The Fukanaga script sounds significantly better in almost every way, including addressing the racial history, giving Mike's parents a voice, improving the lair, and not doing all that sexist bullshit to Beverly. It's a real shame they lowered the budget and drove him away, as he's a better director than the one we got to boot--and they needn't have worried, since It made bank and the sequel should do very well.
I dunno. For starters, it was never obvious this film would make bank. From the word go, it was being treated with more skepticism than Dark Tower, and up until initial reviews came in i think a lot of people had written it off. "Coming of age horror movie about an evil clown" is not a slam dunk.
As well, I'm hesitant to say what would have made for a better film based on a screenplay. What works on paper doesn't always work on film, budgetary issues aside, and I'm just going to be content with the very good movie we got rather than pine for the great movie that hypothetically might have been. The idea of "fleshing out more characters and also addressing racism in a nuanced, thoughtful manner" sounds fine, but it could also have been "expand an already huge cast past the point of manageability and tack on a hamfisted message about race."
It was the most viewed movie trailer ever in it's first few days online - beating Fate of the Furious. I don't think there was ever any doubt it was going to be a massive success.
ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
Steam: adamjnet
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Also, a large part of the movie's success is that it not only had zero competition opening weekend, but the previous two or three weeks had been pretty bare as well. The next decent movie with any kind of draw was going to do very well, no matter what it was. (But a better movie would have done better and bumped the sequel too.)
Also, a large part of the movie's success is that it not only had zero competition opening weekend, but the previous two or three weeks had been pretty bare as well. The next decent movie with any kind of draw was going to do very well, no matter what it was. (But a better movie would have done better and bumped the sequel too.)
I think it is arguably the defining word-of-mouth cult movie of millennial childhoods, too.
Like until this remake appeared I don't think I've ever seen IT discussed as a piece of media anywhere, conversely I don't know a single person my own age who a) hasn't seen it and b) doesn't consider it the single scariest thing from their childhoods.
I actually work for the company that originally aired IT in the U.K. back in 1990, and after this remake was announced it was one of the highest engagement "triggers" for social media discussion amongst 25-40 year olds on our various channels.
They need to get Seth Greene to be grown up Richie
+5
Options
HeatwaveCome, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered Userregular
Saw this film today. Overall I really enjoyed it.
I found child actors and their characters to be really great. Most of the time in movies I usually cringe at their presence, so this is a huge plus for me.
Pennywise was genuinely creepy and I was on edge throughout the first half of the film. I felt once horror started losing it's punch though in the second half due to
the kids being able to fight off Pennywise on several occasions.
I also thought Billy was going to overcome his fear of Pennywise by replacing it with hatred. That "real enough for Georgie" scene had me expecting Billy to attack at him on his own.
Also regarding the floating victims, were they all dead or were some like Beverley and regained consciousness after Pennywise was defeated?
The boat was the one thing that struck me as a little anachronistic. It's just so wholesomely '50s. It's probably the iconic scene from the book (Certainly the mini-series) so it had to be done, but in 1988 I was a little older than Georgie and boats sealed with paraffin wax? Not in my bailiwick.
Meanwhile in the 90s, me and my friends were always making paper boats to float and race down the drainage creek in front of our houses. Knowing how to seal them in parafin to make them more durable would've b
The Fukanaga script sounds significantly better in almost every way, including addressing the racial history, giving Mike's parents a voice, improving the lair, and not doing all that sexist bullshit to Beverly. It's a real shame they lowered the budget and drove him away, as he's a better director than the one we got to boot--and they needn't have worried, since It made bank and the sequel should do very well.
I dunno. For starters, it was never obvious this film would make bank. From the word go, it was being treated with more skepticism than Dark Tower, and up until initial reviews came in i think a lot of people had written it off. "Coming of age horror movie about an evil clown" is not a slam dunk.
As well, I'm hesitant to say what would have made for a better film based on a screenplay. What works on paper doesn't always work on film, budgetary issues aside, and I'm just going to be content with the very good movie we got rather than pine for the great movie that hypothetically might have been. The idea of "fleshing out more characters and also addressing racism in a nuanced, thoughtful manner" sounds fine, but it could also have been "expand an already huge cast past the point of manageability and tack on a hamfisted message about race."
Whenever you ask yourself, 'my god, this script is awful! How did it ever get made?!?' remember, that scripts always read better, because you have your imagination filling in the gaps. You don't account for poor directing choices, the actors flubbing a scene, or anything else that makes a final movie awful.
They need to get Seth Greene to be grown up Richie
Definitely.
