Stephen King's "IT" remake has found a writer - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gustaf seems the craziest looking one. His godfather Peter Stormare is known for playing eccentric characters as well.
 
I don't know I feel like there was something very deliberate in casting Poulter. Going younger was different but it was interesting and inspired and something Cary could have really owned. Poulter has a unique face, but he doesn't look so weird like Skaarsgard. Maybe they liked the idea of going younger and continued that but I feel that Fukunaga's intent and understanding of why he chose to do so isn't there. It feels like they could be going for a really on the nose scary clown. The whole point to Pennywise is he's supposed to appear as a more warn clown. It's what he does and what really comes out of him is terrifying and the contrast of this seemingly friendly children's image gives it that extra level of disturbing. It's what made John Wayne Gacey so scary. I just don't have faith in this movie. I feel like all the subtlety of King and Fukanaga is gonna be stripped out in favor of a more generic horror film.
 
Yeah I'm still pretty deflated from Fukunaga and Poulter leaving.
 
Thia guy's face without makeup looks like he could visually be a very good Pennywise.

Something about his features is perfect for Pennywise but who knows how much comes through with makeup
 
In some angles, he looks a little bit like Curry around his eyes.
 
For us lazy folks. The losers club was rounded up.
13321670_1120497567970533_4764790686397453539_n.jpg
 
That actor looks just like Eddie from the TV movie!

300x300.jpg
 
Stephen Kings book is many things but subtle isn't a word I'd use for it
 
I feel like all the subtlety of King and Fukanaga is gonna be stripped out in favor of a more generic horror film.

Dude, King is far from subtle, and I'm a fan. From the way he writes black characters (Mr. Mercedes, The Stand) or gays (It), he is a sledgehammer. I love him though, but he's very on the nose with his characterizations.
 
Dude, King is far from subtle, and I'm a fan. From the way he writes black characters (Mr. Mercedes, The Stand) or gays (It), he is a sledgehammer. I love him though, but he's very on the nose with his characterizations.

Oh, I just meant in terms of the portrayal of scary elements and how here they're more likely to be more superficial. How Pennywise is more than just a scary clown. But my biggest concern is they just play up the fear of clowns things and just try to make him scary as hell.
 
I hope he has other forms besides the Clown. Like Rodan & Mummy etc.
 
Fukunaga did some pretty chilling s*** on True Detective, so yeah, I'm still disappointed he got knocked off this project.
 
Oh, I just meant in terms of the portrayal of scary elements and how here they're more likely to be more superficial. How Pennywise is more than just a scary clown. But my biggest concern is they just play up the fear of clowns things and just try to make him scary as hell.

What they'll probably do is make the same mistake as Anabelle in terms of design by making him obviously and obnoxiously evil looking from the start.
 
I dislike the two movie format showing the kids half first. The whole thing of the adult characters not what happened to them works because the audience sees the past story more or less at the same pace as the adults learn to remember er and the two stories mirror each other. Mike Flaanagan borrowed this structure to great effect in his film Occulus.

Occulus takes a lot of its story telling structure from Kings book It. It has duel stories of past and present but also one character who stayed behind and remembers everyrhing. His earlier film absentia also borrows a lot of ideas from It, especially a lot of the three Billy goats gruff themes and characters researching the recurring history of the monster. All of Flanagan's films have king novels and comics in the background. Basically the dudes been cinematically begging to make this movie and as a fab kf his work I wish he could have gotten the job.
 
Are they moving up the timeline? Today and the mummy make sense as pop culture touch stones for 11 year olds in the 1950s. For the 80s, a comparable figure might be... New Lines own Freddy Krueger.
 
What they'll probably do is make the same mistake as Anabelle in terms of design by making him obviously and obnoxiously evil looking from the start.

I haven't seen Mama so I don't know how this director approaches horror, but given how New Line dumped Fukunaga for a more straight forward horror approach, you kind of already get the sense of what they're going to go for. The fact that their reasoning for pulling the Fukunaga version was because Poltergeist that featured a clown flopped says a lot.
 
I haven't seen Mama so I don't know how this director approaches horror, but given how New Line dumped Fukunaga for a more straight forward horror approach, you kind of already get the sense of what they're going to go for. The fact that their reasoning for pulling the Fukunaga version was because Poltergeist that featured a clown flopped says a lot.

Not well.:o
 
What they'll probably do is make the same mistake as Anabelle in terms of design by making him obviously and obnoxiously evil looking from the start.
That's exactly my concern.

They did it with Annabelle, and they did it with the clown doll in the Poltergeist remake. Who in their right mind would buy dolls that looked like that, and for their children no less? But oh it's a scary movie so everything needs to look scary! Because **** horror through context! Let's achieve horror on the most superficial of levels!

God, I ****ing hate Hollywood horror films nowadays. No imagination or innovation whatsoever.
 
I want the Turtle and the Spider.

Dolls will never be scary. I wish they'd quit trying to force it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,431
Messages
22,103,955
Members
45,898
Latest member
NeonWaves64
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"