|
Malcolm Excellent posted:I've never read IT and haven't seen the original in years... Would someone mind spoiler blocking the controversial scene you guys are talking about? After the kids fight IT the first time, they get lost in the sewers. They all have sex with Bev, in turn, to create a long lasting group bond and use that power of the bond, etc. to get out of the sewers. It's a strong symbolic point that worked with all the themes in the book, but making that explicitly happen and describing it is pretty weird while you're reading it (as an adult, as a kid, I didn't care).
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It also goes into entirely too much detail that it probably didn't need to which kinda weakens any symbolic value in favor of "did I really need to hear discussions on dick size?" Wasn't Mike (the black kid) the largest, too? Come on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:I think one of the character sees Pennywise waving at them from the side of the road as they're driving through town. That's Tommyknockers. Dreamcatcher just has the "Pennywise Lives" graffiti.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I stand by my feeling that the scariest thing Stephen King has ever written was "The Jaunt." The Jaunt was completely frightening in its implications of what happened to those characters. But the ending of Revival has much worse implications than that, and would be truly frightening (I've read that some people don't understand what's going on there due to the descriptors).
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
IT the clown wanders around town as a "regular" clown in flashbacks, so he's not ALWAYS super-murdery outside of the start of the boat scene. However, the trailer only shows IT as he's actively attacking/scaring someone, so there's nothing to judge that on.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
joylessdivision posted:https://xxaaztshjxx.tumblr.com/post/164044124275/spoiler-alert-clip-from-it-movie-idk-who-are That's a really good portrayal of Pennywise, actually. I like it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Yeah, I wish Pennywise was a bit more playful in this scene. It's odd, because I read the novel in this scene almost exactly as it is played here, and thought the Curry version was too goofy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
If you compare Maximum Overdrive to the inferior Trucks, it only makes Maximum Overdrive more awesome. Trucks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhIR8DaeqWA Maximum Overdrive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggWS4tTzs60
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I think I actually read the book and it was terrible. Didn't the squid have the ability to walk on dry land and sort of stalk the town like Jack the Ripper? No, that's Creature/White Shark, where it was part man part fish or something. The Beast was an okay book; I read it as a teenager, and it was better than Jaws (book) which is not really that good at all. edit: whoops, missed a page
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
M_Sinistrari posted:I really can't say any of the miniseries adaptations were outright godawful, but then I first saw them all when they aired. Compared to other miniseries/tv movies of the week going on at the time, they're on par for the era. Comparing them to the redone ones from around 2000, I'd say the redone ones are closer to the books, but even then, they still have the network TV limitations even as more relaxed as they were compared to earlier. I would like to see Salem's Lot and The Stand redone on either cable or Netflix, just to see how much closer those manage to be unless they ever go the theatrical release route. I'd say the best of the miniseries is Storm of the Century, mainly because it's written straight for the miniseries format and isn't really "missing anything." IT is terribly neutered to the point of ridiculousness, The Stand is basically The Stand lite, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
King has horrible taste in movies, but he said it was great earlier this year. I think he also said The Mist (show) and TDT were great as well, though, so, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Maybe he's bitter because the Shining movie is far better than it's source material. Kubrick's is not better than the book at all. It's mid-range Kubrick and interesting as gently caress, but doesn't hit the emotional notes or level of the novel, mainly due to making it about enabling addiction as opposed to overcoming it. The mini series was bad because it was TV level production and acting, not because of the raw material. For instance, the beehive thing, being the turning point, was a huge heartbreaking moment, something the movie lacked, as Jack was never "fighting" anything in the movie. However, in the miniseries, nobody cared about anything because of the pedestrian nature of it, so moments like that were, "whatever." Darko fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Naw, I agree. The Shining is a much better film than a book. Even as a big King fan I can admit that much, especially since I didn't find the book very scary while the movie has one of the most unnerving atmospheres I've seen in a horror movie. King's just mad because Jack Torrance is based off of himself and Kubrick didn't give him an unearned redemption arc like in the book. The fear in The Shining (novel) is about how someone fighting strongly against addiction can be led back into it from things outside of their control. It's a real life fear that many people can relate to, with themselves or with close friends and family - which I find "scarier" than the mood of the film. I would definitely not say it was "unearned," as the entire book was him searching for forgiveness for something he was genuinely repentant about and being undermined at every turn. He got a phyrric victory in that he was finally able to save his family/beat his demons at the very end at the cost of his own life.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