There was an article where they asked the actors who they think should play the characters as adults. They came up with:
Richie: Bill Hader
Bev: Jessica Chastain
Mike: Chadwick Boseman
Eddie: Jake Gyllenhaal
Stan: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Ben: Chris Pratt
[Bill's Jaeden Lieberher wasn't there to offer a pick.]
Which is a neat group. I like Chris Pratt a lot for Ben, would personally go with Amy Addams over Jessica Chastain, and feel JGL would be wasted as Stan (and he's a little young, though late 30s to early 50s is easily fudgable on screen).
They need to get Seth Greene to be grown up Richie
Definitely.
There was an article where they asked the actors who they think should play the characters as adults. They came up with:
Richie: Bill Hader
Bev: Jessica Chastain
Mike: Chadwick Boseman
Eddie: Jake Gyllenhaal
Stan: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Ben: Chris Pratt
[Bill's Jaeden Lieberher wasn't there to offer a pick.]
Which is a neat group. I like Chris Pratt a lot for Ben, would personally go with Amy Addams over Jessica Chastain, and feel JGL would be wasted as Stan (and he's a little young, though late 30s to early 50s is easily fudgable on screen).
The characters are fourteen-ish in 1989. That makes them eight years older than me (I was Georgie's six in '89).
They'd be in their early forties right now, 47 or so in 2020.
And speaking of Bill, I kind of hate him in the book as an obvious author insert annoying character who everyone idolizes to a RIDICULOUS degree. They actually did better in the movie making him a brave, admirable kid who was nevertheless capable of making mistakes and being doubted.
The book addresses that specifically in a way that would be cool to see in the sequel,
The Other is working through Bill and has chosen him to lead, much like Henry Bowers was chosen by It to lead the bullies. They don't doubt him because he basically has the power of a god working through him. One interesting element of the book that King uses as a subtext is the concept that The Other might not be a pure good being and is using the losers much like Pennywise uses people, though I think the ended makes a that unambiguous.
Also, a large part of the movie's success is that it not only had zero competition opening weekend, but the previous two or three weeks had been pretty bare as well. The next decent movie with any kind of draw was going to do very well, no matter what it was. (But a better movie would have done better and bumped the sequel too.)
Actually, the previously planned version of the movie would have had a higher budget, meaning if it had the exact same ticket sales it would have done worse. You saying it would have just "done better" is pure fantasy though. It's not like the previous director was such a known entity that his name alone would have doubled the box office.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Quality isn't the end all be all of box office (more's the pity), but I'm convinced it often inspires increased returns on a project whose main success is built on other factors. I think the original director would have made a better film, audiences would have responded a little more than they did, and the sequel would be in a little bit better position.
Whenever you ask yourself, 'my god, this script is awful! How did it ever get made?!?' remember, that scripts always read better, because you have your imagination filling in the gaps. You don't account for poor directing choices, the actors flubbing a scene, or anything else that makes a final movie awful.
Not to mention the shooting script isn't necessarily what get's on screen. Plus, they have a writer on set rewriting scenes.
They need to get Seth Greene to be grown up Richie
Definitely.
There was an article where they asked the actors who they think should play the characters as adults. They came up with:
Richie: Bill Hader
Bev: Jessica Chastain
Mike: Chadwick Boseman
Eddie: Jake Gyllenhaal
Stan: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Ben: Chris Pratt
[Bill's Jaeden Lieberher wasn't there to offer a pick.]
Which is a neat group. I like Chris Pratt a lot for Ben, would personally go with Amy Addams over Jessica Chastain, and feel JGL would be wasted as Stan (and he's a little young, though late 30s to early 50s is easily fudgable on screen).
The characters are fourteen-ish in 1989. That makes them eight years older than me (I was Georgie's six in '89).
They'd be in their early forties right now, 47 or so in 2020.
I just woke up, no judging.
True, but Hollywood isn't that strict on adhering to realistic looking casts. Or they just pretend they're that age, and cast them regardless.
Quality isn't the end all be all of box office (more's the pity), but I'm convinced it often inspires increased returns on a project whose main success is built on other factors. I think the original director would have made a better film, audiences would have responded a little more than they did, and the sequel would be in a little bit better position.
Of course this is all just speculation.
It's impossible to tell, it's also likely the movie may have failed.
Quality isn't the end all be all of box office (more's the pity), but I'm convinced it often inspires increased returns on a project whose main success is built on other factors. I think the original director would have made a better film, audiences would have responded a little more than they did, and the sequel would be in a little bit better position.
Of course this is all just speculation.
