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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll never understand why some people wanted Freddy or Jason in this movie, it's such a dumb idea. The whole thing with Pennywise is that he's scary because he's a real life monster. It works in the book because the kids are comparing their encounters with It to the old movie monsters, where you could tell it looked fake. This doesn't work with Freddy because you can't really make him look scarier. Plus, it would completely take me out of the movie if he or any other 80's movie monster were to make an appearance. This is Pennywise's movie, he doesn't need help from other, more well known, movie monsters.

Yeah, I kinda agree. As good as IT appearing as Freddy Krueger sounds on paper, I can't really see it working in the actual film. Without the greater context that the book has the benefit of, I think it would have come off more as a hokey shoutout and, like you say, would have achieved nothing more than taking the viewer out of the film.

I love NOES, but I'm personally glad they didn't go forward with that idea.

Yes, it worked well on paper in the It novel, but that book is also 1100 pages. You spend months with these kids and their day-to-day lives that even when yo cut the book into two movies, you don't have time to explore. You don't see them going to see I Was a Teenage Werewolf (or NOES5 in the movie's case) or experiencing the threat of "the clown" at different points and seasons, based on what movies they've just watched.

For af film, you have to streamline to two hours and need to make who Pennywise is clear and immediate. They succeeded at doing just that.

Agreed. And I say this as a child of the 80s who was fled to the movie theater arcade to play video games for at least 20 minutes during NOES3.

First of all, I think it would have taken everyone out of the movie. It wouldn't be about Pennywise, but the Freddy cameo.

I think Pennywise's forms needed to be something that will psychologically frighten the kids. It had to exploit a fear that was already there, and the fear it exploited had to be bigger than a movie monster that kids grow out of being scared of.
 
No sure if this has been posted yet but here are the plans for the sequel http://ew.com/movies/2017/09/11/stephen-king-it-sequel-details/?utm_campaign=entertainmentweekly&utm_source=***********&utm_medium=social&xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter
 
Well, Freddy Kruger appears to feature in Spielberg's upcoming family film 'Ready Player One', and I don't see anyone complaining that it will take audiences out of the movie.

I just thought the addition of Kruger would have been a nice nod to the type of stuff that used to scare kids during that era (in the same way the Universal Monsters scared kids during Steven King's formative years). I wouldn't have wanted it to come across as a cheesy self-referential gag, but as something that would have authentically represent the types of pop culture monsters that were scaring 80s/90s kids.
 
It's amazing to see the old footage of the lines and the crowd reactions to The Exorcist back then too.

[YT]AkIqFK3KoZ4[/YT]

It made that money back when theaters only had 1 or 2 screens, and maybe 5-6 showings a day. And people were willing to wait on line all day to get in, despite stories of people fainting and puking in the aisles.

When I saw IT last weekend, we had reserved seats and got there 20 minutes before the movie started. My theater is showing it 21 times tomorrow.

And still, I don't think there will be anything quite like The Exorcist, and the impact it had at the time.

Also, I think The Exorcist is still pretty scary if you were raised with even an inkling of religious background. At the time, nothing like it had ever been released, and it was presented with high artistic ambition by Friedkin (hence the Oscar nomination for Best Picture). Nowadays, no major wide release treats horror as prestigious artistic endeavor, and if they do it is too "niche" for general audiences (best example being a personal favorite of mine, The Witch). And it is hard to see a horror movie that just hits most Americans in a primal, childhood place that's been untapped, like The Exorcist did with anyone who even if they're now atheist, at least once winced at hearing about the Devil.

It also is tapping into childhood fears of clowns which are kind of universal, so it has a similar appeal. But yeah, it obviously isn't breaking new ground there, and I would argue doesn't aim to horrify audiences as mercilessly as Friedkin did, when he treated it as a drama with gross out horror, as opposed to a gross out horror movie that is focused on the scares.

Yeah, that is another one that is hard to imagine duplicating culturally.
 
Well, Freddy Kruger appears to feature in Spielberg's upcoming family film 'Ready Player One', and I don't see anyone complaining that it will take audiences out of the movie.

