This rewrite is better than the original - It (2017) Discussion

[–] grindovermatter (380) 7 years ago

Anyone who tries to say the miniseries was better than this really needs to take off their nostalgia goggles. The only good thing about the miniseries was Tim Curry's performance, aside from that it's pretty terrible.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6215) 7 years ago

please exit the hall

reply

[–] grindovermatter (380) 7 years ago

Again, take off the nostalgia goggles. The miniseries does not hold up, at all.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6215) 7 years ago

how old are you?
when did you first watch the mini-series?
when was the last time you watched it?

reply

[–] grindovermatter (380) 7 years ago

Older than you
Before you did
Last week

reply

[–] Macnickster (33) 7 years ago

I agree. Just saw it, was really good. Might pop on thoes old nostalgia goggles and rewatch the miniseries though, cheesiness B acting and all

reply

[–] grindovermatter (380) 7 years ago

It's worth a revisit, because like I said, Tim Curry's performance as Pennywise is iconic, but that is literally the miniseries' only redeeming value.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

No, Grind, I'd say the children, too.

reply

[–] Macnickster (33) 7 years ago

A couple of the kids, especially Seth green. Aan most of the adult actors
Were big tv acters at the time. The judge from night court played Richie and He was the funniest part of the original for me.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6215) 7 years ago

that's not gonna fly with me, bud

reply

[–] membrane29 (228) 7 years ago

That didn't go to well for you did it, legnadibrom lol
Face it, the original mini series is NOT a classic.
It was good when we were kids, but watching it as an adult, most of us can recognize it for the poorly acted, cheesy crap it really is.

The new version is actually a good film. Good acting, cinematography, score etc
Not just a good horror film but a good film that film buffs will enjoy.

The mini series was directed by Tom Holland......lol. He is a shit director.
He got lucky with IT simply because of Tim Curry. That is it.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6215) 7 years ago

exsqueeze me?
ever heard of a little horror movie called "child's play??"
i guess holland got lucky with brad dourif, too,
the new version has an awkward scene where the kids throw rocks at each other while an anthrax song plays....uh trying to be edgy?
did you notice that the rocks were CGI? and they pasted some of the kids together to make it look like they're all throwing in unison?
you can hadat bro.
i am a very buff film buff & i disagree wholeheartedly with everything you've said about the new film,,, the acting by that nerdy kid? sheesh, couldn't someone shut that kid up,
the scene with the kids in their underoos...paging victor salva & the kid from "clown house..." does this bring back memories you two?
my fav part is when IT moves towards the camera in jumpcuts because otherwordly entities hasten towards their prey in post-90s MTV style-type ways,
who cleaned up all those dead kid bodies once they all stopped floating?

reply

[–] membrane29 (228) 7 years ago

Haha Child's Play is somewhat of a classic but it is hardly a great film!
CGI rocks? No, I didn't notice that , I don't care if they are CGI....Who gives a shit?

"who cleaned up all those dead kid bodies once they all stopped floating?"

Funny, I actually asked the same question lol. But again, who cares? The film ended shortly after that, so we don't know do we?

These little things really don't need to be an issue, mate.

I couldn't really make a lot of sense out of the rest of your comment, sorry.

reply

[–] elfie-5 (30) 7 years ago

I'm 40. I saw the mini-series for the first time when I was 13 and it first aired on TV. I saw it for the second time about a month ago.

Grindovermatter is right. Tim Curry's performance aside, the mini-series is pretty terrible. It had a lot of parts that didn't make sense, and it's a pale imitation of the book.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6215) 7 years ago

getting on grind's good side won't make you look cool on these here 'boards

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

I thought the miniseries was ok but it wasn't scary which if I'm not mistaken "IT" is supposed to be a horror story. If you want cheesyness then ok fine you win. The miniseries is a cheesier version of IT.

reply

[–] membrane29 (228) 7 years ago

legnadibrom LOL I genuinely laughed out loud at that.
Why would someone be trying to get on "Grind's" good side? Is he the popular one on this site? Is he like the cool kid at school everyone wants to be around?
I think you MIGHT be a moron....

MAYBE he just happens to agree with him? Did that cross your mind too?

