|
FreudianSlippers posted:People fondly remember the original movie which was a cheapo TV film with one really good performance but basically nothing else going for it. All it takes is one great performance. The new movie is consistently better in a lot of areas but there's nothing in it that will be nearly as memorable as Curry's Pennywise. The fact that it was a tv movie probably only enhanced it's staying power, this was during a time when there weren't 800 channels to chose from. King was a Big Deal, there were a ton of people watching it when it first aired.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:People fondly remember the original movie which was a cheapo TV film with one really good performance but basically nothing else going for it. The kids were really good in the TV movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
The kids were alright.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
Brandis was a better Bill. It's not even close.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
I actually really like Skarsgaard's Pennywise, in some ways I prefer it to Curry's in the way that it captures the idea of it being this unknowable thing wrapped up in a clown form. That's not to say I think Skarsgaard's performance is better than Curry's, just that they are different takes which both utilize comedy and horror quite well, with Curry having a bit more comedy in the mix.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
Curry was a creepy clown. The new one is a demon with a clown costume.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
I’m only interested in Part 2 if they flash back and reveal that Part 1 was the Satanic Panic hallucinated version of the true alien invasion. i.e. that it was always ‘just’ a massive spider, but the traumatized kids started rambling about the clown who lives in the toilet or whatever.
SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Feb 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Curry was a creepy clown. The new one is a demon with a clown costume. Curry's felt more inhuman and demonic than the new one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 02:31
|
|
Davros1 posted:Curry's felt more inhuman and demonic than the new one. It really didn't.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
Currys felt like a sex predator
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
Curry’s version felt like an authoritative, abusive adult. Skarsgaard’s version felt like an alien entity’s estimation of what a clown should act like. Both were technically true to the source material, and creepy for different-but-equal reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
Curry’s wasn’t all that scary but that’s not his fault, more so the fault of the hacks who made the thing. It’s so visually awful in almost every possible way. Curry’s always in a wide or medium shot and it’s just not effective. At all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Like, I said this earlier in the thread, but I could buy Curry's Pennywise as satan, maybe, but he's still an extremely human portrayal, within the context of human antagonism. Skarsgaard absolutely brings a sort of deep sea fish vibe that Curry was not going for in the slightest.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
Skarsgård is a foreigner so it immediately put me at unease so it’s an effective performance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Curry’s wasn’t all that scary but that’s not his fault, more so the fault of the hacks who made the thing. Say what you will about the looks, but Tommy Lee Wallace ain't a hack. He made his bones with John Carpenter, pulling major creative duties on some of his best early work. Dude also wrote and directed Halloween III, and did the same with IT. The fact that the structure of the miniseries flows as well as it does, and gets the book across without many glaring omissions, is kind of a minor miracle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
Halloween 3 is a classic. It is straight garbage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I’m only interested in Part 2 if they flash back and reveal that Part 1 was the Satanic Panic hallucinated version of the true alien invasion. i.e. that it was always ‘just’ a massive spider, but the traumatized kids started rambling about the clown who lives in the toilet or whatever. You've never read the novel have you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
Yaws posted:You've never read the novel have you? He likely hasn't even seen this movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 07:56
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Halloween 3 is a classic. Wow dude make up your mind
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 08:03
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:He likely hasn't even seen this movie. It's a real possibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
plz dont pull out posted:Wow dude make up your mind Haha
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 08:31
|
|
|
Yaws posted:It's a real possibility. Now let me be clear - the knee-jerk reaction Goons often have to SMG, or anyone offering non-surface-level readings (especially political readings) of popular media is kinda gross and really very silly. I firmly believe that it is impossible to separate politics from ANYTHING, including art. But hoo fuckin boy does SMG do his level best to make the very idea of media analysis look like the domain of crackpots and rabblerousers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 09:02
|
|
|
Is the sequel going to be called IT II? I hope they go with Sometimes IT Comes Back or IT Followed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 09:18