Nah, its normal critic screenings, and the reviews say its flawed in spots, but still good. I know a critic that saw it and liked it as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
I asked my friend that saw IT at the critic screening if Rodan was in IT, and she said, "no", but that it still takes the form of Mike's greatest fear at the time and makes sense. So, not just a clown, and something different that we have not seen.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Al was definitely about to molest/rape Bev when she escaped from him. It was pretty much spelled out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Yeah, given Audrey, that doesn't bother me at all, since that's already part of the M.O.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Knowing what will happen to a degree in Part 2 really helps a watch of this film as it makes interactions with the kids somewhat saddening. Especially Stan and Eddie. It does make me wonder about some of the changes though. As been mentioned; Mike shouldn't be the one to stay back (no strong family connections, they gave the historical stuff to him). Henry seems really dead, but maybe they'll bring him back specifically to go after Mike. However, the Mike-Bowers arc already happens here, really. Similarly, I'm wandering if they'll just take away the Audrey thing entirely since Bev already did it here. I am really looking forward to 2 now, and think it will be a hit as well. I didn't care as much about the adults in the mini series, they didn't seem related to their kid representatives, but seeing the kids and growing attached to them in one movie makes me care more about the adults in the second pretty much as default.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:You've got a fair point about the speech pathology thing. I'm more concerned with poo poo like "Stan sees the creepy painting woman because of his opinions of how the Torah treats women!" You are. You're approaching it as a book reader, seeing book references without the layers of buildup the book has for those references, and thus they stand out of place for *you.* However, looking at it from outside of the novel, all of those things flow into the narrative of the film itself, ESPECIALLY considering a ton of foreshadowing for things that come into play in Chapter 2. You also missed a few things as people have pointed out (ie. there is an in the house view of Bill riding his bike and saying "hi ho Silver away!") For instance let's take the "you'll float too" thing. In the book, Pennywise establishes his catchphrase when he kills the kid. In the movie, it is established by the kid to the main character. It's just different - neither is better or worse, it's just different.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
I saw the movie again, and Mike's character seemed a *little* better and more fleshed out than I initially assumed. The biggest issue with him is that there is this gigantic unending chunk of the film where he's just absent, and that chunk is scenes where the Losers are bonding. The book technically has the same issue (as Mike is the last to join); but old Mike is intercut with everything else, so he just seems that much more a part of the group.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:There's some kind of nostalgia blue-balls that people get when semi-meaningful details get changed in an adaptation. Ben helping to build a dam (I don't even remember this from the TV movie) or Bill explaining his stutter-mantra or Bill explaining that he liked The Lone Ranger wouldn't have made the movie "better", it'd just be tickling the nostalgia center of book-readers' brains. The movie stands well enough on its own; of course it's got flaws, but not simply checking off a list of random things people remembered from the book isn't one of them. Dam thing is pretty big in the book because it's centered around the first bonding moment in the 50s. Ben gets bullied, escapes, and runs into two kids making a "baby" dam that gets smashed by Bowers and his buddies - the group then works with Ben to make a dam so awesome that it stops the whole river. The made for TV movie does it, but only slightly emphasizes both points, and I think the full dam comes a lot later than it does in the novel. I actually laughed at Richie's IT manifestation change. He was scared "of clowns" (which must have bored the hell out of Pennywise which is why he didn't even bother appearing to him until everyone else around him kept talking about IT), but the scene in which he said that was location set by the giant Paul Bunyan statue that was Richie's manifestation in the novel. Also, when the kids leave each other at the end, note who the first two to split off are.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