I just thought the addition of Kruger would have been a nice nod to the type of stuff that used to scare kids during that era (in the same way the Universal Monsters scared kids during Steven King's formative years). I wouldn't have wanted it to come across as a cheesy self-referential gag, but as something that would have authentically represent the types of pop culture monsters that were scaring 80s/90s kids.

Because with "Ready Player One", that's the whole hook of the movie. It's not at all comparable.

Freddy being in It wouldn't have been a nod, it would have dominated the movie entirely. He's too big a movie monster.

The classic movie monsters work because their designs are just generic enough that you can play around and make them look scarier, and more realistic. When they go see "I Was A Teenage Werewolf", they see this

teenage_werewolf.jpg


but when they see It as the werewolf, they see something like this

143901d12c61b61fda96b99deea913de--werewolf-horror.jpg


So you get the contrast between what looks fake, and what looks real. You can't really do that with any of the 80's movie monsters because the makeup looked pretty good, and still mostly holds up. You can cast anyone as the werewolf, or mummy, or Dracula, but you can't do that with Freddy, or Jason, or Chuckie.
 
Ha, good one. I noticed a lot of places where they sell balloons and party stuff have like no solid red balloons in stock.
 
Agreed. And I say this as a child of the 80s who was fled to the movie theater arcade to play video games for at least 20 minutes during NOES3.

First of all, I think it would have taken everyone out of the movie. It wouldn't be about Pennywise, but the Freddy cameo.

I think Pennywise's forms needed to be something that will psychologically frighten the kids. It had to exploit a fear that was already there, and the fear it exploited had to be bigger than a movie monster that kids grow out of being scared of.

I can see both arguments. The cameo would have made perfect sense as a replacement for the Universal monsters from the book, but maybe y'all are right. Maybe Freddy is just TOO iconic, and it would have taken away from how frightening Pennywise is.
 
Ha, good one. I noticed a lot of places where they sell balloons and party stuff have like no solid red balloons in stock.

There was a car in the parking lot of the theater I saw it in with a red balloon sticking out the window. They're gonna be everywhere this Halloween.
 
I saw the police were requesting whoever was leaving the balloons attached to sewer grates to please stop because it was scaring the **** out of them. :D There was also a prank they were playing on people where a kid dressed in a yellow slicker was asking random adults if they'd grab his paper boat from the sewer, and of course someone dressed as Pennywise jumped out and chased them. I tell you, that's a good way to get your ass kicked.
 
I watched my nephews last weekend so that my sister and brother-in-law could see the movie, and we left red balloons outside my apartment door for when they came back to pick them up. :oldrazz:
 
My brother is visiting me today, and we are going to watch it tonight. My second viewing, his first.

Can't wait!
 
Well, Freddy Kruger appears to feature in Spielberg's upcoming family film 'Ready Player One', and I don't see anyone complaining that it will take audiences out of the movie.
.

Well, Ready Player One's entire thing is getting 80's pop culture explained to the point where it's patronizing so it'll work there.

I'm glad they didn't do that here, I already didn't like the change to the 80's timeline and that would've felt very insincere.
 
I can see both arguments. The cameo would have made perfect sense as a replacement for the Universal monsters from the book, but maybe y'all are right. Maybe Freddy is just TOO iconic, and it would have taken away from how frightening Pennywise is.

I think the biggest thing, like others have said, is it would be hard to make Freddy look more "real" since the original makeup is pretty lifelike. Whereas it was a point in the book to emphasize how IT took on the form of Universal Monsters, but made them more terrifying because they looked real.
 
It was in the shooting script. Here it is, copy and pasted from another forum
INT. DERRY PUBLIC LIBRARY - READING ROOM - DAY

Ben looks up at a PAINTING of the First Derry Settlement. At first it appears like the Fur Trappers are on the hunt, lying in the prone position. But closer inspection reveals —

They’re dead. Because Whatever they were hunting found them instead. And as we PUSH IN on that WELLHOUSE we CUT TO:

TITLE CARD over the PENOBSCOT RIVER:

AUGUST

Tilt down to the OVERHEAD shot of what we expect to be “Derry 1989”, but instead we see NOTHING, just the intersection of a stream and river and the surrounding wilderness, towering black pines as far as the eye can see.

