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

[The Joker]

Doesn't surprise me....

By the way, how was the big destruction of Derry you were guaranteeing we would see a few months back?

You're confusing me with someone else. Where did I guarantee that a few months back? Show me the post.

I love the book. Part 1 is in my top ten movies, and I liked Part 2. Granted, I don't consider how much movies live up to source material when grading them, but even if I did that would still be true. They're not like The Shining where the spirit of the novel was gutted. They just take some liberties, and in the first one at least I felt the changes were mostly about playing to the strengths of film as a medium, rather than copying the book beat for beat and ending up inferior due to the appeal being lost in translation. Also, I didn't think the book was perfect to begin with. It's not like I was bothered by losing the creepy orgy, for example.

Hear hear.

 

[DarkKnight88]

The book isn't perfect, no. But these movies are "It" in name only.

You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, but as a big fan of the book, I completely disagree with you. In particular with the first film which I think is one of the BEST adaptations of a Stephen King book.

Like Lord of the Rings, it’s not about how many things they take exactly from the book, but capturing the SPIRIT of the book, which the first film has in spades. It just oozes with atmosphere and character and certainly captured the feel of the book to me. I would tend to agree with you that the second loses that a bit, though I still like it.

And for the record, I hate the miniseries - other than Tim Curry. That was something that completely missed the tone of the book IMO.

 

[Art Vandelay]

You're confusing me with someone else. Where did I guarantee that a few months back? Show me the post..

I'm sorry, I was wrong. I tried to go back and check, and it was another poster. I probably assumed it was you because you're always defending the movie.

 

[Art Vandelay]

You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, but as a big fan of the book, I completely disagree with you. In particular with the first film which I think is one of the BEST adaptations of a Stephen King book.

Like Lord of the Rings, it’s not about how many things they take exactly from the book, but capturing the SPIRIT of the book, which the first film has in spades. It just oozes with atmosphere and character and certainly captured the feel of the book to me. I would tend to agree with you that the second loses that a bit, though I still like it.

And for the record, I hate the miniseries - other than Tim Curry. That was something that completely missed the tone of the book IMO.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I think what hurts the movie is how rushed it feels. The dinner scene, for example, is a huge scene in the book, but it takes all of five minutes in the movie. I get that this is a movie, and we can't spend as much time in any one place as you might like, but there didn't seem to be any real set up. And the movie bizarrely has the characters forget everything, meaning Mike has to then catch them up, but it's all done so poorly.

The tone of the scene is all over the place, and I think it's biggest problem might be that it's constantly trying to interject humor. Making Richie try to crack up the characters in understandable. Making Richie try to crack up the audience, however, just undercuts the tension of the scene. But the movie always ends up doing this.

While the mini series certainly isn't great, I actually felt it was much more in keeping with the tone of the book, and the spirit of the characters. Partly because it was able to introduce the adults early on, giving them enough time to come to grips with the news It has returned. Which plays a big part of the real horror of the story. The characters know how bad things are going to be, but return anyway. With the movie, they don't remember anything, so there really isn't the same amount of dread.

And just compare these two scenes of the Losers finding out about Stan's death





In the movie, the characters are more concerned about their own safety, than the news their childhood friend just commited suicide. They then berate Mike for not telling them the truth, and decide to leave town.

In the mini series clip, we see characters actually enjoying their time together, and being suitably devastated by the news. We see Ben go to confort Mike, and Richie toss the phone in anger. The scene works because it actually makes sense, and characters behave like how people would behave in real life.

 

[MarvelFan]

I just watch the movie a few days ago on Bluray

I never read the book nor familiar with the characters. That being said, I really love the first movie, so I really excited watching the second one.

I have to say, Chapter 2 is a little bit too long...170 minutes for a horror. I think the first movie has the proper good minutes for this kind of movie.
What makes it long is the middle story where all characters finding their belongings/tokens...
honestly, I am a little bit bored at that and just waiting for the final confrontation. And the final battle with It was a little bit too long, too.

The cast are all solid, though..and surprised how they are really looks like their child actors. Though I have to say, the adult Mike is the most awkward of all, like he is not naturally blend in like the others.

Chapter 2 is a turn down from Chapter 1 but despite it is too long or dragged a little bit in the middle, it still solid and entertained me enough. (Just because of the cast, not the story)

3 stars of 5

 

[Fincher]

I don't see how you can love the book, and not be annoyed at how they ruined Mike, for example. Of all of the adult versions of these characters, he was my favorite. He's calm, rational, and well spoken. In the movie, he's a stamering mess who is constantly being second guessed by the other Losers.

I feel like you answered your question here. Adult Mike was your favorite, so he meant more to you. I cared most about adult Ben and Beverly. Books can mean different things to different people. A lot of my appreciation of the book was in just how much I loved the premise, and as far as the execution goes I enjoyed the kid portion more than the adult portion.

What I expect in adaptations can be broken down into two parts. There's the things I would care about in each and every adaptation of a given work, the things that always bother me and detract from my enjoyment. Not everything I like is going to have these, and when they do it's more often than not pretty limited, core elements or things I specifically attached to. It is a being that takes the form of whatever frightens people, including Pennywise the Clown, etc.. Even then, I don't rank or rate movies based on this. I judge them on their own merits. So in theory there could be a movie I "like" that I don't enjoy watching because of how it messes with the source material, although it's never gone that far.

Then there are things that I want to see adapted at least once, but I can look past them and enjoy an adaptation for what it is, if it's good. This is everything in The Shining for me. It bothered me what the movie did because no other proper adaptation existed, and even when the miniseries came it wasn't good. I mean, I can live without seeing The Shining adapted right, but it's a missed opportunity.

Between the It films and miniseries (both of which I enjoyed), I feel like I got most of what I really wanted in terms of adaptations. The only thing I really consider missing is a good adaptation of the spider. The miniseries didn't do it well, and the second movie only did it partially, where it was half clown (although that was cool itself) and just another form It took instead of its "true form". But at this point I'm not worried about getting another adaptation to fill in the blanks, and if another adaptation does come I'd be more easygoing about changes because I got what I wanted. Because of how much I love the premise, It is something where I'd be interested in continued adaptations and seeing what forms It might take.

I wouldn't say either of the adaptations are In Name Only. I wouldn't even say that about The Shining, which was clearly an adaptation of the novel. Now The Lawnmower Man, that was truly In Name Only.

 

[:eek:]

Cary Fukunaga Wanted His Version Of It To Be Like The Shining (slashfilm.com)

 

[Pennywise]

 

[Closerframe]

Gives me hope that Bill will indeed return as Pennywise.

 

[Pennywise]

Welcome To Derry: Exclusive Look At Casting & Shooting Of Pennywise Prequel - The Illuminerdi

The production is searching for a Black, Male lead in their 30’s to play a patriotic Army man. He lives in Derry in the 1960’s, which is a hard life even before the nightmare of Pennywise. He is in the middle of the community, trying to bring people together in an unlikely time. He is a pilot, and plays a major role in Welcome To Derry.

Additionally, HBO Max is looking to cast a group of young kids in a leading role. Very little was revealed about this group of youths. Our sources revealed that this group may resemble the Losers Club in It.

Welcome To Derry is currently scheduled to shoot in April of 2023. The shoot will take place in Toronto, Canada. No talent is currently attached to the project. Many expect Bill Skarsgard to return as Pennywise, reprising his role from the films, but no official announcement has been made yet. The prequel horror TV show is planned as an ongoing series.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Pennywise at the end of season 1.

Spoiler

 

[Pennywise]