|
|
|
Chapter 2
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 09:27
|
|
|
Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:It really didn't. Your welcome to your opinion, as I am welcome to mine, but to mine, but to me, Skarsgård felt more like a man pretending to be a clown then Curry's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
Yaws posted:You've never read the novel have you? The only reason to ask that is if you believe the shapeshifting in the novel was already non-literal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Is the sequel going to be called IT II? I hope they go with Sometimes IT Comes Back or IT Followed. 2 Penny 2 Wise
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Kevyn posted:2 Penny 2 Wise IIT
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
The IT Crowd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
IT: Is Happening Again
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
IT's Back
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:IIT This is 100% what the teaser poster is going to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The only reason to ask that is if you believe the shapeshifting in the novel was already non-literal. I grossly misread your post, sir. Please accept my apology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
Watched this for the first time last night, having seen the Tim Curry series after reading the novel years ago. The novel I enjoyed up until the ending which annoyed me so much I didn’t read another King book for a long time. The series was enjoyable, on par with The Stand which is an obvious comparison I suppose given the author writing both novels and the same era production wise. So I was looking forward to seeing this but waited for it. It’s beautifully shot, they really nailed the aesthetic of Derry and there was no scene that I thought ‘I didn’t imagine it that way’ which is an achievement for a film based on a book. However I am a bit of a coward during horror films, IT didn’t really scare me. I felt if anything they broke the cardinal rule King talks about in Danes Macabre: don’t show too much. Even the opener with Georgie I felt showed too much in the climax of that scene, making IT seem more goofy and less scary (unintentionally I assume). The reason I loved The Conjuring so much (a very different film, granted) is the triumph of not showing anything for a long time. It’s so much more effective just building up an unsettling feeling, but that is a luxury with a horror story of that type. IT is a different type of story and I concede that. I feel the scary scenes were too explicit, which in turn made them less scary if that makes sense? To quote King, I could see the zipper. The other problem I have with the film is this. I have a fair pre-existing knowledge of the story, so I could appreciate the execution of what was happening on screen. My partner who has never read the book or seen the series didn’t have a clue what was going on for the most part. The pacing and lack of plot exposition is glaring when considering the film from the perspective of someone who knows nothing except ‘it’s about a scary clown’. She asked why all this was happening, why IT was targeting the Loser’s Club, why the bullies were so extraordinarily violent, etc. Things that are covered in the source material but either not explained at all or pushed way back into the third act with a brief exposition. I understand that it was a long film at 2hrs 15mins, however given it’s the first of two parts that are likely to run at 4hrs 30mins total I feel there could’ve been a better way to communicate things to the uninitiated. I was a little disappointed all in all, hoping the second part really cranks the scare factor up or it’s a missed opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 13:27
|
|
|
Yo i only watched this once but there's a scene where they discuss what to do before heading into the sewers right? Someone please recut that and the final battle and escape with the Suicide Mission theme complete with Martin Sheen inexplicably saying "good luck Shepard" tia
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:IIT Trailer writes itself. Fade in on Bill, he turns, looks scared and stutters... “I-It!” Really drive it home by subtitling it. Instant replay in slow motion. And then do techno remixes of him leading up to release.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
Jessica Chastain has been tapped to be Beverly on Part 2 while James McAvoy and Bill Hader are in negotiations to be Bill and Richie respectively. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/it-2-casts-james-mcavoy-bill-hader-1102252
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
I think the plan earlier was to do some flashbacks, and use these great kid actors again. But man they have lost a lot of time... I bet they all look so different now, or will by the time they start filming this. I suppose they could use the kids as a bridge, like showing Ben a couple years down the line, living away from Derry and running to lose weight, etc. But then you don't get any of their chemistry together.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:Jessica Chastain has been tapped to be Beverly on Part 2 while James McAvoy and Bill Hader are in negotiations to be Bill and Richie respectively. That's some great casting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:Jessica Chastain has been tapped to be Beverly on Part 2 while James McAvoy and Bill Hader are in negotiations to be Bill and Richie respectively. https://twitter.com/jes_chastain/status/984590781389275136
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 10:32
|
|