criterionforum.org

Seeing the still of Pennywise, is he going to just be full-on scare mode? What was so awesome about Curry in the miniseries was that he was actually funny and charming for most of the part, which was so disturbing. He only turned psycho at the point of getting his prey. I saw the miniseries again this weekend. Still great, though I forgot about how stupid the bit was once

Spoiler

they kill the spider 'IT' and rip his body apart with their bare hands, to extract his 'heart'

.

thirtyframesasecond wrote:Seeing the still of Pennywise, is he going to just be full-on scare mode?

I hope you're not talking about the EW still posted earlier. That looks decidedly unintentionally funny/really bad/unlikely to scare up.. uh.. scares...

The Narrator Returns wrote:I online-know someone who read Cary Fukunaga's draft of this, and apparently the trailer looks almost exactly like it. So make of that what you will.

And I have now read that script myself. I haven't read the book or watched the miniseries, so I can't speak to any changes Fukunaga made (all I can speak on are the differences from the trailer, and on that front I can say that the scene with the slide projector and the one with the balloon in the library are definitely not in the script), but I will say that I'm a bit surprised it gave the studio cold feet, since it seemed fairly straightforward to me and not much different than what the trailer is selling.

The Narrator Returns wrote:

The Narrator Returns wrote:I online-know someone who read Cary Fukunaga's draft of this, and apparently the trailer looks almost exactly like it. So make of that what you will.

And I have now read that script myself. I haven't read the book or watched the miniseries, so I can't speak to any changes Fukunaga made (all I can speak on are the differences from the trailer, and on that front I can say that the scene with the slide projector and the one with the balloon in the library are definitely not in the script), but I will say that I'm a bit surprised it gave the studio cold feet, since it seemed fairly straightforward to me and not much different than what the trailer is selling.

I do hope you circle back and let us know your impressions once you see the entire film, I find this fascinating re: what a studio feels needs to be changed to make a film marketable.

The Narrator Returns wrote:

The Narrator Returns wrote:I online-know someone who read Cary Fukunaga's draft of this, and apparently the trailer looks almost exactly like it. So make of that what you will.

And I have now read that script myself. I haven't read the book or watched the miniseries, so I can't speak to any changes Fukunaga made (all I can speak on are the differences from the trailer, and on that front I can say that the scene with the slide projector and the one with the balloon in the library are definitely not in the script), but I will say that I'm a bit surprised it gave the studio cold feet, since it seemed fairly straightforward to me and not much different than what the trailer is selling.

Did Cary Fukunaga's script have the childhood portion set in the 1950s? I remember reading a lot of conflicting information about that while Fukunaga was still on board.

From the trailer, as others have pointed out, it really seems like setting this in the 1980s has (probably unintentionally) made the production look a lot like Stranger Things, which of course drew some inspiration from the novel IT (among other works). Overall, it does look a lot better than the miniseries, which had a well-performed childhood section but not much else.

The childhood portion (which is the entirety of the script, outside of flashbacks to the massacres at the Silver Dollar Saloon and the Black Spot) is set in 1987/1988.

Honestly making the film all childhood section sounds like a good idea. The adult section never really worked for me in miniseries or novel.

Is the entirety of the film rewritten to only focus on the childhood segment? Is the second part (sequel) focusing on the adults segment from the book not still planned for release?

gfxtwin wrote:Is the entirety of the film rewritten to only focus on the childhood segment? Is the second part (sequel) focusing on the adults segment from the book not still planned for release?

Having read the Fukunaga draft a while ago, I can confirm what The Narrator Returns says: it exclusively adapts the childhood half of the book. And, as far as the world knows, the sequel hasn't been greenlit yet.

This movie's "official" title is It: Part 1 - The Losers' Club, but I assume they're saving the reveal of it being two parts for the movie's release/box office results.

Also, one more thing about the script; having read it, I now understand and honestly like the initial casting of Will Poulter as Pennywise. Fukunaga's conception of Pennywise (I don't know if this was King's version of the character as well) is described as "almost child-like" and looking like "a 19th century acrobat", and I can see Poulter fitting that look more than the floated (hehe) names of Mendelsohn and Rylance.

The Narrator Returns wrote:Also, one more thing about the script; having read it, I now understand and honestly like the initial casting of Will Poulter as Pennywise. Fukunaga's conception of Pennywise (I don't know if this was King's version of the character as well) is described as "almost child-like" and looking like "a 19th century acrobat", and I can see Poulter fitting that look more than the floated (hehe) names of Mendelsohn and Rylance.

I read an article from one of those buzz sites the other day but it was saying that Pennywise is "too scary" in the sense that from the trailer he is portrayed only as scary/menacing/violent/frightening. If it does turn out that way in the movie that article does have a point because Curry seemed to play it more close to the book with Pennywise having a warm , humorous and welcoming approach to his victims since you know he has to have a way to make them approach him and it makes the murders all the more jarring.

Anyways I always thought Poulter was a great, great pick. I have not seen Bill Skarsgaard in anything so I have no idea what to expect.

A second trailer

This one is even closer to the Fukunaga script. The sneaker they find in the script is Dorsey Coen's, and there's no floating balloon there, but otherwise it's almost dead-on.

The Narrator Returns wrote:A second trailer

This one is even closer to the Fukunaga script. The sneaker they find in the script is Dorsey Coen's, and there's no floating balloon there, but otherwise it's almost dead-on.

Link is not working.

The Narrator Returns wrote:Here's a working link

Huh. I liked that a lot more than expected. I think I'd watch a whole movie of that.

Color me shocked: WB let It get an R rating. I thought for sure they'd insist on a PG-13 given the laundry list of interference they've foisted on this project from the get-go

You'll float too in this Official new trailer.

It's obviously played up because it's you know, a trailer but it's one of my favorite King stories so I'll be there.

I think we got the right amount of more IT and we even get a brief scene of him speaking. Looks very good

Are they doing this in two parts, one for the kids and one for the adults section?

hanshotfirst1138 wrote:Are they doing this in two parts, one for the kids and one for the adults section?

That's the plan. The director gave a statement very recently and specified the start date for part 2:

carmilla mircalla wrote:

hanshotfirst1138 wrote:Are they doing this in two parts, one for the kids and one for the adults section?

That's the plan. The director gave a statement very recently and specified the start date for part 2:

He and studio are pretty confident in it then. Wonder if they'll do a director's cut on video and HD with bifurcated structure of the novel ala Godfather? I actually have a little soft spot for the old TV miniseries, which though cheesy and cheap, has that great Tim Curry performance at the center.

It does not matter all that much to me but apparently the studio heads waved the usual "Don't be hard on the kids" thing for Modern Horror films. The film won't be like the TV film which, to my recollection was much more suggestive with it's violence. My recollection of the book was that it was pretty grotesque towards the children which actually lead to complaints from people. I can't say I'm looking forward to that but since children are spared nowadays it'll be interesting to see how critics and audiences react. It's still one of my favorite King stories regardless.

I never made it through the novel and was already too old to be suitably traumatised by the mini-series of It but I really liked "Mama" which is why I want to see this. I lot of horror fans seem to be down on it but Muschietti displayed real flair in the way he built up to and staged scares, the idea of two abandoned children raised by something otherworldly was handled surprisingly well and Jessica Chastain was as good as she's been in anything.

Here's a picture of Bill Skarsgard in full makeup looking menacing. I'll put it in spoiler tags because I got my ass chewed out earlier for "propagating people's fear of clowns."

Spoiler