I think that speculating a film that's already a smash hit with a solid critical and audience reception would have been *even more* successful is a hard sell. And while I agree that some of the changes in the other script make it seem better, I also think that a different actor for IT and a much more schlocky firework fight replacing the rock fight sounds worse and that critical/thematic winners like making racism more explicit wouldn't have necessarily resulted in significant box office shift. Like, a better movie doesn't guarantee massively more ticket sales.
Quality isn't the end all be all of box office (more's the pity), but I'm convinced it often inspires increased returns on a project whose main success is built on other factors. I think the original director would have made a better film, audiences would have responded a little more than they did, and the sequel would be in a little bit better position.
Of course this is all just speculation.
I think that speculating a film that's already a smash hit with a solid critical and audience reception would have been *even more* successful is a hard sell. And while I agree that some of the changes in the other script make it seem better, I also think that a different actor for IT and a much more schlocky firework fight replacing the rock fight sounds worse and that critical/thematic winners like making racism more explicit wouldn't have necessarily resulted in significant box office shift. Like, a better movie doesn't guarantee massively more ticket sales.
Might have effected the audience reaction, that subject is really easy to piss people off with.
They need to get Seth Greene to be grown up Richie
Definitely.
There was an article where they asked the actors who they think should play the characters as adults. They came up with:
Richie: Bill Hader
Bev: Jessica Chastain
Mike: Chadwick Boseman
Eddie: Jake Gyllenhaal
Stan: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Ben: Chris Pratt
[Bill's Jaeden Lieberher wasn't there to offer a pick.]
Which is a neat group. I like Chris Pratt a lot for Ben, would personally go with Amy Addams over Jessica Chastain, and feel JGL would be wasted as Stan (and he's a little young, though late 30s to early 50s is easily fudgable on screen).
The characters are fourteen-ish in 1989. That makes them eight years older than me (I was Georgie's six in '89).
They'd be in their early forties right now, 47 or so in 2020.
I just woke up, no judging.
True, but Hollywood isn't that strict on adhering to realistic looking casts. Or they just pretend they're that age, and cast them regardless.
Yeah, I'm sayin.
I'd buy almost all of those actors as ten years older than me, no problem.
Like, put me next to any of them, on a non-hungover day, and any of them look convincingly Definitely Older than me.
Except for Chastain maybe and Boseman definitely. Chadwick and I got that black magic.
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I definitely would have preferred to see Cary Fukunaga directing a version of the film that eschewed a lot of the gross sex stuff they added in for Beverly and tried to give the film some kind of thematic purpose.
The film we got is kinda awful outside of the amazing work from the child actors.
I thought IT was great. Not perfect, but great none the less.
Really funny too.
The Beverly stuff was uncomfortable, but a far cry better than the book so....I actually like the movie resolution better.
Best line of 2017 so far:
"and now, i'm going to have to kill this fucking clown" was amazing. I dont usually say anything in a theater, and things have to be REALLY funny to get me to laugh audibly, but THAT LINE got a "HA! FUCK YEA!
to just suddenly escape from my mouth. It was perfectly timed, well acted, and unexpected. Yet, i feel like it was earned. That moment made the whole movie worth while to me.
I don't understand the "gross sex stuff" complaint. It's a movie about all the stuff a town ignores that terrifies and harms children. What happens to Beverly is terrible, hard to watch, and common. It's not gratuitous, it's part of the theme.
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I don't understand the "gross sex stuff" complaint. It's a movie about all the stuff a town ignores that terrifies and harms children. What happens to Beverly is terrible, hard to watch, and common. It's not gratuitous, it's part of the theme.
I'm talking mostly about the non-book stuff the film added in, plus removing her agency by making her a damsel in distress at the end
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I don't think it's a bad film, but it could have been a lot better pretty easily.
Also the Beverly stuff bothers me a lot. It seems pretty unnecessary too--they had a reason to go down there (fight the clown, find Georgie) and Bowers could have chased them in, just like in the book. They didn't need to damsel her and make her some kind of fairy tale princess. Especially given that she's their best fighter in the novel.
I think it was an understanding alternative to what happens in the book. That would have been uncomfortable.
Not a huge fan of the damsel in distress either but, compared to what i was dreading during the whole movie i was relieved when that was all that happened.
My expectations being ridiculously low after that fucking abortion of a Gunslinger adaptation helped, but even without that, this was a damn good film. I was suprised how much I liked Bill Skarsgard in this. He's such a good blend of funny and awful and cunning and pure Stephen King villainous dickishness.
I don't understand the "gross sex stuff" complaint. It's a movie about all the stuff a town ignores that terrifies and harms children. What happens to Beverly is terrible, hard to watch, and common. It's not gratuitous, it's part of the theme.
