criterionforum.org

Stephen King's It is having another go at adaptation, this time as a feature length film for Warner's.

So they'll be cutting even more things out. Also who'd be a good Pennywise replacement? Tim Curry was the one perfect thing about the mini-series.

Sam Rockwell, though I don't think he's going anywhere near a clown-set again

That movie is responsible for my fear of clowns. I had a wonderful babysitter when I was 5.

This is reminding me of the time I rented The Stand mini-series. I don't like being reminded of the time I rented The Stand mini-series

M-O-O-N, that spells "regret"

I think it's a good idea to adapt It again as I feel the TV film really missed the mark. I'm very curious as to who will direct it. I've always felt that Bernardo Bertolucci or Alfonso Cuaron would make wonderful films out of the novel.

domino harvey wrote:M-O-O-N, that spells "regret"

The only thing worse than Stephen King nonsense words in print is Stephen King nonsense words on film. I mean, has there ever been an even remotely successful adaptation of his work? That dialogue simply cannot be performed, it cannot be spoken out loud. Dreamcatcher is the perfect example of this, a film which seems to have attempted to translate the book as literally as possible. I defy anyone to get through it, fucking characters spouting lines like "Jesus-Christ Bananas, some fuckaroo this is turning into!" every 5 seconds with complete sincerity. Shawshank smartly left most of that shit out, although there are still a few moments, but that movie sucks for entirely different reasons.

Binker wrote: has there ever been an even remotely successful adaptation of his work?

The Dead Zone worked out rather well.

Shawshank is one of my all-time favorite movies. There, I said it.

Mom, is that you?

Mr_sausage wrote:The Dead Zone worked out rather well.

Haven't seen it and can't really remember the book too well. But looking over a list of adaptations, I actually do think Carrie is fairly good and obviously the Shining works. Neither of those films suffer from the problem I'm speaking of, so obviously that statement is too broad, but I do firmly believe that most King adaptations are dead before they even get off the ground due to this very issue. So much of the dialogue just doesn't play, and most screenwriters don't know what to leave out.

Also, apparently a TV-miniseries of The Dark Tower is in the works with JJ Abrams attached. These are actually the only King books I've read in the past few years. I ran through pretty much everything he wrote from the ages of 11-12. A couple years ago, I decided I wanted to finish this series and chose to start from the beginning. The last three books are just complete disasters, not even worth discussing, but I enjoyed the first four and I thought the story within a story of Roland's youth in book four was the highlight of the entire series.

Anyway, I don't see how these can possibly be translated to the screen. Portals between worlds, elaborate back stories entirely unrelated to the central narrative, violently split personalities, King himself in the story, the plot would be impossible to follow on film without forcing the characters to explain it. Beyond all that, King is at his absolute kookiest with the language here. Virtually all spoken word would need to be rewritten, and the constantly repeated little sayings unique to King's world entirely cut out.

Binker wrote:

domino harvey wrote:M-O-O-N, that spells "regret"

I mean, has there ever been an even remotely successful adaptation of his work?

Misery wasn't bad.

SK adaptations that I believe worked for the most part;

Carrie
Dead Zone
Pet Sematary
Salem's Lot
The Mist
Misery
Dolores Claiborne
Shawshank Redemption
Christine
The Shining
The Green Mile
The Running Man
Storm of the Century

Cary Fukunaga directing and co-writing a two-film adaptation of Stephen King's It. One of the few books from my teenage King phase I look back on fondly, this could be really good if Warners commits to these as R-rated event pics-- at the very least, they couldn't be any weaker than the neutered miniseries adaptation!

If I remember the book correctly some parts of it could warrant especially in this day and age an NC-17. That said I do hope they cut out the blowjob scene.

Warners have been playing around with the idea for a new screen adaptation of IT for a few years. There was a screenwriter on this a couple years ago who gave an interview about it saying he was going to modernize the novel - have the kid scenes taken place in 1986 instead of the the late 1950's, and the adult scenes in 2013 (or so) instead of, well, 1986. According to this announcement that idea was abandoned (good, I think this story would lose something without the fifties element) & there are new people on this project now. Splitting this into two films is also a great idea. I didn't see the new version of Jane Eyre, but it looked beautiful from the trailer, and there is beauty as well as horror to be found in King's novel - which I too loved as a kid - so I commend their choice of director. It's years away, but I'm already looking forward to this IT.

domino harvey wrote:Cary Fukunaga directing and co-writing a two-film adaptation of Stephen King's It. One of the few books from my teenage King phase I look back on fondly, this could be really good if Warners commits to these as R-rated event pics-- at the very least, they couldn't be any weaker than the neutered miniseries adaptation!

Wow, this is actually happening: Filming starts in the summer

domino harvey wrote:...and apparently Fukunaga's It adaptation will update the time frame so the kids' story no longer takes place in the 50s. Boooooooooooooo

I would love to see a great, loyal adaptation of It, but I just don't see how anyone can film the climax* of that book.

*no pun intended

Optimism level for Fukunaga's It adaptation has officially be reset to ZERO after a 22-year-old nobody has been announced as Pennywise to appease New Line's desire for "younger" appeal -- seriously, what the fuck

domino harvey wrote:Optimism level for Fukunaga's It adaptation has officially be reset to ZERO after a 22-year-old nobody has been announced as Pennywise to appease New Line's desire for "younger" appeal -- seriously, what the fuck

I mean, I agree that the reasoning by New Line is poor. But in all fairness, he looks the part (he looks a lot like Tim Curry, too). And would you have wanted a big name star playing an unimaginable entity you're supposed to fear? His age is literally the only thing I question at this point, and I'm not sure that will even be an issue.

Apparently Ben Mendelsohn was in the running and then they still just cast the kid who looks like he's playing Henry Bowers as It. It's just the latest head-scratcher coming from a project I once had a lot of faith in. I hope I'm proved wrong, of course

According to that article, the writer is Seth Grahame-Smith. Surely that's also reason for concern?

domino harvey wrote:Apparently Ben Mendelsohn was in the running and then they still just cast the kid who looks like he's playing Henry Bowers as It. It's just the latest head-scratcher coming from a project I once had a lot of faith in. I hope I'm proved wrong, of course

Wow, I did not know Mendelsohn was in the running. He really would have been perfect.

They were also seriously considering Mark Rylance, who's really been stepping up his filmed output lately.