Stephen King's "IT" remake has found a writer

[childeroland]

Yeah, Gary Oldman crossed my mind as well. I do wonder if they'll be more faithful to the book than the mini-series was. For example, will they keep the:

Spoiler

teenage ********

scene from the book. If they do a faithful adaptation, then this is going to be a very rated-R movie.

I really doubt it, especially since they are (I think) preteens at the time.

 

[Loki882]

I really doubt it, especially since they are (I think) preteens at the time.

Well, they could always do what they did in the Ender's Game movie, or in Game of Thrones and age the characters up somewhat. Point is, I do hope that they're at least somewhat closer to the book this time around.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

I really doubt it, especially since they are (I think) preteens at the time.

Yeah, I hope not. That was just...

 

[childeroland]

I don't think it matters if they age up the characters. Having that happen with the lead female character -- I don't see how they expect to sell that in a mainstream studio film, in a genre whose audience is, if not predominantly young women, then pretty close to it. But yeah, I do hope they generally stay close to the source material.

 

[Balthus Dire]

I'd be fine if they just pretended that scene never happened while staying close to the book otherwise. I remember when I read the book and that scene came up I was like, "Uhhhh....what the..."

 

[Thundarr]

I really doubt it, especially since they are (I think) preteens at the time.

Nowadays I think we would call them "tweens". I could certainly live without them including it, but there are ways to do so without showing anything. For instance, the kids can begin getting undressed, then it fades to black. The next thing we know the kids are in their underwear and getting dressed.

Or they could split the diff. Change the group sex scene into a group make out scene. Beverly French kisses each boy one after the other, which "seals their bond with each other" (or whatever the purpose of the group sex scene was suppose to accomplish).

 

[redhawk23]

I don't think it matters if they age up the characters. Having that happen with the lead female character -- I don't see how they expect to sell that in a mainstream studio film, in a genre whose audience is, if not predominantly young women, then pretty close to it. But yeah, I do hope they generally stay close to the source material.

The young age of the characters is a pretty important aspect of the book and a lot of themes, not to mention the point of the weird ******** to begin with. Best just excise the child sex scene.

 

[jonathancrane]

The young age of the characters is a pretty important aspect of the book and a lot of themes, not to mention the point of the weird ******** to begin with. Best just excise the child sex scene.

Yeah. I am a huge fan of King's work and have based my academic writings around his work (I have three completed chapters for a book, and am working on an annotated volume of one his later texts,) but, seriously, I skip that scene whenever I arrive at it in the book. It does not contribute anything to the plot and it's messed up as ****.

*shudders*

I am surprised the editor of the IT did not raise an eyebrow when he encountered the scene. I'd give my first paycheck to read the memos surrounding it.

 

[redhawk23]

I think this essay from Britt Hayes over at badass digest has a very astute critique and analysis of the effects of the sex scene in the book.

http://badassdigest.com/2013/11/11/stephen-kings-it-explores-trauma-in-terrifying-ways/

 

[Thundarr]

I just started reading the novel. Only at page 140 right now (it's over 500 pages long). I'm really enjoying it so far, both in comparing it to the movie and as a story on its own.

I can kinda see why the movie version changed some stuff. For one thing, it was a made for TV movie and they couldn't get away with all those F bombs back then. Also, Mike calling Stan last rather than first makes for a far more dramatic ending to Part 1. Not to mention you have a lot less time to squeeze 500+ pages of info into, unlike cinematic movies which could go for 2.5 or even 3 hours (Star Wars, LOTR, etc).

Still looking forward to this new movie version, if it ever gets out of Development Hell.

 

[redhawk23]

I just started reading the novel. Only at page 140 right now (it's over 500 pages long). I'm really enjoying it so far, both in comparing it to the movie and as a story on its own.

I can kinda see why the movie version changed some stuff. For one thing, it was a made for TV movie and they couldn't get away with all those F bombs back then. Also, Mike calling Stan last rather than first makes for a far more dramatic ending to Part 1. Not to mention you have a lot less time to squeeze 500+ pages of info into, unlike cinematic movies which could go for 2.5 or even 3 hours (Star Wars, LOTR, etc).

Still looking forward to this new movie version, if it ever gets out of Development Hell.

I wonder what your copy looks like and how it is formatted because I've never seen a copy of this book printed in anything less than 900 pages. My hard cover was 1138. (This is always stood out due to the whole Lucasfilm/THX thing)

 

[Thundarr]

I wonder what your copy looks like and how it is formatted because I've never seen a copy of this book printed in anything less than 900 pages. My hard cover was 1138. (This is always stood out due to the whole Lucasfilm/THX thing)

It's a PDF I downloaded off the net. I downloaded it for free, so it's possible that it's incomplete. I'm only up to about page 173 or so now.

I'm wondering about the time period of this new film. Assuming that it gets out of Development Hell before the end of the year, early enough to get a 2015 release date without it seeming rushed, do you guys think that it should be set in the present? Or should it be set in the mid 1980's like the book? Or even the early 1990's like the made for TV movie?