This is Derry in —

1637

INT. WELLHOUSE - NIGHT

ABIGAIL, 19. Rushes in and SLAMS the door. As if trying to keep Satan himself out. She clutches her BABY to her breast.

Kneels by DYING EMBERS in the hearth. She blows on ‘em but a flame never catches. Her Baby starts to fuss…

ABIGAIL
Hush now, shhhh… it’ll be —

She stops.

Realizes that the SMALL CANDLE CHANDELIER slowly spins above her. As if some unnatural force has caused its light to rotate around the room, like tiny primitive searchlights.

She hears something slithering in the gray shadows by the Well. Occasionally we catch glimpses of a BLACK SILHOUETTE.

Shifting its shape. As if trying to decide on a form.

ABIGAIL
Please, Devil… leave us be…

Shape shifts again.

A beam of light passes, revealing PENNYWISE, naked, lithe, flesh pale and translucent, a half-formed imitation of a human, opens his maw full of large razor sharp teeth, dripping saliva.

As the Tin Can spins clockwise, Pennywise moves counter around the room. Each time the light hits his face —

It’s different.

A Man. A Woman. A Beast. A Monster. Tim Curry.

PENNYWISE
You mistake me woman. No mere
devil, I am the Easter of Worlds.

His voice is guttural, unnatural.

ABIGAIL
But my child, not my chid… He is
innocent.

PENNYWISE
So you say.

The Baby SCREAMS. Pennywise smiles.

ABIGAIL
I pray Thee, take me.

Abigail shuffles back.

PENNYWISE
I will. And then, him. And thy
husband and the rest of thy
children, and all the savages who
brought you here. And when you all
rot in the earth, I will pick thy
bones dry until no meat is left to
pick. And then I will seek out thy
bones and consume thy souls until
nothing is left but the weeds!
(beat)
Or you will occupy yourself
otherwise and not interfere. I will
take her and you will live, and
those of thy other children — in
whom I take no interest. And you
will thank ME fever and frost did
not damn you to the soil.

Abigail looks down at her baby again. She’s shaking, doesn’t want to let go. Behind her, the door OPENS.

A Little Boy, 6, asks —

BOY
Mama?

ABIGAIL
NO! OUT! NOW!

Frightened by his mother, the Boy runs.

Abigail turns back to Pennywise. Wherever he may be now in the room. The light somehow seems to spin faster now.

She kisses her baby and sets it down. It BAWLS.

ABIGAIL
I’m sorry, I’m so sorry…

She turns away from the baby. Faces those dying embers. We keep on her face as they seem to begin GLOWING BRIGHTER AS —

OVER HER SHOULDER — OUT OF FOCUS —

Pennywise crawls over to the Baby and starts to feast. SHARP CRY FROM THE BABY CUT OFF as we hear a CRUNCH.

Abigail continuing to look into the BRIGHT ORANGE GLOW of not the flickering fire…

…but the DEADLIGHTS.

Her expression changes. Fear. Denial. Grief. Acceptance. And then nothing. Just a glazed look.

AS IF NOTHING HORRIFIC IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING BEHIND HER.

Jeezus that's horrifying. Would have liked to have seen it included though.
 
I'm re-reading the book, and I had forgotten that during Pennywise's current-day killing spree, he appeared in the Canal as Jaws and came after a kid. We don't actually see it happen, but adult Bill hears it from a kid he meets when he returns to Derry. It had happened to a classmate, and no one believed him (although the boy admits to Bill he had heard voices in the sewers as well).
 
Now I'm wondering what he'll do to scare kids in 2016. They don't scare that easily but they do have fears.
 
I mean, we already have AN ORANGE HAIRED PSYCHOTIC CLOWN in the White House!
 
What the hell are kids scared of these days? Slenderman?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,391
Messages
22,096,486
Members
45,893
Latest member
KCA Masterpiece
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"