Stephen King's "IT" remake has found a writer - Part 4

[Brother Jack]

I think this movie works better as a scary, 80's style adventure flick. It just has that vibe with the Amblin/Spielberg esque music, and the kids feeling like they came straight out a Goonies movie. I honestly wouldn't call it horror film even though it does have it's moments. I liked the fact that scares here were more viscerally thrilling and fun than frightening. It also has a really creepy and dread filled atmosphere as well.

I'm not a big horror movie fan so that's probably why I liked this as much as I did. Most slasher/horror flicks don't bother making characters you actually care about. It's all about the grotesque spectacle of seeing them get killed. But here, the characters are the movie. Any fear I felt was due largely because I didn't want them to get hurt. That's why it stings that Mike (and Stan to a lesser degree) was shortchanged in the story. It's probably the biggest flaw of the movie, though I get that it's hard to balance having seven main characters.

 

[writer0327]

This anti-jump scare attitude is rather silly. They're a staple of horror movies.

Except when they are overused, or used in the place of real scares and tension. Jump-scares shouldn't be the only thing that's remotely scary in a horror film, but many times that's what we get, ala Paranormal Activity.

 

[JohnnyGobbs]

One opportunity I feel like they missed out on but could've added was basically having them go see 89 Batman at that theatre we constantly see, and gradually everytime Joker is onscreen he turns into Pennywise.

As a HUGE Batman 89 fan, I would have loved to have seen that (in fact one of the very few films that bugged me about this otherwise brilliant film is that we never see any of the kids getting excited about the whole Batmania phenomenon that was gripping the world that summer).

Seeing as Warner Bros produced both Batman (along with the other two films, Lethal Weapon 2 and Nightmare on Elm Street 5, that we see on the cinema marquee during the film), and It, I'm sure they could have found away to add that scene into the film.

 

[JohnnyGobbs]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the moment that really freaked me out. The part where the slides start playing by themselves, revealing Bill's mother to be Pennywise in disguise, the kids knock the slide player to the floor, it goes black for a moment, and then Pennywise emerges as a freakin' giant snarling head! That, along with the opening with poor Georgie, and just the plain creepiness of Pennywise doing his sideshow circus dance during the scene where he brings Bev to the centre of the sewer, were the moments that particularly worked for me, as far as the horror aspect went.

But the great thing about this movie is that it's more than just a simple horror. It's scary and funny, affecting, poignant and thrilling, and also a bit nostalgic for those of us who were around during the 1980s.

 

[danoyse]

Question for those who have seen the movie:

Spoiler

Bill tells Pennywise that he doesn´t fear him and that´s why Pennywise couldn´t kill Beverley if I´m not mistaken. But if that´s the case, how could Pennywise kill Georgie because Georgie wasn´t afraid of Pennywise at the moment of the kill.

Spoiler

Georgie was more of an unsuspecting victim. He was clearly a little uncertain of Pennywise, but he was young enough to be tricked and lured into putting his arm in the sewer. He had no idea what Pennywise was, and the clown used it to his advantage. It had power over what Georgie didn't know.

By the time it got to the Losers at the end, they knew damn well what Pennywise was (something Georgie didn't have), and Pennywise understood then that he'd lost his power over of them. They knew and they weren't scared anymore. He couldn't trick them like he did Georgie.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

https://***********/BORReport/status/907319758143422464

BoxOfficeReport.com
@BORReport

IT debuted with $66.3M internationally.

The OS actuals comes well above (7%) the early estimate (62 million).

 

[CaptainWagner]

Except when they are overused, or used in the place of real scares and tension. Jump-scares shouldn't be the only thing that's remotely scary in a horror film, but many times that's what we get, ala Paranormal Activity.

That's true. But just like with CGI, we now have people who complain every time they see a jump scare used.

 

[FunkMiller]

Nah.

Freddy was all about long torturous scenes - not just simple jump scares. While they are a staple of horror films, the most generic ones are overly reliant.

That's just not true in the slightest.

ANOES jump scares off the top of my head:

Freddy jumps up behind Tina. Freddy leaps out on Nancy. Rod jumps out on Glen. Nancy hits girl in the hall. Freddy comes through mirror. Freddy jumps out on Nancy from under the bed.

That's 6. If I watch the film I bet there are double that.

There are more in the first film, and far, far more as the movies go on. Freddy was never about long torturous sequences, you're thinking of Saw. The Nightmare movies feature body horror a lot, but that's not like the torture stuff of more modern horror.

If you think the Nightmare films don't lean on jump scares as much as IT does, you haven't watched them properly.

 

[Matt Mortem]

That's true. But just like with CGI, we now have people who complain every time they see a jump scare used.

I agree. And that's what I'm railing against.

It gets really, really old when any movie comes out you get hoards of people complaining about CG just to seem like they have a sophisticated P.O.V. on cinema. Same with horror movies and jump scares. If you can point out every jump scare in a film and lambaste them then you've made your mark as a film viewer of film viewers.

