Stephen King's It [remake]

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Mon May 04, 2015 8:51 pm

Will Poulter to Play the Evil Clown in ‘It’ Remake

Sources tell Variety that Will Poulter (“We’re the Millers”) is in negotiations to play Pennywise, the evil monster who lured in children disguised as a clown, in the upcoming remake of Stephen King’s horror classic.

Fukunaga will direct “It,” which will be split into two feature films.

I hope it does more justice to the book than the made for TV version.

Little Raven · Post by **Little Raven** » Mon May 04, 2015 9:17 pm

Yeah. Tim Curry was certainly memorable, but that was about all the TV version had going for it.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Mon May 04, 2015 9:24 pm

I didnt think the TV version of IT was terrible. They did pretty good for tv actually but done right with a motion picture budget, the movie could set back job opportunities for clowns for decades.

Little Raven · Post by **Little Raven** » Mon May 04, 2015 9:29 pm

rshetts2 wrote:I didnt think the TV version of IT was terrible.

Depends on the context. Judged against the novel, it's pretty lacking. Taken as a made-for-TV production, or a Stephen King movie, it's decent. (again, thanks largely to Curry IMO)

I'm interesting in seeing what a new generation makes of it.

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Mon May 04, 2015 10:08 pm

At the time it was what, a 6 hour mini-series?

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Mon May 04, 2015 10:17 pm

dbt1949 wrote:At the time it was what, a 6 hour mini-series?

Something like that. The best TV adaptation of King, for my money, is still the first Salem's Lot.

JonathanStrange · Post by **JonathanStrange** » Mon May 04, 2015 10:45 pm

The tv mini-series - which I only saw in re-runs but found scary enough as a kid - could use some updating. I'll definitely watch a remake. I'll be hoping for the best. I wouldn't mind television versions of King's newer material; not because I think it's better but because I'm not overly fond of remakes.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon May 04, 2015 11:19 pm

The book is no prize pig. It's all fun and games until the intergalactic space turtle shows up.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:35 am

They could make a porn version of "It", don't they all have a gangbang with the chick in the book? Or am I confusing my entertainment choices?

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:47 am

tgb wrote:
dbt1949 wrote:At the time it was what, a 6 hour mini-series?
Something like that. The best TV adaptation of King, for my money, is still the first Salem's Lot.

The first Salem's Lot did not age well.

Isgrimnur wrote:The book is no prize pig. It's all fun and games until the intergalactic space turtle shows up.

I really liked the book, intergalactic space turtle notwithstanding.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:29 am

em2nought wrote:They could make a porn version of "It", don't they all have a gangbang with the chick in the book? Or am I confusing my entertainment choices?

You're thinking of Tom Sawyer.

Jaddison · Post by **Jaddison** » Tue May 05, 2015 6:58 am

no there was a "initiation" of the group that involved the first time being with the female of the group- it is how they defeated the clown as kids.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Tue May 05, 2015 2:39 pm

He seems a little young for Pennywise but he's got the creep factor.

As far as the intergalactic space turtle, it's easier to swallow if you've read all of King's books, in particular the Dark Tower series, and realized how his novels are a part of one big mythos. He's obviously heavily influenced by Lovecraft, as he has used the concept of a "big bad" elder God type evil in numerous stories.

Admittedly though, that kind of stuff reads better on the page than on film.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Tue May 05, 2015 5:50 pm

There is only one true Intergalactic Space Turtle, and he is full of turtle meat!

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed May 06, 2015 12:01 pm

Speaking of remakes, this probably deserves it's own thread, but there have been ads on TV for a remake of Poltergeist. I was the wrong age when the first one came out and I never watched it nor have I ever had any urge to watch it, even though I'm a fan of horror/supernatural scare movies.

I had the tv on late at night while I was plugging away at my phone (Marvel Puzzle Quest) and holy shit if the ad didn't make me extremely goosebumpy/scared. Both were sorta monster closet-y in that things go from calm to fast and scary in a blink, but they were well done and now I want to see this remake way more than I've ever had the urge to see the first one.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Wed May 06, 2015 12:05 pm

The original Poltergeist scared the shit out of me as a kid. I still can't believe it was rated PG. The commercials for this new version look like they combine the general plot of the original with the current horror trends of shocking quick cuts and surprise grotesque images. I don't have any real desire to see this new version, and it's one that makes me scratch my head as to why they even needed to make a new one.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Wed May 06, 2015 1:29 pm

Little Raven wrote:Yeah. Tim Curry was certainly memorable, but that was about all the TV version had going for it.

I've never read the book but I liked the TV version, up until they started explaining the clown. At that point it went to hell.

Yellowking wrote:As far as the intergalactic space turtle, it's easier to swallow if you've read all of King's books, in particular the Dark Tower series, and realized how his novels are a part of one big mythos. He's obviously heavily influenced by Lovecraft, as he has used the concept of a "big bad" elder God type evil in numerous stories.

