MovieChat Forums > GhostHeart > Replies
GhostHeart's Replies
Yeah, not unexpected, but very sad news. He was always great in his role, he had such life, and he'll be missed.
Good question, I find it quite odd myself.
Nah, I don't think so. I did see it recently, and I don't recall one. It really was kind of pointless to make that random hit-man a well-known killer from the Batman mythos. Much like Gotham, I don't think they actually used him in a way that's much at all representative of the comics, though maybe Zsasz has changed New 52 up, as I'll admit a lacking of knowledge from era to now.
Well, I mean, it makes difference enough to the family, as I'm sure they'd much rather have their older relatives back in younger bodies over just having modern day slaves who wouldn't question anything (the more and more I think about it, the more annoyed with myself about not thinking there'd be a twist, when obviously that couldn't have been all it was).
I liked Chris' friend enough and the comedy relief, but he did what I always see in other media and went too far when talking to the police. It's very simple: a man who is currently missing has been located under odd circumstances, here's a picture, could you look into it? For all I know it's actually more realistic to try to explain everything in a case like that, no matter if it makes you sound insane, but if you're going that route, at least admit from the beginning that you know it'll sound unbelievable. I don't know, that scene really annoyed me, but yeah, I enjoyed the rest of the scenes he was in.
I honestly haven't followed the X-Men movie universe since the atrocious X-Men 3 (though I did see The Wolverine), and quite frankly nothing after it has caught my interest until the trailer for this one. Being a fan of both the New Mutants 80's comic series and horror movies, this looks extremely interesting, and I'm quite looking forward to it.
Or, you know, it could just be an interesting take on the superhero genre. The director said he wanted to make this a straight up psychological horror, and I'm quite interested to see how that'll turn out. But sure, just denigrate everyone who likes "dark" and "gritty" movies as "emos", I'm sure that works as well.
Quite the opposite, I how they do go for his origins (what we saw of it) from the book, as I quite enjoyed that aspect of things, the almost meta-physical Ritual of Chüd, and the smoke-hole scene, which would have been in this one except it supposedly cost too much. They won't do all of what I want them to show, but I liked that book origin, and would quite like it in the next part.
You say "only gotten" an 8.2. Yes, I think when the dust has settled, this will score in-between 7.7 and 8.3, but for a horror movie, that is a really damn good rating, in regards to IMDb scores. No, it's not the 8.5 of Psycho (1960) or Alien (1979), but I'd argue it's a really good rating considering everything. Hell, even if it takes a dive and ends up at 7, that's still actually a good rating for a horror movie. Not great, but a higher than the average of the horror that generally get released.
I have no thoughts on Fukunaga as a director. I don't think I've ever watched anything he's done, and maybe he would have done a movie better than the one we have, but from my point of view, with the ideas he wanted in the movie which I quoted, I can say I wouldn't have liked the movie as much, unless he did some amazing other things with the other parts of the film.
Obviously it comes down to personal choice, but from what I've read about the ideas he had for the movie, I much prefer the director who actually got the final job. To quote about the ideas from TVTropes:
"After several years working on the project Fukunaga ultimately left the project in 2015, citing Executive Meddling that clashed with his artistic vision. He had planned for some pretty strange changes, re-naming many of the characters: Bill became Willy, Henry became Travis, Belch became Snatch and Patrick Hockstetter became Patrick Hockstettler. His more extreme changes from the source material — which were included in subsequent drafts — included Henry Bowers having sex with a sheep, ejaculating on a birthday cake, and gave Pennywise backstory of sorts (the 2014 version had him trigger an attack at a bar in the 1800's for his own amusement while the 2015 version had made him a Wendigo-type figure who had been living around since Colonial Times). In addition, the script wouldn't have emphasized Pennywise's shapeshifting abilities as much, which is something that Andrés Muschietti wanted to change when they revised the script."
Again, it comes down to taste, but the final movie was much closer to the book then what it sounds like Cary's vision would have been, so I'm happy with the final product.