joylessdivision posted:That's something I always loved about the novel, the way none of the adults really remember much until they get the phone call, and then they each have a specific flashback. Yeah, the book is a gradual reveal of the past as the adults learn 1/3 or so through. And all their scars come back as well. Everyone gets a call, gets a specific memory and gradually gets more, especially as they all take their solo journeys around the town. Also, every solo journey around the town results in a specific moment with IT EXCEPT for Bill who gets his bike back to be used in the epilogue. It's implied that The White/Gan was behind that. And those moments are generally better than the child moments, and more extended. For instance, since this will no doubt be changed, I'm not spoiling - Richie just runs from and dodges the Paul Bunyon statue in the book. In the movie the statue keeps changing and talking to him *and* he has to play it safe in interacting because nobody else can see it but a baby.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Christ. Eh, it's not the Turtle, it's Gan/The White/What is Beyond the Turtle. And my implication from the book was that, outside of it being all about childhood memories and imagination and etc. in general as far as the meaning goes, the entire town of Derry was warped by IT's presence there, which created all kinds of side effects. By encountering IT, they all became childless and rich/successful, but by moving outside of the source of the magic, they lost memories as to why until the one person who stayed reawakened them. That's why wandering around Derry more and more restored them. Then, once IT was defeated, they gradually lost them again because the magic in the town was gone. IT IS Derry, so once they destroyed the magic of the town, the association with it/memories began to fade.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:Saw the movie, the actors were all great, It desperately needed more lines though. Movie IT was very strongly dependent on fear and belief. If a kid believed he could save his friend by getting a door open, he could. If he believed the trick behind the scary door was bullshit (which happens in the next scene AFTER the door was broken into), then it was. If they thought they could get away, then they could. Without fear, he could only physically attack or Deadlight them. These things were gradually revealed. Miniseries IT was...I don't even know what he was doing besides constantly trolling everyone all of the time. Book IT was ultra cocky but was purposely being interfered with by a cosmic being/God when trying to get the Losers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
King believes in both reading a story as just a story and a story living on its own and reading into the meaning of it. Neither fight each other and both exist at the same time. The point in IT about Bill's writing was that the professor was not respecting pulp as worthwhile literature because of intent, which is bad.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Because the adults were IT
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Mr. Keene was specifically said to tell Eddie about the placebo for harmful reasons/to rock the boat/just to cause chaos. There was a line that was intended as a descriptor of intent where Eddie thought something like, "the worst thing was 'why would he tell me'" or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:The bit with Georgie at the start is legit as scary as the film gets, it shocked me and made me think "oh poo poo, this is going to be harsh" and then............... bit disappointed in all honesty. Aspects of it were legit good and freaky, the Jewish kid's fear of that loving painting and the resulting scares from the lady in it were great and disturbing. Everything else just kinda fell short though. There were bits right at the end that were hosed up, IT vomits forth a bunch of hands and the imagery of that was freaky but I dunno, a lot of it came across as funny rather than scary? It seemed a little lost in places. It is an adventure kids movie like ET or Goonies only with the possibility of kids dying in it, and the opening scene sets those stakes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
tbp posted:i never read the book or saw the original series before and i watched this last night, i thought it was good and pretty creepy, however i am certain that the being IT would have no power over me because i fear nothing, and would be capable of defeating it in 1v1 combat without a second thought. He'd still just kill you without friends to back you up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:the tim curry pennywise is way closer to the book pennywise than this movie's. it's the only thing the miniseries does better. Nah. I did a new movie/re-watch the miniseries/re-read the book combo, and Curry Pennywise was...not much like the book at all. Curry Pennywise just stands around taunting the kids instead of trying to get them much at all, which he specifically only did as an adult in the novel, and that was only because at that point he was both scared and wanted another showdown and revenge. And IT was written as far more unearthly than Curry played him. Hell, even in the adult section, there's no way that Pennywise would make out with one of the Losers. The miniseries was basically Tim Curry's Freddy Kruger in clown makeup.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Honestly the decision to tell the children and adult stories as separate chapters makes the adult chapter superfluous. It only works if the flasback structure is there, but since we've already seen the children's stories, there is nothing interesting to the adult's version. The TV mini-series had the same problem. The kids' stories in the movie was way different than the book, so there's no reason the same can't happen for the adults.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:All the kids are coming back for new scenes in this, per the director, so we'll be seeing more of them, and it will make this adaptation a bit different from the miniseries. Yeah, that too, it's hinted that it will flashback to the more mystical stuff like Chud/Turtle/etc. to tie into the final showdown.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
Ransone would be some really inspired casting.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2018 13:58
|
|