Horror Stephen King's "IT" Part I and Part II

Marvolo said:
The same reason Peter Jackson cast Cumberbatch to mocap and voice Smaug. Having a human do the mocap adds more personality and life to the character. Even non humanoid characters.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
Marvolo said:
The same reason Peter Jackson cast Cumberbatch to mocap and voice Smaug. Having a human do the mocap adds more personality and life to the character. Even non humanoid characters.
Click to expand...

Not remotely the same thing, Smaug speaks and has extended conversations and interactions with Bilbo and the dwarves so mocap work was an incredibly useful tool to, like you say, give him more personality and more realistic facial expressions. The spider version of It in the book does not speak or interact with the Losers other than acting like you'd imagine a gigantic version of a spider would (just like Shelob in LotR which is why I used her as a comparison), crawling and rearing up on it's back legs, e.t.c. The only time It speaks in this incarnation is inside their minds. Of course, they may decide to mix that up in the film, but I doubt it.

How do you make a photo-realistic (not cartoony) spider look like it's talking anyway? It doesn't have a face like a mammal or reptile (i.e. two eyes, a nose and a mouth) that would align up with a human face doing mocap work. :huh:
 
Finarfiniel said:
Not remotely the same thing, Smaug speaks and has extended conversations and interactions with Bilbo and the dwarves so mocap work was an incredibly useful tool to, like you say, give him more personality and more realistic facial expressions. The spider version of It in the book does not speak or interact with the Losers other than acting like you'd imagine a gigantic version of a spider would (just like Shelob in LotR which is why I used her as a comparison), crawling and rearing up on it's back legs, e.t.c. The only time It speaks in this incarnation is inside their minds. Of course, they may decide to mix that up in the film, but I doubt it.

How do you make a photo-realistic (not cartoony) spider look like it's talking anyway? It doesn't have a face like a mammal or reptile (i.e. two eyes, a nose and a mouth) that would align up with a human face doing mocap work. :huh:
Click to expand...

The movie version of the Spider probably speaks. So yes it is the same thing. And did you miss Peter Jacksons second Hobbit film? The spiders in that film talk and it worked very well. So a speaking Spider shouldnt be a problem.

And animators dont need a character that aligns with a human face to benefit from mocap data. Body movement helps the animators too. Every bit of behind the scenes footage of Cumberbatch slithering around and moving his arms like wings in a mocap suit shows that a good mocap actor can do even bizarre creature roles for mocap. I've little doubt Cumberbatch or another good physical actor could crawl around like a spider in a mocap suit.

Plus keep in mind this spider isnt actually a spider. It's an alien impersonating a spider. It's movements and physiology needn't be 100% true to real spiders. In fact it shouldnt be. It should be more alien and unnatural than any spider on earth. Like something that crawled out of an arachniphobe's worst nightmares.
 
Last edited:
Finarfiniel said:
Not remotely the same thing, Smaug speaks and has extended conversations and interactions with Bilbo and the dwarves so mocap work was an incredibly useful tool to, like you say, give him more personality and more realistic facial expressions. The spider version of It in the book does not speak or interact with the Losers other than acting like you'd imagine a gigantic version of a spider would (just like Shelob in LotR which is why I used her as a comparison), crawling and rearing up on it's back legs, e.t.c. The only time It speaks in this incarnation is inside their minds. Of course, they may decide to mix that up in the film, but I doubt it.

How do you make a photo-realistic (not cartoony) spider look like it's talking anyway? It doesn't have a face like a mammal or reptile (i.e. two eyes, a nose and a mouth) that would align up with a human face doing mocap work. :huh:
Click to expand...

They had human actors in JP do a lot of the dinosaurs in the herd so the running was more realistic. So it happens for even non-speaking characters.
 
Marvolo said:
The movie version of the Spider probably speaks. So yes it is the same thing. And did you miss Peter Jacksons second Hobbit film? The spiders in that film talk and it worked very well. So a speaking Spider shouldnt be a problem.
Click to expand...

Eh, I hope not. I'd much rather they stick closer to the finale in the book, if they even include spider!It at all, they didn't in the first part when the Losers battled Pennywise, so we'll see. There was clearly no trustworthy source for that 'random French actress as the spider' anyway, because it was removed from the wiki page yesterday and hasn't reappeared. Also, I have to be honest, I'd completely forgotten about the talking spiders in the second Hobbit movie, but it's all come screaming back to me now. :funny: I think they looked cartoonish, not scary, but each to their own.
 
Art Vandelay said:
I wonder what scene they would be filming? Maybe after the lunch instead of splitting up, they all walk around town together?
Click to expand...

If you visit the profile @lisascherry on Instagram, you'll find some more Behind The Scenes pictures and clips as well! Looks like they're filming a scene where
Young Bill and young Bev walk side by side, talking and carrying their bikes, after the ending of Chapter One (the clothes are the same), then they split and Grownup Bev is there as well —*they're probably going to blend memories in the present.
 
Some people might not know if they didn't read the book/watch the 1990 miniseries, so it's a little presumptuous to say "we all know" as opposed to putting that in spoiler tags.
 
Regarding Stanley...

[BLACKOUT]I honestly thought they were just going to kill him off at the end of the first film. And they probably should have. I mean, one chomp from Pennywise took Georgie's arm clean off earlier in the film, so I don't know how Stanley survived having his entire head chomped on towards the end. It would have made more sense to just have him die there, rather than having him survive only to die five minutes into the next movie. They changed so many things in the last film that changing that wouldn't have made much of a difference.[/BLACKOUT]
 
Don't know if it's going to be much of a spoiler when it happens right off the top.

Deck Rickard said:
Regarding Stanley...

[BLACKOUT]I honestly thought they were just going to kill him off at the end of the first film. And they probably should have. I mean, one chomp from Pennywise took Georgie's arm clean off earlier in the film, so I don't know how Stanley survived having his entire head chomped on towards the end. It would have made more sense to just have him die there, rather than having him survive only to die five minutes into the next movie. They changed so many things in the last film that changing that wouldn't have made much of a difference.[/BLACKOUT]
Click to expand...

I disagree.

His suicide as an adult shows how much of a psychological horror the experience had on them as kids. He decides to die by his own hand as opposed to confronting Pennywise again. The fact that he kills himself as an adult gives greater fear for the others to go and confront Pennywise again. That they aren't as strong as they were as kids. They might actually be weaker.

It also shows how you can't just run away from your past because it will stay with you and unless you confront it, you'll never be able to live with yourself.
 
Last edited:
Drizzle said:
Some people might not know if they didn't read the book/watch the 1990 miniseries, so it's a little presumptuous to say "we all know" as opposed to putting that in spoiler tags.
Click to expand...

The book came out in 1984, and we're introduced to Stan through his
suicide
. Not to mention the mini series exists. I think people should just avoid this thread if they haven't read the book.
 
I know a lot of people who are only familiar with the latest film. I don't think it's unreasonable to spoiler tag stuff. Folks have managed it in the GoT threads, so it's really not a big ask here.
 
Deck Rickard said:
Yeah but Grace Randolph says Jessica Chastain sucks. So this casting is a fail. :o
Click to expand...

She also said before seeing I, Tonya that Margot Robbie was miscast as Tonya Harding and the movie would fail because it wasn't the caricature Grace grew up reading in tabloids. The movie was a hit, got nominated for Best Picture from many awards ceremonies, and Robbie got her first Best Actress Oscar nomination for it so.....

(P.S. She wanted Amy Schemer)
 
Set pictures
nqFq5EF.jpg

HlOXZF0.jpg

TtzgLXs.jpg

bmubjYx.jpg

XEjsvgi.jpg
 
Last edited:
Da-Scribe said:
I know a lot of people who are only familiar with the latest film. I don't think it's unreasonable to spoiler tag stuff. Folks have managed it in the GoT threads, so it's really not a big ask here.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
Loving the pics, and yeah I agree can we tag book spoilers as I have never read it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Stephen King's "IT" remake has found a writer - Part 4
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
101K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Stephen King's "IT" remake has found a writer - Part 3
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
106K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Stephen King's "IT" remake has found a writer - Part 2
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
155K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Stephen King's "IT" remake has found a writer - Part 1
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
151K
Thread Manager
T
T
Stephen King's Epic "The Dark Tower" - Part 2
25 26 27
Replies
674
Views
77K
moviedoors
moviedoors

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 4,534 (members: 11, guests: 4,523)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,359
Messages
22,091,223
Members
45,886
Latest member
Elchido

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"