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

[Teelie]

I think something as simple (though still somewhat dangerous) as a blood pact would have done if an exchange of fluids was in some way necessary. And less controversial.

 

[redhawk23]

I think something as simple (though still somewhat dangerous) as a blood pact would have done if an exchange of fluids was in some way necessary. And less controversial.

Well that's what's kind of even more ridiculous about the whole sex scene thing: They DID have a blood pact! They cut their hands with a coke bottle and stand in a circle and promise they'll come back to Derry if It ever returns.

 

[redhawk23]

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.

The sex scene very much is a bridge to adulthood, mirroring the various bridge themes throughout the book (the glass hallway connecting the children's and adult libraries, the multiple references to the 3 billy goats story etc.)

While it is in support of many of the themes of the book, The Manic Pixie Dream Vagina isn't necessarily the best trope to invoke.

 

[The Guard]

Yup. King himself has gone on record about this. I don't know...I always thought the reason for the scene's inclusion was kind of obvious. King even refers to the mystery act of sex as "It" in the book at one point.

That said, there are plenty of things in IT that probably can't be done adequately on film, and only really work well because of the way they are conveyed in the novel through prose. The sex/bonding/ritual scene is one of them.

The stuff about The Turtle, Bill's trip through the macroverse and Its true nature...that might be something else that is difficult to convey, though I hope they try.

 

[Ant-manic]

Yup. King himself has gone on record about this. I don't know...I always thought the reason for the scene's inclusion was kind of obvious. King even refers to the mystery act of sex as "It" in the book at one point.

That said, there are plenty of things in IT that probably can't be done adequately on film, and only really work well because of the way they are conveyed in the novel through prose. The sex/bonding/ritual scene is one of them.

The stuff about The Turtle, Bill's trip through the macroverse and Its true nature...that might be something else that is difficult to convey, though I hope they try.

i hope they don't. am i the only one unfortunate enough to have seen Dreamcatcher in the theater? simpler is better.

 

[redhawk23]

I don't think they should delve too much into the turtle cosmology but rather hint at it in various ways, much as King does earlier in the book. Turtle based easter eggs essentially.

 

[redhawk23]

from Eugene Kaik.

 

[Sawyer]

I'd say it's missing Randall Flagg, but I guess he hasn't really gotten an iconic portrayal yet like the other four, so I'll let it slide.

 

[Thundarr]

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.

And I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter.

But if it is included, there are ways to do it without the movie looking like a piece of child pornography is all I'm saying.

 

[redhawk23]

No amount of artistry could render group sex among pre-teens any less problematic.

 

[Octoberist]

I'd say it's missing Randall Flagg, but I guess he hasn't really gotten an iconic portrayal yet like the other four, so I'll let it slide.

I think the Green Goblin truck is more iconic than Flagg. (I'm talking bout the Flagg from the mini-series.)

 

[Thundarr]

It occurs to me that if this movie stays in Development Hell much longer, the six surviving kids from the Lucky Seven could all reprise their roles as their adult counterparts. Only character who'll need to be recast is Stuttering Bill (although I still like Jerry O'Connel as an adult Ben 'Haystack' Hanscon).

But aside from the girl who played young Beverly Marsh and Seth Green, I don't think any of the others are acting anymore.

 

[Ant-manic]

something i've always wanted to ask. was Seth Green wearing a fake nose in the original movie?

http://www.underthegunreview.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Seth-Green.gif

 

[rogue trooper]

I'd say it's missing Randall Flagg, but I guess he hasn't really gotten an iconic portrayal yet like the other four, so I'll let it slide.

...and maybe Cujo laying on the floor.

 

[Thundarr]

something i've always wanted to ask. was Seth Green wearing a fake nose in the original movie?

http://www.underthegunreview.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Seth-Green.gif

I don't think so. He was about 12 at the time the original was filmed, so he could have simply grown into his facial features. Or, after achieving financial success through Austin Powers & Buffy, he could have had a nose job.

"Hey Ritchie! You're still here? Didn't expect you to stick around. Great nose job, no one will ever notice!"

 

[Ant-manic]

I don't think so. He was about 12 at the time the original was filmed, so he could have simply grown into his facial features. Or, after achieving financial success through Austin Powers & Buffy, he could have had a nose job.

"Hey Ritchie! You're still here? Didn't expect you to stick around. Great nose job, no one will ever notice!"

I only ask because he looked differently in the Tales from the Darkside and Amazing Stories episodes he appeared in. I believe that he was younger than 12, in both.

 

[Thundarr]

I only ask because he looked differently in the Tales from the Darkside and Amazing Stories episodes he appeared in. I believe that he was younger than 12, in both.