Also, how close to the book should it be? How many liberties should they take with the story? I know some "Stephen King Purists" will want it to be as close to the original story as possible. But there are some things that are in the book (from what I've read so far) that likely wouldn't really fit well in a cinematic version. Like the part about the gay bashing. Or the stepfather accused of killing his two stepsons (one he killed, the other was killed by IT). Things like that.

And if Mike had been waiting all those years to see if IT would rise again, wouldn't he have been more prepared before calling the gang back? Like maybe buying a revolver and then spending years molding and loading his own silver bullets?

I don't know. Just some stuff I've been thinking about since I'd started reading the book/PDF.

 

[Octoberist]

It is a great book but I had to get used to King's writing style. He tends to be a stream of consciousness, often being overly descriptive. Great at world building but it takes pages before the story goes forward after describing a character's indecisiveness for like 10 pages.

That and most of his side characters (and I can forgive him for it) can be..a little theatrical, sometimes stereotypical.

 

[danoyse]

Nowadays I think we would call them "tweens". I could certainly live without them including it, but there are ways to do so without showing anything. For instance, the kids can begin getting undressed, then it fades to black. The next thing we know the kids are in their underwear and getting dressed.

No. They can't do that.

 

[danoyse]

The young age of the characters is a pretty important aspect of the book and a lot of themes, not to mention the point of the weird ******** to begin with. Best just excise the child sex scene.

Agreed. Whatever point he was trying to make with it...and more than 25 years after reading it, I'm still perplexed why he included at all...it's going to be lost with just the idea of including a scene were an 11-year-old girl stripping naked and letting six 11-year-old boys having sex with her in a sewer.

It never should have been there in the first place.

 

[SpideyFan866]

Maybe they could have that scene take place when they're adults?

 

[Octoberist]

It's just in...bad taste.

 

[danoyse]

It's just in...bad taste.

It really was. It happened out of nowhere, and I even just thought it was a terrible way to treat the one girl in the group. Even if they'd been adults, I wouldn't have liked that scene.

 

[The Guard]

It's not in bad taste, and it doesn't happen out of nowhere either.

The book builds the various feelings the boys have for her, and by the time it happens, they all pretty much think they're going to die going after It, and they don't want to die without "expressing" said feelings.

It's meant to be a powerful, vulnerable moment for all of them, a metaphorical "rite" of adulthood even though they think they may never make it there (which is then later tied to the concept of the ritual of Chud later on), and representative of their special connection as a group.

Is it necessary? Probably not, but neither is it just in bad taste. There's absolutely a point to it in several respects.

 

[Teelie]

I have yet to read the book but plan to. I think the very creepy sex can be replaced with a more reasonable "bonding" or whatever you want to call it, alternative. Some kind of oath with an equally deep and trusting meaning without resorting to child sex.

 

[danoyse]

It's not in bad taste, and it doesn't happen out of nowhere either.

The book builds the various feelings the boys have for her, and by the time it happens, they all pretty much think they're going to die going after It, and they don't want to die without "expressing" said feelings.

It's meant to be a powerful, vulnerable moment for all of them, a metaphorical "rite" of adulthood even though they think they may never make it there (which is then later tied to the concept of the ritual of Chud later on), and representative of their special connection as a group.

Is it necessary? Probably not, but neither is it just in bad taste. There's absolutely a point to it in several respects.

No. To all of this. Just stop.

 

[Octoberist]

No offense, Guard, what you just wrote made me feel really uncomfortable and creeped out.

 

[Sawyer]

Whatever your feelings on that moment in the story are, I think we can all agree that cutting the moment wouldn't exactly make an adaptation fall apart.

 

[Thundarr]

Whatever your feelings on that moment in the story are, I think we can all agree that cutting the moment wouldn't exactly make an adaptation fall apart.

True. I didn't even know about the scene until I read about it on this thread (like I said, I just started reading the PDF of the book earlier this week). I certainly wouldn't miss it if it were not in the film, or replaced with some other "bonding ritual". But it could be included through suggestion and innuendo, rather than explicitly showing it. There have been plenty of movies that have done similar things (A Time To Kill, Hound Dog, Fallen Angel, to name a few). Whether you like the scene or not, agree with Stephen King for writing it or not, or whatever, it won't make or break the movie if included or not.

 

[danoyse]

True. I didn't even know about the scene until I read about it on this thread (like I said, I just started reading the PDF of the book earlier this week). I certainly wouldn't miss it if it were not in the film, or replaced with some other "bonding ritual". But it could be included through suggestion and innuendo, rather than explicitly showing it. There have been plenty of movies that have done similar things (A Time To Kill, Hound Dog, Fallen Angel, to name a few). Whether you like the scene or not, agree with Stephen King for writing it or not, or whatever, it won't make or break the movie if included or not.

No one's saying it can't be done. What we're talking about is whether or not it should. That scene's been debated for decades, and most believe it shouldn't have been there at all.