|
Oh boy the kid playing the new Pennywise tries so hard to be scary, with the mean eyes and everything. Too bad Tim Curry only needed to literally play the clown part to be creepy as gently caress.
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I'm curious to see how this will play out in the US vs. worldwide given how much/if at all people and kids today are or are not automatically freaked out by and/or amused by clowns/think to associate a clown with John Wayne Gacy etc. Like maybe them having Pennywise played this way is the right move overall? For millennials and younger audiences, probably. I'm afraid anyone over 26 probably won't like a movie with this kind of Pennywise. It still bothers me that they cast a 27 years old guy for the role. Imo an IT movie shouldn't look like a slasher flick but like a "Stand By Me + Pennywise", which is what the 90s mini-series set out to do with the means it had. There's so much you can do with the story. Maybe you'd be forced to make it a 2 movies deal but imagine how great it'd turn out to be with the right director and cast. I quite liked Mama by the way, it's just the new IT trailers and Pennywise both look so bad it's hard to stay optimistic. Kawabata fucked around with this message at 15:51 on May 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Len posted:That's the way of things. Goons see a little bit and then flip out saying it's trash or the greatest thing ever. It's hilarious seeing it over in Games because if you read the Resident Evil thread it goes from people 100% sure the game is trash and just an Amnesia/Outlast clone to universal praise because it's actually a good and fun game. The trailer(s) is the only thing we can base our opinions on and frankly it looks like poo poo for an IT movie. It would probably look ok for your run of the mill jump scare horror. Pennywise actor's too young, tries too hard, and the scene with him spinning out of the water screaming is just silly. Yes, the clown looks too evil, and blatantly so. In the book (and in the mini tv series to an extent) Pennywise looked "wrong" and creepy but not downright evil other than in a few scenes. That said the movie has a good director so hey let's hope I'm wrong here.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Tries too hard at what? at doing mean stares
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Nroo posted:The Kubrick Stare is basically a part of cinematic grammar at this point. When it's not overdone and obvious. The audience knows Pennywise is evil, does he really need to spin out of the water screaming or hide behind a balloon with the phoniest mean stare? Tim Curry's interpretation was playful and disturbing at the same time and he was the best element of the mini-series. At this point my hope is that they made it look more of a generic horror flick than it is to attract a broader audience.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Well see, the thing about that is, at no point does Tim Curry's Pennywise seem friendly and funny either. He's totally menacing from the jump. He is menacing and playful at the same time, not evil (even thought the audience knows he is). This version of Pennywise seems to scream "look at me I'm super evil and mean staring you hard" but again, I hope it's a marketing choice to attract more people. The fact that you know he's evil from the book and the 90s version doesn't mean Pennywise should be played or portrayed differently. The character is going to lose most of his charm otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Nroo posted:Every single time he appears in the book it hits you over the head with how evil he is. After he mercs Georgie in the opening scene there's no need for any pretenses in the rest of the film. The character doesn't work at all if you portray him that way. This is not the kind of monster that you need to immediately avoid because it will kill you on spot. Pennywise torments the kids but doesn't try to physically harm them most of the times. Yes, the book makes it clear that he's evil but it's the kind of lingering evil that King does best and Curry portrayed perfectly. BiggerBoat posted:"Not My Pennywise" is what it comes down to. Oh it's definitely not my Pennywise so far but maybe younger audiences will like him. Why do you say book Pennywise doesn't remind you of Bozo at all? Kawabata fucked around with this message at 21:38 on May 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:The book does say that IT takes the form of Pennywise to lure in children, because "what child doesn't love a clown", for whatever that's worth. Huh, so he does look like Bozo, and he does behave like a clown (sometimes) to attract children, which is as I remembered him in the book. Curry's Pennywise immediately comes to mind, tufts of red hair, baggy suit and everything. I'm confused now.