- Anonymous John
- Mar 8, 2002
-
|
It's a shame that Cary Fukanaga left over creative differences that don't bode well for the direction that this movie is taking.
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 07:06
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2024 01:12
|
|
- Anonymous John
- Mar 8, 2002
-
|
The movie could still work without that scene, I was more concerned by these quotes:
http://variety.com/2015/film/news/cary-fukunaga-it-exit-1201584416/
quote:Fukunaga had planned on making “It” into two films. Although early reports indicated that the director left over budgetary concerns, Fukunaga maintained that wasn’t the case. Both sides had agreed on making the two films for $32 million, according to the director. But Fukunaga said he had bigger disagreements with New Line over the direction of the story. A rep from New Line didn’t respond to a request for a comment. Here’s Fukunaga’s explanation:
Fukunaga: “I was trying to make an unconventional horror film. It didn’t fit into the algorithm of what they knew they could spend and make money back on based on not offending their standard genre audience. Our budget was perfectly fine. We were always hovering at the $32 million mark, which was their budget. It was the creative that we were really battling. It was two movies. They didn’t care about that. In the first movie, what I was trying to do was an elevated horror film with actual characters. They didn’t want any characters. They wanted archetypes and scares. I wrote the script. They wanted me to make a much more inoffensive, conventional script. But I don’t think you can do proper Stephen King and make it inoffensive.
“The main difference was making Pennywise more than just the clown. After 30 years of villains that could read the emotional minds of characters and scare them, trying to find really sadistic and intelligent ways he scares children, and also the children had real lives prior to being scared. And all that character work takes time. It’s a slow build, but it’s worth it, especially by the second film. But definitely even in the first film, it pays off.
“It was being rejected. Every little thing was being rejected and asked for changes. Our conversations weren’t dramatic. It was just quietly acrimonious. We didn’t want to make the same movie. We’d already spent millions on pre-production. I certainly did not want to make a movie where I was being micro-managed all the way through production, so I couldn’t be free to actually make something good for them. I never desire to screw something up. I desire to make something as good as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 07:36
|
|
- Anonymous John
- Mar 8, 2002
-
|
I sort of liked how comically obese the mom was, it was so clearly a fat suit that it went beyond being an annoying gag (King has a weird relationship with fat people) and became kind of threatening in a way I can only describe as scary in a cloying, syrupy way - theatrical, fake, and fraudulent, which makes it seem bigger than life.
She resembled an obese trashy version of Amy Schumer.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2017 15:50
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 07:06