 

[Kane52630]

Double Toasted posted their spoiler talk for IT on youtube.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Double Toasted posted their spoiler talk for IT on youtube.

Yeah. Watching it now. Love those guys, even when I might disagree. They always have an interesting way of coming at stuff.

 

[Marvolo]

Mike will use mind altering drugs in the sequel:

The sequel will find the adult members of the Losers Club scattered as far away from Derry as they can get, all except one - Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).

Mike volunteers to stay behind in order to serve as a type of watchman, continuously keeping an eye out for It, as well as learning all he can about how to defeat him. Unfortunately, Andy Muschietti says that Mike will pay a high price for his devotion to the cause, saying that his idea for the character is quite a bit darker than it is in Stephen King's novel. "I want to make his character the one pivotal character who brings them all together, but staying in Derry took a toll with him. I want him to be a junkie actually," Muschietti said. "A librarian junkie. When the second movie starts, he’s a wreck. He’s not just the collector of knowledge of what Pennywise has been doing in Derry. He will bear the role of trying to figure out how to defeat him. The only way he can do that is to take drugs and alter his mind."

Mike Hanlon's drug-induced exploration echos a part of Stephen King's novel that wound up being cut from the first movie, where the Losers Club go through a Native American ritual which helps bring them into contact with entities who can help them stop It.

It resonates with what the kids do when they go to the smokehouse in the Barrens. By inhaling these fumes from the fire they have visions of It, and the origin of It, and the falling fire in the sky that crashed into Derry millions of years ago. We’ve brought that to Mike, by the end of those 30 years Mike has figured out the Ritual of Chüd.[/i ]

Andy would like for Jessica Chastain to play Bev in sequel.

Just who will be playing the adult versions of the Losers Club hasn't yet been decided, but Jessica Chastain's name has been floating around in regards to the grown-up version of Beverly (Sophia Lillis). Chastain did star in Andy Muschietti's MAMA, and in an interview with Variety, Muschietti said that "Jessi is an amazing actress and very good friend and I would love her to play Beverly." After Barbara chimed in to say that Jessica "loves" the movie, Andy added that "Yeah, she loves the movie and it feels like the planets are aligned in that sense, but we still have to make that happen. There are a lot of ideas for the rest of the cast that I’m playing with, but it’s a bit too premature to say those names right now."

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/andy-muschietti-spills-details-on-darker-second-chapter-of-it-181

 

[Brother Jack]

Mike will use mind altering drugs in the sequel:

That's, uh, weird.

Glad they're keeping Mike's pivotal role in Derry, though. It will hopefully make up for how little he was used in part one.

 

[Marvolo]

I guess if you want to study an indermesional alien monster you gotta take some shrooms and trip balls.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

How do you not cast Amy Adams as adult Bev? She looks and sounds so much like her.

 

[Marvolo]

Id be fine with either one, but since Jessica has a working relationship and friendship with Andy Id rather she get the role.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Except when they are overused, or used in the place of real scares and tension. Jump-scares shouldn't be the only thing that's remotely scary in a horror film, but many times that's what we get, ala Paranormal Activity.

Not to mention Pennywise isn't some run of the mill cardboard cutout killer. He's supposed to get inside of the kids' heads. This movie plays it too vanilla in that regard and doesn't do that part of the character justice.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Id be fine with either one, but since Jessica has a working relationship and friendship with Andy Id rather she get the role.

That makes her more fitting for the role?

I just looked it up, the actress is playing a young Amy Adams in Sharp Objects.

 

[Matt Mortem]

That makes her more fitting for the role?

I just looked it up, the actress is playing a young Amy Adams in Sharp Objects.

I think that right there guarantees Amy Adams isn't gonna be cast in Chapter 2.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And that would be stupid imo.

By the way, really liked the movie. It has some issues, but overall I thought it was great.

 

[FunkMiller]

Except when they are overused, or used in the place of real scares and tension. Jump-scares shouldn't be the only thing that's remotely scary in a horror film, but many times that's what we get, ala Paranormal Activity.

Well yeah, but IT doesn't have any more jump scares than many classic highly regarded horror movies, so the argument doesn't hold water.

I have issues with the film (mainly the complete omission of anything about ITs nature beyond being Pennywise, and the rather cop out ending) but there's no problem with the amount of jump scares, or how effective they are.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This isn't a horror movie. As that, I think it kind of fails. But as a ET/Goonies/Stranger Things coming of age flick, it really succeeds imo. It is a lot more funny then it is ever scary.

 

[Kane52630]

It's a horror movie if you're a kid... we forget all the horror movies and shows we thought were scary as a kid, but turns out to be silly or not scary at all.

 

[samsnee]

Does the book clear up how the whole fear thing works? Like Pennywise can't actually kill you unless you're terrified to a certain degree? Because all the Losers were afraid in their first encounters.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's a horror movie if you're a kid... we forget all the horror movies and shows we thought were scary as a kid, but turn out to be silly or not scary at all.

Yeah... this is rated R and not intended for kids. Also the movie definitely thinks its scary. Any time Pennywise shows up though, it is more "awesome" then scary.