I never thought about it that way. That his books are almost in some other universe and are somewhat tied together. That's an interesting idea.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Wed May 06, 2015 1:56 pm

McNutt wrote:I never thought about it that way. That his books are almost in some other universe and are somewhat tied together. That's an interesting idea.

Wikia article on Pennywise

gameoverman · Post by **gameoverman** » Wed May 06, 2015 3:32 pm

I was a teen when I saw Poltergeist in theaters. It was scary enough to be worth watching if you're a genre fan. I think the reason it was PG was back then it was PG or R, with no inbetween. You've had to have led a sheltered life to think Poltergeist is an R rated movie, so PG is what it got. Later, PG-13 became the go to option for movies like that.

I have admit I like Storm of the Century more than Salem's Lot. The floating vampires, and Lewis's rocking chair vampire scene, are awesome but otherwise it has a cheap tv movie feel to it.

Remaking It at this point seems like a waste of time. At the time it came out, King himself referred to it as his 'final exam' on monster or horror stories. We've all, the audience, come a long way since then. It's going to seem quaint if anything.

JonathanStrange · Post by **JonathanStrange** » Wed May 06, 2015 4:27 pm

Again: I'll watch it. That is, Stephen King's It [saying it always makes me think we're playing Hide-and-Seek with Mr King.]

However, I do think he's got plenty of other, better, newer material to make into disappointing tv or movie versions. Did those adaptations from Full Dark, No Stars turn out well, btw. I've not seen them.

I would like a Dark Tower mini-series. I've also wondered if the Stephen King and Peter Straub collaboration (The Talisman) could translate well. I'd definitely see that one.

Speaking of Straub, he's got some books that would be interesting on screen. The Blue Rose Trilogy, for one (or three), and I've always been fond of one of Straub's Mr. X.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Wed May 06, 2015 5:25 pm

IT is probably my favorite King novel. His writings about childhood and childhood nostalgia create most of his strongest characters and he was at the top of his craft here, especially in how he intertwines the two eras.

The TV movie suffered from sub par acting and some poor writing, as well as leaving too much out. It's nigh unwatchable to me.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Tue May 26, 2015 8:02 am

No worries - it's on indefinite hold, which I'm pretty sure is entertainment speak for DOA:

New Line Cinema has indefinitely pushed back production on its adaptation of Stephen King’s It, a studio insider tells EW, and director Cary Fukunaga has left the project, according to his reps. Production was slated to begin in three weeks, but the script has not been finalized, and the budget number was not reached.

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Tue May 26, 2015 8:17 am

McNutt wrote:
Yellowking wrote:As far as the intergalactic space turtle, it's easier to swallow if you've read all of King's books, in particular the Dark Tower series, and realized how his novels are a part of one big mythos. He's obviously heavily influenced by Lovecraft, as he has used the concept of a "big bad" elder God type evil in numerous stories.
I never thought about it that way. That his books are almost in some other universe and are somewhat tied together. That's an interesting idea.

I read a book several years ago that mapped out how all of his books are connected. The book argues that they take place in several different universes, with The Dark Tower literally connecting all of them. It was a very good read and made me like King's books even more.

I don't think this is the exact book I read, but it's the same general concept. http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-Step ... 0312324901

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue May 26, 2015 11:40 am

Smoove_B wrote:No worries - it's on indefinite hold, which I'm pretty sure is entertainment speak for DOA:

New Line Cinema has indefinitely pushed back production on its adaptation of Stephen King’s It, a studio insider tells EW, and director Cary Fukunaga has left the project, according to his reps. Production was slated to begin in three weeks, but the script has not been finalized, and the budget number was not reached.

You never know. After all, the new Mad Max movie was put on hold immediately after the WTC attacks.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:39 pm

It has a new Director Andy Muschietti.

Also, Dark Tower could be interesting with multiple movies and TV series adaptations.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:28 am

ImLawBoy wrote:The original Poltergeist scared the shit out of me as a kid.

A little derail on the re-rail, but I agree. The whole movie was awesomely scary for the age when I saw it. Additionally, Poltergeist III (despite it's 18% on Rotten Tomatoes) was the first movie that introduced me to the concept of my own mirror image as looking back at me - and what if it came to life. To this day I still get skin crawlies if I lean in too close to a mirror and look into my own eyes.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Aug 06, 2015 8:55 am

Paingod wrote:A little derail on the re-rail, but I agree. The whole movie was awesomely scary for the age when I saw it. Additionally, Poltergeist III (despite it's 18% on Rotten Tomatoes) was the first movie that introduced me to the concept of my own mirror image as looking back at me - and what if it came to life. To this day I still get skin crawlies if I lean in too close to a mirror and look into my own eyes.

I actually watched Poltergeist II and III this week, since I had picked them up in a combo Blu-ray. I had seen II when I was much younger and all I remembered was the creepy preacher. I had never seen III.

I enjoyed II for the most part - it's not great and nowhere near as good as the original, but compared to III it's much more entertaining since it brings back most of the main cast.