Well, the original setting for the novel would have been 1956, if we're talking about the children, and 1960 in the miniseries, again, for the children. They set this version in 1989 so it'd be able to capture some of the 80's feelings and nostalgia movies always try to seem to get, and so 27 years later it'd be around 2016, which is sufficiently up to date that I doubt people in 2019 will be concerned it's 3 years behind current time.
It reminded me of Moonrise Kingdom, actually, and probably falls under the same category: I doubt it was the intention of the filmmakers to illicit arousal, but for some people I have no doubt either scenes from both movies could.
I'm generally an originalist, so I still wish the kids portion could have taken place in the 50's, but for the most part I think it was a good movie with some interesting concepts, beautiful cinematography, and I liked the version of Pennywise, though I was he'd have appeared in clown form a bit more then he did.
I'm unsure if they'll use the smoke-hole scene (the director wanted it in this one, but it was claimed it'd have cost too much to film, and thus was cut), but the director has said he's like to go into It's backstory in the second part, and I'm all them trying to fit as much book stuff as possible into the second part as long as the story they've adapted can still be followed and not get over-cluttered.
Yeah, I get all that, I just didn't want to go into that detail due to (possible?) spoilers for whatever backstory they decide to give It in part two. I very much doubt the Macroverse will make the transition (making it 0/2), but hey, it's not 100% impossible, since the there were references to turtles in the movie.
That's why I was asking, since I only have a book-reader impression of It.
According to the director, the second part will more go into the origins and backstory of what It actually was. I realize that doesn't exactly help you for this part, but the director did foresee this issue. In fact, there was going to be a scene that went into more detail about it, but it was apparently too costly to film, so the producers (or whoever makes the money decisions) had it cut. In the book, basically, It was a quasi-immortal being from outside the universe that feasts on fear and belief.
As for the Beverly/whore thing, she wasn't in the books, and it seems that she was accused of it just because she was a poor but good looking girl. Kids and teens can be awful that way, accusing people of things like that, which is what I'd guess it was going for.
What did you think didn't make sense? I've always been interested in how people see adaptations of novels without having read the original works or anything. Since I have, I gloss over/full in anything that didn't make sense from what I know from the book, so it's hard to get that point-of-view.
I'm unsure if you want answers based on the novel or just trying to extrapolate from the movie, but I'll try my best to answer these. I've read the book, and have seen both the miniseries and got back an hour ago from seeing the movie.
1) I'm unsure what she said about her father in regards to her vision, if anything. I'd need to watch it again, as it seems I missed that, but it seemed like a pretty fatal head-hit to me, though head wounds bleed a lot, so it's up in the air.
2) Yeah, in the book and the miniseries Mike is the historian-lite, and Ben is an architect. Obviously they wanted to make Ben infinitely more interesting than Mike in this version, since they handed that off to Ben for some reason. But no, it wasn't a miniseries alteration, that's how it was in the novel.
3) Yeah, that's the basics of Henry's story in the novel. One could argue that It used it's abilities to somehow help Henry to survive to take the blame for the murders, but we'll not know into part two.
4) You're right that all of they helped to clean it in the novel and miniseries. This adaptation lost a lot of the 'magic of friendship' stuff that was in the book, so maybe they figured it was good enough to just have five of her friends help clean up the bathroom.
I'm unsure how good those answers were, but yeah, basically most of those are original things from the book that this version decided for one reason or another to change.
Yes, overweight people are much scarier than multi-layered teeth monsters, I forgot. I thought generally it was a really well done scene, and if all you could focus on was Ben's weight, I feel you missed the point.
Alas, it seems they decided to save that for the second part, as there was only a slight hint of the spider form at the end in the final confrontation.
There were a couple references to turtles, and I picked up on it, but I was specifically looking, and there was no, "Turtle in the macroverse" scene sadly.
Alas, they decided to not go for that in the first part, I'm sure they'll save it for the second part. I was disappointed, but I can understand the reasoning even if I don't like it.
And I'd just point out that in the book, they did fight It in the spider form as children, in case there's any misconception about that.