It (Andrés Muschietti, 2017/2019)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#101 Post by Ribs » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:28 am

I'm very concerned but also intrigued for the inevitable moment probably around next Halloween where we're confronted with a new glut of horror films from studios confused by this success. As somebody who greatly enjoys and will eagerly go see any new installment in the Saw franchise despite it consistently being horrible, I'm very interested to see how next month's Jigsaw might try to somehow replicate this success as the next big-name horror franchise installment and also how they spin its inevitably disappointing result in comparison.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#102 Post by domino harvey » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:31 am

I wonder if even with the Dark Tower's failure it might jumpstart a King adaptation renaissance instead. There's not a lot of his works left that would lend themselves to crowd pleasing blockbusters, but I bet an update on the Tommyknockers would be a safe bet-- surely without Traci Lords killing someone with laser lipstick

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#103 Post by Ribs » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:35 am

I can fairly easily imagine them having another go at Christine or even doing a proper feature release remake of the Shining. Part of the lesson of this will probably be that people liked the King stuff from the 80s and 90s so much that they deserve more goes.

(I wonder how the upcoming Hulu series taking the Once Upon a Time approach where all of the King stories take place in the same universe in the same town will possibly affect rights for this stuff, too?)

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#104 Post by domino harvey » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:45 am

If they're intent on remaking works already adapted, the Langoliers would be another good one. The miniseries is rightfully mocked for its horrendous early CGI, but selling the initial narrative situation as a mystery to new viewers who don't remember the original would be fairly easy-- a dozen or so people aboard a commercial airliner wake up to discover everyone else on board the plane has vanished even though they're still in the air? I'm already buying my ticket

User avatar
Morbii
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:38 am

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#105 Post by Morbii » Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:01 am

Ribs wrote:I'm very concerned but also intrigued for the inevitable moment probably around next Halloween where we're confronted with a new glut of horror films from studios confused by this success. As somebody who greatly enjoys and will eagerly go see any new installment in the Saw franchise despite it consistently being horrible, I'm very interested to see how next month's Jigsaw might try to somehow replicate this success as the next big-name horror franchise installment and also how they spin its inevitably disappointing result in comparison.
A buddy of mine came up with a "what's next" list that I found humorous, and your post made me want to post it:
Nick wrote:We're gonna get IT, IT2, IT Pennywise's Curse, IT Birthright, IT Pennywise's Curse 2, IT vs Jigsaw, and finally ITs

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#106 Post by domino harvey » Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:06 am

Looking forward to Seltzer and Friedberg's depiction of Poundfoolish in Shit

rawlinson
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:35 pm

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#107 Post by rawlinson » Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:17 pm

The Narrator Returns wrote:I haven't seen this yet, but based on rawlinson's posts and what others have said, I can list some differences from the Fukunaga script.
SpoilerShow
- Some of the more grotesque violence from the Fukunaga version is changed. Georgie gets tossed around like a rag doll as Pennywise feeds on him in the script's opening, whereas in the movie he gets off a little easier and just gets his arm ripped off. Bowers stabs his dad in the eye in the script, with the knife left in when the body is discovered, while in the movie he just stabs him in the neck (apparently that's how it goes down in the book).

- There are no flashbacks to Pennywise attacks in old Derry in the movie, while in the Fukunaga version we see the massacres at the Silver Dollar Saloon and the Black Spot.

- Mike has a much bigger part in the Fukunaga version, and his father is the one having him work in a slaughterhouse. Bowers is also a much more central antagonist in that script (Stan, on the other hand, seems to get the short end of the stick no matter what version you consult).

- Bev does not get captured in the Fukunaga version, and the New Kids on the Block running gag was not in the script at all. She is implied to be a victim of sexual abuse in it, though.

- The climax is completely changed from the Fukunaga version, with that script having cosmic horror elements (including a giant starfish creature and an oculus the kids have to cross through in order to fight Pennywise) not carried over.
Sounds like the original script would have made for a far more interesting film than the one we got.

