Stephen King's "IT" remake has found a writer - Part 2

[Roose Bolton]

I really hope they keep the brutality of Georgie's death. As creepy as Curry's Pennywise was, I never got the feral animalistic vibe from him that Pennywise exuded in the novels when he tore his victims apart.

 

[BH/HHH]

In the book, he sees dead kids rising out of the water in the Standpipe.

That sounds way better

 

[King23DC]

Teaser trailer and poster look awesome. Finally a big budget version of a childhood classic that haunted my nightmares.

 

[Tanin]

He did look terrifying when Georgie first saw him.

Ronald McDonald isn't all that terrifying imo.

 

[BH/HHH]

I actually see how both can be terrifying even if they don't scare me.

 

[redishere]

Loved how [BLACKOUT] Georgie's death [/BLACKOUT] plays out in the early leaked draft. Hope they kept it. Not sure about the whole [BLACKOUT] lady-feeding-her-cat-in-the-foreground [/BLACKOUT] part, thought it was abrupt and distracting, but I like the idea of [BLACKOUT] keeping Georgie's death in the background, suddenly racking focus to reveal his body being jolted back and forth and being pulled against the manhole. I think it would be a great way to show Gardener's character seeing Georgie moments before he's dead [/BLACKOUT].

 

[Guts]

Ronald McDonald isn't all that terrifying imo.

I was referring to the part where Georgie just saw a flash of yellow eyes. Later in the same part Pennywise's description said he had bright blue eyes and Georgie wondered how he saw yellow eyes. Implying that when Georgie first saw him he didn't have the clown disguise.

 

[redishere]

Now lets be clear, anyone who's seen paranormal activity, some instances from insidious, and most modern horror films, its when a scene gets incredibly quiet and focuses in on a particular image only to boast a loud sound effect with another popping image. There is nothing like that in this film. Most of the scares happen in continuation, something is unfolding on camera and it's terrifying, and there's very subtle things that happen on screen that are incredibly unsettling, the same way the novel has them.

Glad to hear it! I personally don't dislike jump-scares, 'cause — as many other pointed out — they're not always cheap. I do enjoy a good one, if it's clever. For me, the bad kind of jump-scare is not only the predictable one, but the one where there's a fake threat, and no actual build-up. The classic "loud noise/oh no what the heck is that/oh alright it's my friend tapping on my shoulder" kinda scare. Happy to know in this movie adaptation there's a scary and unsettling mood never letting the audience take a breath… that's what real horror is!

 

[Roose Bolton]

Ronald McDonald isn't all that terrifying imo.

Hey, clogged arteries and diabetes are the thing of nightmares

 

[Rowsdower!]

[YT]m1wkfJY3AZM[/YT]

Ronald can be terrifying.

 

[righthooksrus86]

Now lets be clear, anyone who's seen paranormal activity, some instances from insidious, and most modern horror films, its when a scene gets incredibly quiet and focuses in on a particular image only to boast a loud sound effect with another popping image. There is nothing like that in this film. Most of the scares happen in continuation, something is unfolding on camera and it's terrifying, and there's very subtle things that happen on screen that are incredibly unsettling, the same way the novel has them.

The trailer had plenty examples of that for sure...like the balloon floating across the room, and the projector screen slowly showing pennywise's face.

 

[Greens]

Ronald McDonald isn't all that terrifying imo.

 

[BH/HHH]

That's pretty ****ing scary looking lol

 

[Boom]

Spoiler

This might be my favorite photo of Pennywise thus far. I'm glad his red nose doesn't look so smudgy here. It's a much cleaner look.

 

[FunkMiller]

Spoiler

This might be my favorite photo of Pennywise thus far. I'm glad his red nose doesn't look so smudgy here. It's a much cleaner look.

Instantly more horrifying than Curry. Great stuff.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Would have to respectfully disagree - but it's all subjective - there's no right or wrong here.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Of either version, I think the image of Skarsgard in the water is the best I've ever seen the character, in terms of him matching that kind of visual I had in my head of what Pennywise would look like during his bouts of savagery.

Though I imagine the two versions of the character will be quite different from another. Curry's Pennywise played up more of the surrealism of his appearance, the performance had a kind of self-awareness that I don't think this film will be aiming for.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Yeah, I'd certainly go along with that.

 

[Frodo]

My only concern with the film at this point is the potential urge to cut corners and rush to the ending like so many blockbusters or tentpole films tend to do.

One of the advantages that mini-series used to have, was that you had time for tension to build and time to get to know the characters without feeling the need to wrap things up quickly.

IT is really a story which needs time to breathe, and you really have to identify and be fond of the kids , even in this first part.

I'm really rooting for it, and I hope they're able to pull it off successfully.

 

[Sawyer]

http://www.cbr.com/stephen-kings-it...al-Distribution&utm_campaign=CBR-TW&view=list

I'll have you know I've been a professional leatherface going on 12 years now and I've never complained ONCE about the content of those movies.

 

[redishere]

One of the advantages that mini-series used to have, was that you had time for tension to build and time to get to know the characters without feeling the need to wrap things up quickly.

IT is really a story which needs time to breathe, and you really have to identify and be fond of the kids , even in this first part.

I'm really rooting for it, and I hope they're able to pull it off successfully.

Well, the miniseries' runtime was roughly 190 minutes…*which means, about 95 minutes for each part. I seriously doubt this new movie adaptation for part 1 will be 1 hour and a half long — it will be at least 2 hours long And the miniseries' part one and two had the storylines interlaced with one another, while this part 1 they're making will only focus on the kids…*There will be plenty of time to identify with them, in my opinion!

 

[Crosswind Ghost]

IT is really a story which needs time to breathe, and you really have to identify and be fond of the kids , even in this first part.

This film does just that, and excels. Nothing at all was rushed. Running time felt perfect.

 

[righthooksrus86]

lol idk why but I found that article funny.

 

[Frodo]

This film does just that, and excels. Nothing at all was rushed. Running time felt perfect.

I should have made it clear that I was referring to the new film being part one, not to part one of the miniseries.

 

[Frodo]

Well, the miniseries' runtime was roughly 190 minutes…*which means, about 95 minutes for each part. I seriously doubt this new movie adaptation for part 1 will be 1 hour and a half long — it will be at least 2 hours long And the miniseries' part one and two had the storylines interlaced with one another, while this part 1 they're making will only focus on the kids…*There will be plenty of time to identify with them, in my opinion!

I should have made clear that ,I was talking about miniseries in a general as a genre decades ago, such as North and South, V, The Thornbirds, Roots etc, in which the storytelling was less truncated and didn't have the same time constraints and demands that feature films have. The storytelling was less truncated and didn't have the same time constraints and demands that feature films have.

But yes, you're right , the original part one certainly was able to accomplish all it needed to in 95 minutes though , I haven't read the book , so I don't know how the miniseries compares to to it.