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

[DarthSkywalker]

The kid who was with the bullies? Kept lighting that spray he had?

Yep, him. If that balloon isn't CGI, they made it look it with some bad green screen.

 

[Brother Jack]

I think the movie relies too much on jumpscares. The scariest scene for me was Ben going through the book at the library. No CGI, nothing popping up with a loud noise. Just rising subtle tension.

 

[Asr]

You couldn't find an actual still from the film as opposed to a leak? That is so low res and is thus no indication of the quality. I have seen the movie 5 times, never had any problem with the CGI in motion there.

Actual screenshots from a personal rip of the DVD (480p):

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Thanks Asr.

Those look pretty darn good to me.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think the movie relies too much on jumpscares. The scariest scene for me was Ben going through the book at the library. No CGI, nothing popping up with a loud noise. Just rising subtle tension.

For me, it isn't a scary film. But the one scene that gets me is giant Pennywise.

 

[Finarfiniel]

In the finale when It keeps transforming into other things, the CG got very dodgy, especially when it got the crab hands. But again, doesn't really bother me cause the story works well, and I recognize this didn't have a 200mil budget, LOL

I don't think they were supposed to be crab legs. My interpretation was spider legs, as an homage to the fact that IT appears as a giant spider in it's final physical form in the book. That's probably supporting the argument about dodgy CG...

The kid who was with the bullies? Kept lighting that spray he had?

Probably one of my biggest disappointments about the film (which I love) is that they completely changed that kid's characterisation. In the book, he (Patrick Hockstetter) is the creepiest character in the whole damn thing. He's a sociopath who murdered his own baby brother and tortures animals by locking them in a broken fridge at the city dump, slowly starving them. His death is the creepiest chapter of the whole book. Flying leeches. *shudder* I get that they can't adapt the whole book but they shouldn't have given that character the name of Patrick Hockstetter, there are plenty of more generic bully types in Henry's gang that he could have stood in for. Victor Criss for example.

I think the movie relies too much on jumpscares. The scariest scene for me was Ben going through the book at the library. No CGI, nothing popping up with a loud noise. Just rising subtle tension.

The jump scares and such don't really bother me hugely, because as DarthSkywalker already pointed out, horror isn't really the point of the film, just as it isn't in the book. Yes, it's a horror movie, but it's also much more importantly a coming of age story about friendship and nostalgia. That's something that Muschietti really understands and transferred successfully from book to screen, so I can overlook the jump scares and little moments of dodgy CG.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Actual screenshots from a personal rip of the DVD (480p):

It's really just when It chomps on the arm. I still think it looks really bad. The crossed eyes were a bad choice, and the sudden zoom in makes it look really artificial.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Probably one of my biggest disappointments about the film (which I love) is that they completely changed that kid's characterisation. In the book, he (Patrick Hockstetter) is the creepiest character in the whole damn thing. He's a sociopath who murdered his own baby brother and tortures animals by locking them in a broken fridge at the city dump, slowly starving them. His death is the creepiest chapter of the whole book. Flying leeches. *shudder* I get that they can't adapt the whole book but they shouldn't have given that character the name of Patrick Hockstetter, there are plenty of more generic bully types in Henry's gang that he could have stood in for. Victor Criss for example.

I don't know why they even bothered with Patrick. If you're not getting the creepy backstory, what's the point of his character being in the movie? He seems to exist purely as someone to be killed off.

This is why I don't really get when people say that this is the more faithful adaptation. There are numerous cases where something is referenced, but taken in a different (and less interesting) direction from the book.

 

[The Joker]

Thanks Asr.

Those look pretty darn good to me.

I concur.

 

[BH/HHH]

Yep, him. If that balloon isn't CGI, they made it look it with some bad green screen.

Yeah I remember now that did look terrible lol

Probably one of my biggest disappointments about the film (which I love) is that they completely changed that kid's characterisation. In the book, he (Patrick Hockstetter) is the creepiest character in the whole damn thing. He's a sociopath who murdered his own baby brother and tortures animals by locking them in a broken fridge at the city dump, slowly starving them. His death is the creepiest chapter of the whole book. Flying leeches. *shudder* I get that they can't adapt the whole book but they shouldn't have given that character the name of Patrick Hockstetter, there are plenty of more generic bully types in Henry's gang that he could have stood in for. Victor Criss for example

Yeah I’d heard he was more of a character in the book. Guess that’s the thing with making a feature film on material such as this, they have to make certain choices.