In terms of what other King novels are likely to be adapted, surely Salem's Lot would be a safe bet? Like It there's only been the miniseries and it's one of King's most iconic works.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#108 Post by domino harvey » Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:23 pm

It was actually remade in 2004 with Rob Lowe and Donald Sutherland

rawlinson
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:35 pm

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#109 Post by rawlinson » Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:28 pm

That was a miniseries as well though, wasn't it? I mean it's never had a big budget cinema treatment, which surprises me as you'd think it would be one of the most obvious choices.

I'd actually like to see some more anthology films of King's short stories. I'd love to see One for the Road adapted as part of a Creepshow style format. Or even as a stand-alone short film for release alongside a film of Salem's Lot.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#110 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:02 am

domino harvey wrote:If they're intent on remaking works already adapted, the Langoliers would be another good one. The miniseries is rightfully mocked for its horrendous early CGI, but selling the initial narrative situation as a mystery to new viewers who don't remember the original would be fairly easy-- a dozen or so people aboard a commercial airliner wake up to discover everyone else on board the plane has vanished even though they're still in the air? I'm already buying my ticket
I like the Langoliers too. It's the more plausible Left Behind! (And while the CG might not be great I love the mini-series, though I'd say that about anything with David Morse, Dean Stockwell (though I don't actually remember his character really doing anything at all!) and Frankie Faison in there. Bronson Pinchot also got to channel all that nervous energy away from playing flamboyant ethnic/gay stereotypes in Beverly Hills Cop movies and into an abused corporate madman!

Perhaps some more of his Bachman books could be adapted. Blaze could make an interesting crime drama/Of Mice and Men hybrid. And I wouldn't mind seeing a more faithful adaptation of The Running Man, maybe with the countdown structure. Though the 'happy ending' might still be too upsetting in post 9/11 times!
Last edited by colinr0380 on Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:26 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#111 Post by Ribs » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:03 am

Final estimates for the weekend are putting it just shy of $125 million. Keep in mind that the Conjuring, arguably the most recent template-setting horror hit, had a total gross of $137 million. This will change the business.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#112 Post by Finch » Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:42 pm

I've not read the book and I saw the TV two parter with Curry ages ago. I remember thinking Curry was great, the first part being okay and the second being almost terrible. This film's kids are very good and the film is often quite funny; it really gets the kids and the experience of growing up and it's sensitive to their pain. It has a great scene where something terrible happens to Beverley and her dad is completely oblivious to it. Incidentally, I think the scenes between her and her father are the scariest or most disturbing in the film.

I don't know what to say about Bill Skarsgaard really: he was effective but I think Curry had more of an impact on me. I think part of it is down to the make up. Curry looked more normal and therefore (to me) was scarier in the TV two-parter, Skarsgaard looks too obviously sinister by comparison. I will say though that the CGI is very impressive in this film.

Was it scary? Depends on what kind of scare we are talking about. It has two great jump scares but outside of above mentioned scene with Beverley in the bathroom, there wasn't anything that's likely to stay with me for long. The movie felt like an expertly put together ghost ride that can be intense in the moment but for me, it was better at observing the kids and showing their bonding together than being truly scary.

For me, personally, that's down to how the movie chooses to show the scary parts, and IT is a studio movie that doesn't trust its material to deliver on its own; it doesn't believe in moments of quiet and silence: it brings on the scary movie music and the loud bang sound effects; in short, it tells you how to feel or how to read a scene and that always tends to have the result that it disengages me from the movie.

Is it a good movie? I guess, kind of. I definitely liked it but I also think it could and frankly should have been stronger still. King's story is such potent stuff and the movie only does it justice in some aspects when, frankly, this should be a total home run.

B-

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#113 Post by cdnchris » Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:01 am

This was fun to watch with an audience and I enjoyed it. I thought it had some great imagery in it that was unnerving:
SpoilerShow
The headless child, that painting come to life, the blood in the bathroom, etc.
But it's a shame the film didn't rely more on that kind of stuff and build on the childhood fears, resorting more to jump scares that are, while fun, still not nearly as memorable. I got a bit annoyed at the many times Pennywise runs towards the camera when the most effective moment was a distorted walk he does.