I'm talking mostly about the non-book stuff the film added in, plus removing her agency by making her a damsel in distress at the end
That was the only part I wasn't a fan of.
+4
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I think it was an understanding alternative to what happens in the book. That would have been uncomfortable.
Not a huge fan of the damsel in distress either but, compared to what i was dreading during the whole movie i was relieved when that was all that happened.
Except the one doesn't replace the other. The sex scene happens after they fight It. Beverly getting damsel'd is the script's way of getting them to the fight.
The original script replaced the scene you mentioned with Beverly talking to the boys, which seems like a nice way to do that.
It would have also helped give the Losers a last moment of connection before the vow dissolves their group.
I think it was an understanding alternative to what happens in the book. That would have been uncomfortable.
Not a huge fan of the damsel in distress either but, compared to what i was dreading during the whole movie i was relieved when that was all that happened.
Except the one doesn't replace the other. The sex scene happens after they fight It. Beverly getting damsel'd is the script's way of getting them to the fight.
The original script replaced the scene you mentioned with Beverly talking to the boys, which seems like a nice way to do that.
It would have also helped give the Losers a last moment of connection before the vow dissolves their group.
Did it?
huh. I guess its been longer than i thought since i read the book.
All of that gross sex stuff is in the book too. I don't understand how changing it makes for a better movie.
Calling the film awful outside of the kid's roles is pants on heads out there.
I've laid out my reasons. An attractively-shot, well-acted film can still not be a good film.
A lot of your reasons don't really make a lot of sense outside of personal preference though. I can appreciate that you didn't like the movie but to say it's a bad film is a bit odd.
Also, I don't see how a person can say they'd have preferred the original Fukunaga film plan when the movie was never made to even be judged.
Again, you not liking the film is 100% fine. To say it's a bad movie is somewhat disingenuous.
+2
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
All of that gross sex stuff is in the book too. I don't understand how changing it makes for a better movie.
Calling the film awful outside of the kid's roles is pants on heads out there.
I've laid out my reasons. An attractively-shot, well-acted film can still not be a good film.
A lot of your reasons don't really make a lot of sense outside of personal preference though. I can appreciate that you didn't like the movie but to say it's a bad film is a bit odd.
Also, I don't see how a person can say they'd have preferred the original Fukunaga film plan when the movie was never made to even be judged.
Again, you not liking the film is 100% fine. To say it's a bad movie is somewhat disingenuous.
"Preferred to see" and "preferred" are not the same thing
And I think that no matter how great a movie looks or some of the performances are, if a film doesn't have a cohesive narrative or adhere to any semblance of logic while indulging in worn-out cliches and misogynistic tropes, I'm gonna call those things out and label it a failure.
I wasn't scared or delighted, I was bored and annoyed.
I'm currently reading IT again after so many years, so I'm a bit iffy on the details.
Wanna try my Mario Maker levels?
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09 P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359 Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
Posts
It was the most viewed movie trailer ever in it's first few days online - beating Fate of the Furious. I don't think there was ever any doubt it was going to be a massive success.
Steam: adamjnet
I think it is arguably the defining word-of-mouth cult movie of millennial childhoods, too.
Like until this remake appeared I don't think I've ever seen IT discussed as a piece of media anywhere, conversely I don't know a single person my own age who a) hasn't seen it and b) doesn't consider it the single scariest thing from their childhoods.
I actually work for the company that originally aired IT in the U.K. back in 1990, and after this remake was announced it was one of the highest engagement "triggers" for social media discussion amongst 25-40 year olds on our various channels.
It was a quiet phenomenon, really.
Steam: adamjnet
I found child actors and their characters to be really great. Most of the time in movies I usually cringe at their presence, so this is a huge plus for me.
Pennywise was genuinely creepy and I was on edge throughout the first half of the film. I felt once horror started losing it's punch though in the second half due to
I also thought Billy was going to overcome his fear of Pennywise by replacing it with hatred. That "real enough for Georgie" scene had me expecting Billy to attack at him on his own.
Also regarding the floating victims, were they all dead or were some like Beverley and regained consciousness after Pennywise was defeated?
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Whenever you ask yourself, 'my god, this script is awful! How did it ever get made?!?' remember, that scripts always read better, because you have your imagination filling in the gaps. You don't account for poor directing choices, the actors flubbing a scene, or anything else that makes a final movie awful.
Definitely.
There was an article where they asked the actors who they think should play the characters as adults. They came up with:
Richie: Bill Hader
Bev: Jessica Chastain
Mike: Chadwick Boseman
Eddie: Jake Gyllenhaal
Stan: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Ben: Chris Pratt
[Bill's Jaeden Lieberher wasn't there to offer a pick.]