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Nroo posted:This new Pennywise fits that description pretty well. And the trailers show they're doing the opening scene where he tries to lure Georgie into the sewer. What's so confusing? What's confusing is that it's either "you mis-remember the book because Curry's interpretation replaced your memory of it: this new, darker IT is actually more faithful to the material" or "King literally says Pennywise looked like Bozo, down to tufts of red hair, orange buttons and baggy pants: this new IT is trying to do something different". It can't be both. Not that there's anything wrong with a new approach if it works, mind you.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Nroo posted:This Pennywise has red hair, orange buttons, and baggy pants. When you think about Bozo you don't think about a 26 years old guy with a small chin and delicate features. You think about a creepy middle aged man. Google Bozo and see for yourself, or better yet, watch the mini-series again! The clothes are wrong as well. Bozo is an explosion of colors, while the new IT is mostly a dirty white with desaturated everything else. Much darker than the 90s version or what's described in the book, which works if you're really after younger viewers I suppose. Also: http://imgur.com/a/3tNOc Next to Curry, Skarsgard looks like an angry chipmunk. Look at how hard he's trying though.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Nroo posted:Well they weren't going to give him a multi-colored suit, that wouldn't film well. So instead there's a simplified design of mostly grey with red/orange highlights. It's a slight, inconsequential change to better suit the medium. The way the main character (one of the most iconic characters in the entire horror genre) looks obviously has to do with the tone of the new movie and isn't inconsequential at all. It's glaringly obvious that they went for a darker, younger look and I doubt it's because "a multi-colored suit wouldn't film well". It would totally film well in a movie that doesn't look this grim. Now I don't know how this Pennywise lures children with a 24/7 murder face, but in the interest of conversation, whether the casting of Skarsgard was right or not we at least know the actor is good and might pull it off. Being a big King fan I'd rather be wrong and watch a good movie than the opposite, but still wish they didn't change this much of Pennywise's feel because as good as Curry was, there were times where he was a bit too light and istrionic. So I absolutely welcomed a darker interpretation when the new IT was announced, just not as hamfisted as it looks in the little material we have. Kawabata fucked around with this message at 01:10 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Len posted:Yes because from the multiple seconds of video we've seen we can extrapolate that he has a murder face on 24/7. They are certainly trying to market the movie as if he has a tryhard murder face, you are correct. Whether this is exaggerated to lure younger audiences or not we don't know, but right now we can at least assume he looks much more dangerous than a clown should, because how is he supposed to lure children then? Please do use that argument for comedy movies as well because the really disappointing ones don't even have good gags in the trailer. If the trailer makes you laugh you can absolutely expect the movie to have those 3 gags at the very minimum which is still better than nothing at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I LOVE the direction and visuals, but I hate how every tense moment is met with *SCARY SOUND* in the trailer. I really hope the film relies less on gimmicks, but otherwise I'm hypedddddd. They even have the creepy pharmacist I still don't like that Pennywise looks like a loving chipmunk but hey, if millennials find chipmunks scary so be it. Jokes aside, it doesn't feel like an IT trailer at all but if this was a generic slasher movie I would be impressed by how good the cinematography is. The scary sound stuff seems obligatory trailer stuff I suppose? I still have hopes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Heeeeehhh I'm ambivalent about this remake. Everything about The Losers was amazing, direction and photography were also top notch and goddamn those kids can act. Everything about Pennywise was complete poo poo. I haven't seen overacting this bad since, huh, my last Sean Penn movie. Skarsgaard is all over the place, doesn't seem to know if he should be funny, creepy, downright scary or a combination of the three. When he tilts his head forward and does the mean stare he looks dumb as gently caress. He looks like an angry chipmunk. Most interactions between him and the Losers seem either rushed or very cliché slasher flick stuff, with some of the CGI (Pennywise jumping out of things, the Leper) completely breaking immersion. He talks much less than Tim Curry did but when he does oh boy are his lines complete rubbish. Do you really have to spell out that "you need their sweet sweet fear" or literally say "feeeaaar" as you decompose and fall into the well? All in all an ok movie, weirdly good-looking and elegant for the genre but also not scary in the least.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Hey, that's cool because the Leper wasn't CGI It looked like practical effects enhanced by CGI; either way it was very cheap and cartoonish to me
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 03:45
|
|