Puberty is a funny thing. Sometimes your ears or your nose outgrow your head. Sometimes girls get boobs before they get child bearing hips. Sometimes your pubic hair grows before your voice changes. Sometimes it's the other way around.

 

[Eddie Dean]

...and this thread got creepy again.

 

[Thundarr]

Well, I've finally finished reading the book. And there are a lot of things in there that I feel should be included in the new movie which weren't in the original movie. Not that I don't like the original movie, I still think it's great, but I can see why some fans of the book may have been disappointed in it. But I also understand that it was a made for TV movie, and as such has a much greater number of restrictions (not the least of which being time and money).

First, I think the story should be divided into two films, kinda like the original was. They should be theatrical releases, not made for TV, and be roughly 150 minutes each. Like the original, the first should focus mostly on the kids, and their quest to destroy It, while the second film should focus on the adults reuniting for the big rematch.

I think each kid's encounter with Pennywise should be closer to the book (Mike and the giant bird, Richie and the Paul Bunyen statue, Eddie and the leper, etc). They should spend a little more time focusing on Henry Bowers' descent into madness, and his manipulation by Pennywise/It. While I think showing Mike's research into the history of Derry and the appearances of Pennywise might be a bit much, perhaps have him mention them during the reunion dinner. I also think that having the kids chase It deeper into the sewers (and the tunnels beyond) is a good idea. Also, maybe have the reunion dinner come before the adults' encounters with Pennywise like it is in the book. Another thing from the book that I'd like to see in the movie is the fact that It is a pregnant female, and they not only have to kill It, but destroy her eggs too. One thing that's NOT in the book, but that I'd kinda like to see in the movie, is to have a post credits teaser showing that Ben missed one of the eggs and it's about to hatch. Oh, and the blood oath at the end of Part 1, when they were kids. That should be in there too.

Some parts of the novel I feel can certainly be left out or changed. A lot of the stuff about the turtle can be left out. While I liked that the original movie had combined the kids' hunting for It in the haunted house and in the sewers into one scene, I think it should be expanded on. Also, I think they should go down there fully prepared like in the movie, rather than be chased in there with nothing but a book of matches like in the book. I don't think Derry needs to be destroyed at the end either. I don't think Bill should cheat on Audra with Beverly either.


As for the big sex scene in the tunnels? I won't say "include it" or "don't include it". As I said before, it neither makes nor breaks the story. Now that I've read the book, I understand why it was put in. The reasoning might be more difficult to get across through film, and if it's cut should be cut for that reason. But it wouldn't bother me if it were kept in.

 

[Thundarr]

...and this thread got creepy again.

As the horror comic, Gerald Gerald Geraldson says, "It ain't easy bein' creepy!"

 

[Thundarr]

I've asked this before, but everyone was so wrapped up in discussing the underage group sex scene that it never got answered, so i'll ask it again.

What year should the movie be set in? Should the adult Losers be in the year the film is made/released (2015 for example) and the kids be set 30 years earlier (in this case 1985)? Should it stick to the dates in the book (1958 & 1985)? Maybe they could play around with then a little bit (1970 & 2000, 1980 & 2010, etc)? Or should they just use the dates from the original movie (1960 & 1990)?

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Teelie]

...and this thread got creepy again.

A thread about a child-eating clown was always destined to be creepy.

 

[Ant-manic]

I've asked this before, but everyone was so wrapped up in discussing the underage group sex scene that it never got answered, so i'll ask it again.

What year should the movie be set in? Should the adult Losers be in the year the film is made/released (2015 for example) and the kids be set 30 years earlier (in this case 1985)? Should it stick to the dates in the book (1958 & 1985)? Maybe they could play around with then a little bit (1970 & 2000, 1980 & 2010, etc)? Or should they just use the dates from the original movie (1960 & 1990)?

What are your thoughts on this?

60s would be good.

 

[Ant-manic]

Puberty is a funny thing. Sometimes your ears or your nose outgrow your head. Sometimes girls get boobs before they get child bearing hips. Sometimes your pubic hair grows before your voice changes. Sometimes it's the other way around.

it's not the size that confused me. it's the shape.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120714191932/stephenking/images/9/9e/Richie_Tozier.gif
http://www.reocities.com/TelevisionCity/Studio/1589/Seth82.jpg

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

A thread about a child-eating clown was always destined to be creepy.

I remember when I was at the circus years ago, and one of the clowns grabbed a boy, put him in a taco and ate him up. People roared with laughter. But I don't get it...clowns are supposed to be funny. Cannibalism isn't funny at all.