I like Curry's Pennywise but I also like what Skarsgard did here. He goes a different route but it works with the film.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#114 Post by tenia » Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:38 am

Ribs wrote:Final estimates for the weekend are putting it just shy of $125 million. Keep in mind that the Conjuring, arguably the most recent template-setting horror hit, had a total gross of $137 million. This will change the business.
In what way ? Having the industry milking this beyond oblivion with actually only a handful of public and / or critic successes ? That'd be hardly changing anything.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#115 Post by Finch » Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:41 am

cdnchris wrote:I thought it had some great imagery in it that was unnerving:
SpoilerShow
The headless child, that painting come to life, the blood in the bathroom, etc.
^^Leftovers from the Fukanaga draft perhaps? I totally agree; there could and should have been more of this.


User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#117 Post by swo17 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:56 pm

A librarian junkie
Maybe he just becomes addicted to books? Or eating librarians? With this wording, it's so hard to tell.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#118 Post by domino harvey » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:57 pm

He becomes addicted to rereading Burroughs' Junky

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#119 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:04 pm

John Cena for the fat kid.

User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#120 Post by The Narrator Returns » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:11 pm

Finch wrote:
cdnchris wrote:I thought it had some great imagery in it that was unnerving:
SpoilerShow
The headless child, that painting come to life, the blood in the bathroom, etc.
^^Leftovers from the Fukanaga draft perhaps? I totally agree; there could and should have been more of this.
The
SpoilerShow
blood in the bathroom
is the only one of those that's in the Fukunaga script.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#121 Post by domino harvey » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:17 pm

Isn't that in the book?

Cde.
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#122 Post by Cde. » Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:07 pm

Fuck this movie generally, but there was one part that I wanted to specifically say fuck you to because I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere:
SpoilerShow
Kissing an unconscious girl who doesn't even want you is the key to saving her.

Robespierre
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:31 pm

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#123 Post by Robespierre » Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:15 pm

You people are so picky. As far as King adaptations go this is one of the better ones. Just be happy that the movie isn't a disaster, has made some decent money, and is actually pretty good overall.

Cde.
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#124 Post by Cde. » Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:16 pm

Robespierre wrote:You people are so picky. As far as King adaptations go this is one of the better ones. Just be happy that the movie isn't a disaster, has made some decent money, and is actually pretty good overall.
No thanks.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: It (Andres Muschietti, 2017)

#125 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:59 pm

I basically enjoyed was what a nicely shot, well-put-together, if average horror film. If there is often little imagination to how the scares and suspense are set up and executed, the dialogue and the performances of the children are so effective and believable as to rescue the film from its reliance on jumps and loud noises. I haven't read the source novel (or seen the miniseries for that matter), but I don't wonder if the exaggerated and ineffective home problems of the kids comes from it. The abusive parents often seem not far removed from Pennywise himself in their leering, squinty, over-emphatic badness. It seemed of a piece with similar stuff in Salem's Lot, the one King novel I've read. And yet, again, the interaction between the kids is credible enough to pull the movie through this stuff, and the baseline craft gathers enough atmosphere to make the film seem, if not imaginative, at least not feeble and grasping as so many ineffective horror films are. In the end, it works, it's enjoyable, at least for someone who comes to it without baggage or in the hopes that it'll pursue anything grander or more pointed than a scary clown story.
SpoilerShow
The rescuing Bev scene was weird for me mostly because it's so much out of a fairy tale (saving a maiden from sleep by kissing her). I wonder if it's a remnant of a draft that focused more heavily on the cultural influences that form childhood fears and dreams, ie. it occurs to the boys to act out a fairy tale here in kissing her because so much of what they're doing already seems right out of the books, movies, tv, and comics they've grown up on. So the scene wasn't offensive to me mostly because it seemed to be doing something that wasn't quite matching the rest of the movie, even tho' it seemed like it easily could have at one point.

Post Reply