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6215) 7 years ago

i'm glad i got you to laugh

reply

[–] membrane29 (228) 7 years ago

Bless your little, cotton balls.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Yes, the acting is atrocious and it's laughably cheap.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I notice that everyone talks really fast in the original, like they wanted it hurried to get through the material.

reply

[–] membrane29 (228) 7 years ago

Grindovermatter - I remember you from IMDB lol. We tend to agree on a lot of things.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 7 years ago

I wasn't impressed. Reminded me too much of Stranger Things(hate it).

reply

[–] incarnate1 (31) 7 years ago

It was definitely good, not sure about better than the original, but I like that they didn't copy it scene for scene; and the entire second half being original. However, there was something more menacing about Tim Curry's It in his playful outer demeanor, hiding his vile inner intentions; whereas Skarsgard's It plays the straight "scary monster" almost negating the entire purpose of the clown appearance.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Thats a great point. Curry looks like any clown you'd see, whereas Skarsgard's clown doesnt seem human at all.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Erm... that's cos it isn't, Night.

reply

[–] Eddym123 (156) 7 years ago

I explained in another thread that making Pennywise look like something out of spawn is what takes away from the scare level. We are supposed to buy the fact that a child would engage in conversation with the the clown in this film in a storm drain. He is not supposed to look frightening until it is too late. The fact he looked like a real clown that children would approach is the thing that made him scary. Seeing a colorful, happy looking clown in a sewer drain creates a juxposition that works in a terrifying way. The film misses those important characteristics of the clown.

reply

[–] membrane29 (228) 7 years ago

Eddym123 the scene where IT kills Georgie in the sewer is the only scene where the clown needed to look like a harmless clown....And to be fair, in this version, it is the only scene where the clown does looks somewhat normal.
Every other scene with IT after that, IT looks scary.....Which makes sense since IT is actually trying to scare the kids, not fool them in to think he is harmless.
Either way, it is still crazy to trust a guy dressed as a clown who is in the drain.
Think about it lol.

reply

[–] membrane29 (228) 7 years ago

incarnate1
In the original series, Pennywise only ever needed to seem innocent when he was luring Georgie...
That was literally the only scene where he needed to look like a normal, harmless clown.
Every other scene where he is scaring the kids, he isn't trying to fool them, he is straight up trying to scare the shit outta them.
That is why it makes more sense that Pennywise would look more menacing than he did in the original.

reply

[–] Eddym123 (156) 7 years ago

No, the innocent look was a major aspect of the character. He looks like a normal clown in the throwback photos and when people see him during various disastrous events, he is not a monstrous clown. In the part were we have insight into the mind of IT, it is explained why he chose a clown as one of the glamours, "What child doesn't love a clown." And his appearance to Georgie is still a loss as that clown never seems anything but menacing. Nice try though.

reply

[–] membrane29 (228) 7 years ago

What do you mean "nice try"? lol I wasn't wrong....It's called a different way of looking at it.
What I said still stands. In this new version, there is literally only ONE scene where the clown needed to look innocent and that is the beginning scene with Georgie.
You could say that doesn't work because the clown looked too sinister....But sinister or not, it's still crazy to trust a clown in the sewer..
After that scene, Pennywise is always trying to scare the kids (not fool them in to thinking it's a friendly clown) therefore it totally works for the rest of the film lol.
You get it?

" In the part were we have insight into the mind of IT, it is explained why he chose a clown as one of the glamours, "What child doesn't love a clown.""

This doesn't even happen in the film, therefore is irrelevant lol. Nice try though..

reply

[–] Eddym123 (156) 7 years ago

Nice try= Your attempts to backup you view in which you failed to successfully do. I do not care about a different way of looking at it, I am talking about the facts. in the new version there is not one scene in which he looks remotely approachable. In the novel, after that scene, he appears as a regular clown in more than a few instances. He is normal looking when the kids spot him a random time like Mike did during his parade. In the old photos and even when spotted at the scenes of his awakening disaster he looks like a regular clown. Also, the point of mentioning the insight is to back up what the essence of what the shape IT took was meant to do, so it is very relevant. I haven't tried anything as what I have stated is indisputable facts, as opposed to your twisted view on the matter.