However, here are some interesting tidbits that will make watching either film much creepier:

- In II, the older daughter's absence is explained by her having gone off to college. In real life, she was murdered by her boyfriend shortly after the premiere of the first movie.

- Will Sampson, who played the Native American exorcist, would be dead from kidney failure by the time the movie hit theaters.

- The creepy preacher looks so gaunt because in real life he was suffering from stomach cancer, which he died from shortly after filming.

- And of course, the girl that played Carol Anne would be dead by the time the movie hit theaters as well.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:11 pm

I feel sorry for people afraid of clowns -- from EW, it's the first look at Pennywise.

When It hits screens next year, it will only tell part of the 1986 novel, following the main characters when they were children. A sequel, in which they come home again to battle It a second time as adults, is planned if this first installment is a success.

Among other alterations, the timeline has shifted from the book — it’s now set in the late ‘80s instead of the late ‘50s. We’ll see whether It’s other monstrous forms — a wolfman, a mummy, a shark among others — will change with the times.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:20 pm

YellowKing wrote: I actually watched Poltergeist II and III this week, since I had picked them up in a combo Blu-ray. I had seen II when I was much younger and all I remembered was the creepy preacher. I had never seen III.

Off topic, but this was on tv the other day (II). I had never seen it (or even all of I for that matter). The scene had the preacher at the door while Coach told him to get lost, and I couldn't help but stare at the preacher's face/head. I couldn't tell if he had movie monster makeup on or was just a guy with the most bare skull-like head I'd ever seen. Looking at his sunken eyes, his protruding cheekbones, his tight, thin layer of skin over the whole thing was mesmerizing.

edit: Oh crap, didn't see this part.

YellowKing wrote: - The creepy preacher looks so gaunt because in real life he was suffering from stomach cancer, which he died from shortly after filming.

That explains that then.

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:00 pm

Smoove_B wrote:I feel sorry for people afraid of clowns -- from EW, it's the first look at Pennywise.

When It hits screens next year, it will only tell part of the 1986 novel, following the main characters when they were children. A sequel, in which they come home again to battle It a second time as adults, is planned if this first installment is a success.

Among other alterations, the timeline has shifted from the book — it’s now set in the late ‘80s instead of the late ‘50s. We’ll see whether It’s other monstrous forms — a wolfman, a mummy, a shark among others — will change with the times.

Well, that's disappointing.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:10 pm

A trailer has arrived.

Unfortunately, while the story is creepy as hell, if Tim Curry isn't under that makeup, it's just not right. The trailer seems to make it out to be a straight creature flick. Tim Curry made that clown a sadistic jolly bastard of a monster that really got into inflicting fear and misery on a very personal level, not just a series of jump scares.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:00 pm

Paingod wrote:A trailer has arrived.

Chills

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:04 pm

I really need to re-read the book. I don't think I've done so since some point around 1988 or 89. I remember the big story elements, but when I see people talking about the really strange/uncomfortable story elements (I'm referencing the ending without spoiling it and how they deal with things), I didn't remember those details at all.

I still remember watching the made-for-TV version of IT and being adequately horrified.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:58 pm

Smoove_B wrote:I really need to re-read the book. I don't think I've done so since some point around 1988 or 89. I remember the big story elements, but when I see people talking about the really strange/uncomfortable story elements (I'm referencing the ending without spoiling it and how they deal with things), I didn't remember those details at all.

I still remember watching the made-for-TV version of IT and being adequately horrified.

Me too, on re-reading.

Wasn't the book split between them as adults and them as kids? It's been so long since i read it or watched it, that the trailer confused me.

I was impressed by the kids in the trailer. The acting was good and I'm not a fan of children. The clown was just bad, especially on watching it again. There was no creepy feeling. No moments that startled. And I startle so easily I'll jump when someone in front of me offers to shake hands.

gameoverman · Post by **gameoverman** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:17 pm

I saw the trailer and my first thought was I like the color scheme, which for me is a weird thought to have. I don't usually notice that stuff unless it's another one of those washed out Zack Snyder things. In particular there were a couple of shots where the red in the scene looked like blood. I would be happy if it turned out this remake's main draw was its visuals. The original miniseries was kind of drab in that regard.

Suitably Ironic Moniker · Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:08 pm

I'm not even scared of clowns, but that was completely creepy. I'm in.

JCC · Post by **JCC** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:18 pm

Curry's It was a bright spot in the thoroughly mediocre ABC adaptation, but I hardly think it made the role untouchable. This trailer looks far better. I hope they aren't afraid to deviate from King's goofy deadlights shit...

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:35 pm

If you'd told me I was watching the original version trailer I might not have noticed. The whole paper boat thing seemed very familiar, but scarier at the very end. Beep Beep Ritchie!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:32 am

link

Just having this suddenly pop up on my screen was enough to freak me out.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:08 am

Fuuck that trailer and fuuck clowns

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk