white but only where you need it. Put the red in sparingly to make it snap. Pop it with the yellow eyes but don't make them flat circles. Add the suggestion of rain somehow. I'll expect my shirt in the mail when you are finished. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Croisquessein posted:Definitely gonna yellow up the eyes and teeth. I like Miller's work well enough but I was really trying to mimic an airbrush look with soft gradients rather than hard shadows. I learned a bit from the first so I'm sure the second will be more what I'm going for. Maybe I should use brushes instead of just a sponge. Interesting. Only thing I can picture in my mind's eye is the exact opposite of that approach but it sounds like you have a vision so go nuts. Post the results. Holy poo poo. How many Pennywise's are gonna be in DC this weekend with the Juggalo march? With that, Trump and IT it's really been the Year of the Clown, hasn't it? I actually think I'm forgetting something else that goes with it too. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Croisquessein posted:I hadn't thought of that but I like it. Really wasn't going for cheesy, more like abbreviated realism. Agreed. That's a really good idea if you want to go with a "gradient" approach. Make it look like a cheesy airbushed painting on a fun house ride. Very cool idea and a neat way to separate your design from the stills while still fitting in with your vision for the shirt.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Punch Drunk Drewsky posted:Then you've got stuff like this: Jesus Christ, please don't. Your writing is fine the way it is and there's no need to take it to a next 'level' that no one asked for or wants. SMG is the epitome of over analyzing poo poo and the living embodiment of deconstructing films to the point that they're not only no fun anymore, but also add and imagine a bunch of bullshit that I doubt ever even crossed the writer's or the director's minds in the first place simply to justify his intellect and make him feel like a part of the experience. He invents poo poo of whole cloth and is one of the most "ignored" posters on these forums for very good reasons. Magic Hate Ball posted:You were clearly drawing a line connecting the queer acceptance of villainous fictional characters and the sexual internalization of socially approved violence by cops. unless you weren't, in which case you should have better explicated your point rather than drop a lovely, vague hot take. It's nice when everyone understands what you mean. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I don't even know who MHB was even addressing. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:THE "IT" CINEMATIC UNIVERSE CORRECT VIEWING ORDER She's Gotta Have IT
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:I watched it for a third time yesterday, and It's fun to sit back and notice little details in the film. They loaded the film with little sutble stuff that really enhance a second viewing of the film. Yeah, I want to see IT again too. I caught a lot of subtle stuff the first time but am pretty sure I missed a lot. I don't understand this film's detractors. Most of the beat downs IT's taking really, really come off as nitpicking or boiling down to expectations.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Leinadi posted:I just rewatched the TV series one. It scared the hell out of me when I saw it as a kid, I laughed at it later when I saw it as an adult, hehe. Yeah, there were several things you could argue that the TV series pulled off better but overall, aside from Curry and the kids, it was pretty much poo poo. I think the movie topped it by a pretty considerable margin and the film makers were very wise in avoiding trying to replicate what Curry brought to the show. Weirdest thing about the TV show was how much acting talent they really had for the adults and the degree to which the performances were just absolutely horrible. They had a lot of acting talent on screen for the adult segments and most of them just sucked straight out loud. I've seen all those actors in really good roles and performances before, on TV and film, but god drat they just poo poo the bed. Only thing I could figure was "not enough takes" because I know that those folks can act.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:IT made $60 million this weekend, giving it the biggest second week of all time for a horror film. I'm so happy this movie is doing great but I hope part two isn't rushed out. My biggest fear is that they're gonna fill it with known celebrities instead of people that are right for the part and that the hype will overwhelm the director's vision, since he seems largely on the right track, and I'd hate to see it sacrificed for commercial reasons. Like, I don't need Gwenyth Paltrow. Seth Rogan and Matthew McConaughey showing up just for the sake of cashing in on something hot that everyone knows will make 200 million bucks or whatever. I hope they cast unknowns for the adults.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:The closest thing the first one has to star power is the kid from Stranger Things so I think we're OK. Right, but that was before this thing started breaking records and everyone knows part 2 is a sure fire hit.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Hopefully. they'll realize that they don't need that extra bit of marketing oomph that a big star brings - they know the thing sells so long as they've got the clown and audience goodwill. That's sort of what I meant. That they're gonna shoehorn stars in everywhere which is not needed at all and will almost certainly gently caress IT up. They just need good actors. But I can see it going the other way and next thing you know Jonah Hill is playing Ben and Michael B. Jordan is cast as Mike or some poo poo. Hopefully not. I think the sequel will work best with unknowns and really good actors. Then again, you're Boris Karloff so I'm not sure you're the person who should be speaking to this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Yaws posted:A whole bunch of bullshit I went to see an R rated horror movie about kids being murdered by a monster but was shocked to see a kid graphically murdered by monster. That was some bullshit. Getting all freaked out and all with a jarring scene that scared and unnerved me. Took me right out of the film. A newspaper clipping detailing what happened to Georgie would have scared me much more. Sorry if it was too much to for you but god drat dude. It's not like we're jacking off to it and even on the "gratuitous" scale it was by far the the most graphic thing in the flick. Croisquessein posted:Sewer lines. Correct. That's how they figure out where IT lives, the same way FBI catches serial killers by putting pushpins on a map. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Yaws posted:I NEED GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS OF CHILDHOOD DISMEMBERMENT AND MURDER! I know, right? And what was up with that Reagan girl in The Exorcist stabbing a crucifix in her vagina and making her mom lick her and then puking all that green vomit out on the nice priest right before she murdered him? And all those naughty words. Very unsubtle.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Blisster posted:It's not without flaws, but it's pretty impressive that it sets up like seven main characters, the town of Derry, and a murderous shapeshifting clown monster all in two hours. This can't be emphasized enough and is a great point. A few times, I was getting names mixed up or forgetting them but, yeah. Usually defining that many characters requires a closed setting like GlenGary Glen Ross , 12 Angry Men and a story more akin to a play or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
I think somehow a lot of people (maybe just one person) are missing the fundamental point of IT/Pennywise (or over analyzing it now because it's popular), why he's scary and and where he draws his power. The whole story revolves around childhood fears and basic insecurity, particularly as it relates to puberty and coming of age. When the kids aren't scared, IT is powerless. When they are, IT is powerful and dangerous. The fact that they weren't scared of IT anymore is how they beat him and that's clearly shown in the film. The whole loving thing is about overcoming adolescent fear, transcending into maturity and coming to terms with an inherent mistrust of grown ups and their inability to protect you from harm; the realization that you have to conquer your fears by yourself. Ot in this case with friends. It's not complicated and there's no need to over analyze IT or hunt for subtext. It's all right there and clearly spelled out, in the novel as well as the film. Not saying IT's shallow at all but there's no political or deep social message involved beyond the basic idea that growing up is scary and that adults not only don't understand but are often part of the problem and the film did a great job describing that. It was a terrific movie and I look forward to part 2. Hope they don't gently caress it up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
I think the thing with the disconnect between King and the films is simply a matter of intent and what the writer had in his head when he created the piece. He clearly had a vision in his head when he wrote things and if the visuals and narrative don't match up (which is almost impossible to achieve), I can see being disappointed. As an artist, I run into it all the time - not that my work has ever been adapted to other mediums - but where the meaning behind my work is often misinterpreted and also the way that most people favor my least favorite work.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
All of the adults in the movie "torture" and hassle the kids.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
The way the adults treat the kids, from ignoring them to outright abusing them, is spelled out pretty clearly as them being a part of the monster, at least symbolically. The whole movie is about overcoming childhood fears. The mistrust of adults, the power and control they wield and the damage they can cause through either direct abuse or outright negligence is a rather obvious huge part of that. I don't think there are layers upon layers of ways to look at that part of the story either, but when has that ever stopped SMG?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Well no not really. The film is about the fantasy of "childhood fears" and what they're a cover for. That's why the evil clown is a petty bully that keeps coming back, and all the teen bullies are uncomfortably sexualized. I don't read it that way at all and think you're overanalyzing it. The message of the the book and especially the film seems rather obvious to me and I just went to see the movie for a second time this afternoon.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 04:15
|
|