"But sinister or not, it's still crazy to trust a clown in the sewer.."
Ok, so just put evil clown down there it wont matter, right? Think about what you said!

reply

[–] membrane29 (228) 7 years ago

We aren't talking about the novel....We are talking about the film which does not completely follow the novel to the core.

"in the new version there is not one scene in which he looks remotely approachable."

And my point was, IN THE NEW VERSION he does not NEED to look approachable, since IT isn't trying to lure the kids away, IT either full on attacks them right away or tries to scare them first then kills them. Other than the scene with Georgie's death, there are no other scenes where the clown needed to look friendly. What is in the novel is not relevant.
Are you really that so up your own ass that you cannot comprehend this simple point?

Your point only applies to the first 5 minutes of the film since that is the only time the clown needed to look slightly approachable, whilst it lured Georgie.
Which would be a fair point, although since it is just 1 short scene in a 2 hour film, it isn't that much of an issue.
And to be fair, in that scene, Pennywise looks a lot less sinister than it does for the rest of the film. You can't really see his whole face properly.
And again, this is not the novel....It is never said that IT takes the form of the a clown to look approachable. Since it needs to scare the shit out of it's prey first (which happen to be children..), it makes sense that it would take the form of......A terrifying clown.

You following me? You're gonna stick to your guns aren't you, you stubborn man lol.
I wasn't even trying to prove you wrong about anything, just offering a different way of looking at it but you are so freaking proud of yourself, you just can't comprehend it lol.

reply

[–] Stringey (260) 7 years ago

This is off topic but reading about the throwback photos of old clowns made me think of this. Imo old clowns especially from the early days like the 50's are scary looking even when they are supposed to be innocent looking. Clowns like bozo are creepy looking.

reply

[–] membrane29 (228) 7 years ago

Yes it is heaps better than the mini series and anyone who disagrees with this, I judge their taste in film.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7146) 7 years ago

I tend to disagree. Whether or not you like the mini-series original or novel, on it's own I don't think the movie is amazingly written.

It lacks a lot of depth and character development and there's never a moment where you really feel they can't escape IT. As for nostalgia goggles, this movie relies very heavily on the nostalgia of the mini-series (hello, the line we all float down here) without actually paying off the moments it steals - and that includes the moments you think are going to be scary that just aren't.

As for the love triangle...Just no. They didn't develop the characters enough for me to invest in a love story between any of the characters. I would've been more excited if Mike ran away with the sheep from the slaughterhouse because he loved his pet Lambchop.

reply

[–] carmenjones411 (28) 7 years ago

You are spot on with this post.
I couldn't have said it better

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7146) 7 years ago

Thanks, pal.

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (2308) 7 years ago

You clearly didn't read the book. The story being broken up between kids and adults is exactly how it is in the book.

The house in Neibolt street is also directly from the book. Although it doesn't replace the barrens, both exist. He didn't mix his own ideas with the original he stayed closer to source material.

reply

[–] carmenjones411 (28) 7 years ago

I think omitting the adults in this film removes the heart and beauty of the actual story.
The film was nothing but a kids horror film. There was no substance in it.

reply

[–] bohemianroxie (2478) 7 years ago

"I think omitting the adults in this film removes the heart and beauty of the actual story.
The film was nothing but a kids horror film. There was no substance in it."

Exactly...I found it disappointing for this reason alone..But to me it's a big reason.
And a major disappointment.
I wasn't that impressed with the way the original was handled and have no problem with a remake..but omitting the kids as adults and the trauma that followed them across the decades kind of just boils it down to one thing.
A kids horror movie.
The book was one of Stephen Kings best, in my opinion...and I liked the epic nature of it all. Just concentrating on the kids takes away this dynamic..

I hear that they will be making a sequel to include the adults...so we'll see how that goes.

reply

[–] Stringey (260) 7 years ago

Also the kids will return as additional flashbacks. The thing is they need to film the new kid stuff fast because unlike adults kids grow and change fast in two years.

reply

[–] bohemianroxie (2478) 7 years ago

You're right about that. They'd better get cranking on it right away..
Carl from TWD and Bran on GOT shot up about 8 inches in just a few years.