Which is a neat group. I like Chris Pratt a lot for Ben, would personally go with Amy Addams over Jessica Chastain, and feel JGL would be wasted as Stan (and he's a little young, though late 30s to early 50s is easily fudgable on screen).
With Pennywise's brother, Poundfoolish.
The characters are fourteen-ish in 1989. That makes them eight years older than me (I was Georgie's six in '89).
They'd be in their early forties right now, 47 or so in 2020.
I just woke up, no judging.
The book addresses that specifically in a way that would be cool to see in the sequel,
Actually, the previously planned version of the movie would have had a higher budget, meaning if it had the exact same ticket sales it would have done worse. You saying it would have just "done better" is pure fantasy though. It's not like the previous director was such a known entity that his name alone would have doubled the box office.
Of course this is all just speculation.
Not to mention the shooting script isn't necessarily what get's on screen. Plus, they have a writer on set rewriting scenes.
True, but Hollywood isn't that strict on adhering to realistic looking casts. Or they just pretend they're that age, and cast them regardless.
It's impossible to tell, it's also likely the movie may have failed.
Bahahahah that's great. I'll watch the whole thing when I wake up (2AM and can't find my headphones) but I get the gist without sound.
I think that speculating a film that's already a smash hit with a solid critical and audience reception would have been *even more* successful is a hard sell. And while I agree that some of the changes in the other script make it seem better, I also think that a different actor for IT and a much more schlocky firework fight replacing the rock fight sounds worse and that critical/thematic winners like making racism more explicit wouldn't have necessarily resulted in significant box office shift. Like, a better movie doesn't guarantee massively more ticket sales.
Might have effected the audience reaction, that subject is really easy to piss people off with.
Yeah, I'm sayin.
I'd buy almost all of those actors as ten years older than me, no problem.
Like, put me next to any of them, on a non-hungover day, and any of them look convincingly Definitely Older than me.
Except for Chastain maybe and Boseman definitely. Chadwick and I got that black magic.
The film we got is kinda awful outside of the amazing work from the child actors.
Calling the film awful outside of the kid's roles is pants on heads out there.
I don't think it is as memorable as the 1990 miniseries, though.
One thing the miniseries really had going for it over this new version (besides Tim Curry) was the music:
I've laid out my reasons. An attractively-shot, well-acted film can still not be a good film.
Really funny too.
The Beverly stuff was uncomfortable, but a far cry better than the book so....I actually like the movie resolution better.
Best line of 2017 so far:
to just suddenly escape from my mouth. It was perfectly timed, well acted, and unexpected. Yet, i feel like it was earned. That moment made the whole movie worth while to me.
True, but you seem to have the minority opinion that this movie falls into that category.
it's a state I'm used to :razz:
I'm talking mostly about the non-book stuff the film added in, plus removing her agency by making her a damsel in distress at the end
Also the Beverly stuff bothers me a lot. It seems pretty unnecessary too--they had a reason to go down there (fight the clown, find Georgie) and Bowers could have chased them in, just like in the book. They didn't need to damsel her and make her some kind of fairy tale princess. Especially given that she's their best fighter in the novel.
Not a huge fan of the damsel in distress either but, compared to what i was dreading during the whole movie i was relieved when that was all that happened.
My expectations being ridiculously low after that fucking abortion of a Gunslinger adaptation helped, but even without that, this was a damn good film. I was suprised how much I liked Bill Skarsgard in this. He's such a good blend of funny and awful and cunning and pure Stephen King villainous dickishness.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
That was the only part I wasn't a fan of.
The original script replaced the scene you mentioned with Beverly talking to the boys, which seems like a nice way to do that.
It would have also helped give the Losers a last moment of connection before the vow dissolves their group.
Did it?
huh. I guess its been longer than i thought since i read the book.
A lot of your reasons don't really make a lot of sense outside of personal preference though. I can appreciate that you didn't like the movie but to say it's a bad film is a bit odd.
Also, I don't see how a person can say they'd have preferred the original Fukunaga film plan when the movie was never made to even be judged.
Again, you not liking the film is 100% fine. To say it's a bad movie is somewhat disingenuous.
"Preferred to see" and "preferred" are not the same thing
And I think that no matter how great a movie looks or some of the performances are, if a film doesn't have a cohesive narrative or adhere to any semblance of logic while indulging in worn-out cliches and misogynistic tropes, I'm gonna call those things out and label it a failure.
I wasn't scared or delighted, I was bored and annoyed.
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09
P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359
Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E
I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
See my profile here!