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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will never understand people's hatred of the original. I grew up on it, so maybe I'm biased but everything from Tim curry to the haunting theme, the setting, the actors. I loved it all. It's my favorite horror movie of all time. I watch it a good twice a week to remind myself how great horror movie was back in the day

I didn't dislike it until I read the book.
 
Yeah, a lot of what It and The Stand have to offer is unique to book form. But a literal translation would be tedious.

Also, they would have to tone down King's use of hardcore stereotypes back in the day. While some of his books have more naturalistic dialog (Salem's Lot, or more recently 11/22/63), I've always thought IT and The Stand's dialog and some of the characterizations border lining being stylized and almost, Howdy-Dowdy-esq.

Yeah, and he also does that thing - especially in the 90s - where he breaks off sentences
(like this)
and doesn't write full paragraphs because he's getting in the character's head,
(trying to be all psychological and stuff)
but most of time, these little breaks in between sentences show really cheesy, 1950s internal dialogue
(whoopsy daisy!)
(say it, don't spray it!)
(Geez Louise!).

I swear to God, 85% of Lisey's Story is written like this. It's a great novel, but it gets insanely tedious.
 
I always thought that was a pretty effective technique, for the most part.
 
Spitballing here - totally random:

Pennywise – Jim Carrey
Ben Hanscom – Ben Affleck
Beverly Marsh – Jessica Chastain
Mike Hanlon – Don Cheadle
Richie Tozier – Bill Hader
Bill Denbrough – Edward Norton
Edward Kaspbrak – Tobey Maguire
Stanley Uris – Jeremy Piven
 
Spitballing here - totally random:
Richie Tozier – Bill Hader
Perfect casting for Richie. It's so obvious.

Anyone know how i can get in contact with Cary Fukunaga, this needs to get to him asap. Only half kidding.
 
Bill Hader could play a million characters perfectly. It's scary.

Richie Tozier
Pennywise
The Joker
Plastic Man
A New Ghostbuster
The Riddler
 
It's not my favorite anything but I think it's pretty damn good especially for a tv minseries which have always largely been crap. Curry is definitely the highlight and genuinely scary. It kind of comes off the rails during the adult half but I like the grown-up cast and the kids are great.

Yeah it's not that bad, especially the first half. The Pennywise scenes are awesome due to Tim Curry and the good make-up job they did. It's not as scary as the book but there are some genuinely freaky moments. When... uhh... I don't remember which character but when one of them is in a cab and Pennywise is standing on the side on the road with a bunch of balloons in his hand. That's a great moment.
 
Pennywise – Bill Hader
Ben Hanscom – Jonah Hill
Beverly Marsh – Fiona Gublemann (dye her hair red).
Mike Hanlon – Craig Robinson
Richie Tozier – Danny McBride
Bill Denbrough – James Franco
Edward Kaspbrak – Jay Baruchel
Stanley Uris – Seth Rogen
 
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2015/01/16/beetlejuice-2-something-wicked-gremlins-seth-grahame-smith/6/
STEPHEN KING’S IT

Grahame-Smith is producing this two-film adaptation of King’s epic 1986 novel about a shapeshifting evil that feeds off the fear of children—most often in the form of a bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise. Cary Fukunaga (True Detective) is directing and co-writing the first installment, which will focus solely on a group of kids who join forces to fight back against the malevolent force. A second film would pick up with the same characters as adults, returning home to discover It has resurrected.

The novel was previously adapted into an ABC miniseries in 1990, starring Tim Curry as the deranged, sharp-fanged clown (pictured above, floating).

“I think that if anything, [the new film] will bring back some of the viciousness of the book that they couldn’t do with the miniseries because it was for broadcast,” Grahame-Smith says. “I think it’s going to be very scary, but I also feel like you’ve got Cary who is going to direct these kids—and he’s incredible at casting, incredible at shooting. He’s incredible with tone and atmosphere. One of the things I wanted to do is be a part of one of the really good King adaptations. As we know, there is an echelon of King adaptations that are classics. There are some that are okay. There are some that we’d rather forget.”

Status: “We’re going to get a draft, what is supposed to be the shooting [script], any day now from Cary and his writing partner,” Grahame-Smith says. “We’re doing a deal for them to write the second movie. Our hope is to prep sometime in the next few months and shoot in the summer. That one is as much on the runway as we can possibly be. I know New Line is ready to go.”
 
If not Jim Carrey, then:

Gary Oldman
Paul Giammatti
Willem Dafoe
 
Good ones , but I think It needs a sad clown like Carrey, John C. Reilly or Steve Carell.
 
Watching Jim Carrey attempt full fright mode might be interesting.

I think whoever it is needs to really be mindful of not aping Curry. Go for truly disturbing rather than goofy-scary.

Other suggestions I have seen: Jackie Earl Hayley, Steve Buscemi, Cillian Murphy, Tom Hiddleston
 
I think Mike Myers would make a great creepy Pennywise.
 
Watching Jim Carrey attempt full fright mode might be interesting.

I think whoever it is needs to really be mindful of not aping Curry. Go for truly disturbing rather than goofy-scary.


Other suggestions I have seen: Jackie Earl Hayley, Steve Buscemi, Cillian Murphy, Tom Hiddleston
:up: Maybe Sam Rockwell could pull it off too.
 
I think Mike Myers would make a great creepy Pennywise.

Eh. He needs to prove he's worthy of a career resurgence before I'd be okay with him coming anywhere near this.
 
Reading the novel again, and upon closer inspection, my feelings haven't changed:

- Out of the 1,100+ pages of the book, at least 500 can be removed.
- Take the remaining 600 pages and adapt that into one film.

So really, the 1990 TV movie did everything right. It's a 3-hour film that doesn't let a single minute go to waste. All they really need to do is just re-film that exact 1990 script, but make it a hard R-rating, and keep those horror scenes completely faithful to the book. Other than that, keep it at 3 hours and don't make it into 2 films. It's completely unnecessary, and what'll happen is that people will complain and groan over boredom by how much bloat and fluff is in both films.
 
Have they said how the story will be split?

I had read a while back that they were considering putting the events of 1957-1958 in one film, and having film two deal solely with the 1984-1985 stuff. Is this still the plan?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,325
Messages
22,085,924
Members
45,886
Latest member
Shyatzu
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"