 

[Man in the Suit]

I think the movie relies too much on jumpscares. The scariest scene for me was Ben going through the book at the library. No CGI, nothing popping up with a loud noise. Just rising subtle tension.

The librarian staring at him while he's going through it is the best. I didn't notice it the first time.

 

[MattP]

I think the movie relies too much on jumpscares. The scariest scene for me was Ben going through the book at the library. No CGI, nothing popping up with a loud noise. Just rising subtle tension.

I would say theres quite a few scenes that rely on atmosphere and imagery rather than jumpscares. The storm drain encounter for starters, the meatlocker scene was more about the nightmarish imagery and the increase in tension. The scene in the rabbi's office had a nice build up of atmosphere. Some people call that scene a jumpscare but I don't see how it is because they clearly show something behind Stan in the dark before the reveal. You also have the scene with pennywise talking to Eddie outside Neibolt which does not use a jumpscare and is just unsettling/surreal. The Neibolt encounter coming out of the fridge etc isn't really jumpscare reliant. The basement scene has one or 2 jumps but the main focus of that scare is the imagery of Georgie and pennywise. The only really true jump which is not forecast at all is the bathroom. Everything else seems to be deliberately setting up for a scare to occur.

 

[scarlet-witch]

I would say theres quite a few scenes that rely on atmosphere and imagery rather than jumpscares.

This. I didn't think the film was heavy handed with jump scares at all. atmosphere on the other hand...

 

[Arachnerd]

The librarian staring at him while he's going through it is the best. I didn't notice it the first time.

Loved that. She's even out of focus so it's hard to notice it at first too.

 

[Pennywise]

Chosen Jacobs will be appearing in Hulu's Castle Rock!

http://comicbook.com/horror/2018/03/01/it-movie-stephen-king-castle-rock-chosen-jacobs/

 

[Wildcard]

The librarian staring at him while he's going through it is the best. I didn't notice it the first time.

I never even noticed that, will have to keep a sharper eye out for that on my next viewing.

 

[terry78]

Yeah, it's slowly become a meme about over due library books, lol

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The librarian staring at him while he's going through it is the best. I didn't notice it the first time.

It looks like she is smiling in a really creepy way as well, but hard to be sure as it's out of focus.

 

[SKSpawn]

I don't know why they even bothered with Patrick. If you're not getting the creepy backstory, what's the point of his character being in the movie? He seems to exist purely as someone to be killed off.

This is why I don't really get when people say that this is the more faithful adaptation. There are numerous cases where something is referenced, but taken in a different (and less interesting) direction from the book.

Thinking about it on my second viewing, I kind of wish that they'd cut Patrick completely and used his encounter with the dead kids as Richie's encounter with It was Richie apparently the only one of the Losers not to be attacked by It when he's alone.

 

[samsnee]

It looks like she is smiling in a really creepy way as well, but hard to be sure as it's out of focus.

She is. The way she’s hunching and breathing is the perfect amount of creepy.

 

[Marvolo]

Thinking about it on my second viewing, I kind of wish that they'd cut Patrick completely and used his encounter with the dead kids as Richie's encounter with It was Richie apparently the only one of the Losers not to be attacked by It when he's alone.

Richie was attacked in the Neibolt house when he was locked in the room with the clown dolls and the doll that looked like him.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah, but he means he didn't have a solo encounter the way the others did.

 

[Sawyer]

Waiting on that Chastain confirmation/further casting announcements

 

[Dyson]

Pre-production has begun in Toronto under the name "Largo". Filming will start Tuesday, July 3rd and will wrap on Saturday, October 20th.

https://www.dgc.ca/assets/Uploads/Hotlist135.pdf

 

[Drizzle]

I thought filming was supposed to start a little earlier than that, but I guess we'll have casting news soon enough.