The 1990 version was excellent and considered a classic so what's the point of doing it again? No one remembers the 1997 remake of The Shining. Same with Carrie, the 1976 version was a classic and no one remembers the 2002 or 2013 versions. People need to stop watching remakes if they want writers to stop making them.
shareThis isn't a remake dumbass. They're not remaking the TV mini-series. They're re-adapting the Book. The TV mini-series was good and yes a classic but it left out HUGE amounts of detail and story from the Book.
You're one of the imbeciles who seems to think this new movie is a remake when it simply isn't.
Well considering the original sucked ass it is warranted. Also you can't really call it a remake when it was not even remotely faithful to the source material. This is the first real attempt at it.
shareI'm sorry but this needed to be remade. Badly!! Anyone who liked the TV miniseries obviously hasn't read the book. The book is a masterpiece.
shareI was 23 when the original version of "It" was shown on TV. I really enjoyed it and still enjoy watching it on DVD.
I have no problem with remakes - as long as they can bring something new and different to the table.
The new version of "It" looks interesting to me and I look forward to seeing it this weekend.
If it sucks then I'm out 9 bucks for the ticket.
If it's good I will pick up the Bluray when it's released and it will sit side by side with the original version in my collection.
The "movie police" did not come to my house and confiscate the original version from my collection being that the remake is now in theaters. I can still watch the original anytime I want.
I agree that many remakes suck but I will always keep an open mind. There are a few gems :)
"The 1990 version was excellent..."
You lost me right there. The original was utter crap, only watchable for Curry....and just once is more than enough.
Another pointless post from another idiot who doesn't understand that it is NOT A REMAKE!
Oh and the mini series was not excellent, your taste in film is bad. Deal with it.
Call it scary, call it funny, call it innovative, call it the best movie ever. But it's still a remake. They adapted Stephen King's novel for the screen before and now they've done it again.
shareWe may as well give up on there being a terrifying scary adaptation of another Stephen King novel or short story. All we got was The Shinning and a few good adaptations like Carrie, Christine and Shawshank.
shareThat is not what a "remake" is, you are taking the term literally! lol
A remake is a updated remake of another film.....And that is not what this is.
They did not 'remake' the mini series.....Therefore it is not a remake. We good?
I'm not sure there's a way to take it other than literally. I understand that they went back to the King source material and I understand that they didn't cover quite as much ground as they did in the mini-series, but that still doesn't disqualify it.
Maybe we could call this first film a re-adaptation or call the new movies a remake series. Those might be truer terms.
IT is not an original movie. We've seen it before. That's the important part.
Agreed. A pointless remake that wasn't scary at all. Nobody in the theater looked or acted frightened. In fact all they did was laugh.
shareWhy do people do that? lol When they don't like a film they try to pretend that nobody else they were with liked it either....Why? Yes, we are all aware of how obnoxious people act in cinemas....It is usually because they are with their friends and are trying to act tough.
I just watched it and it's pretty good actually. I also was traumatized by the 1990 mini but out wasn't as scary as I remembered it and the kid scenes were far better than the adult ones. Though I preferred the actor in the original for Bill but thought this version of Finn was definitely superior to the 1990 one.
share