It (2017)

[Shawn Elestren]

This movie MUST have the 1955-1985 chronology (the 5-year shift for the TV movie was acceptable) for it to work correctly.

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by camper

Or Andy Serkis. Either way they will be loaded with makeup and CGI enhanced, so it's more fluidity of movement and who can do the creepier voice.

Couldn't agree more. With today's techonology, who cares who is behind the physical mask (because there really isn't a lot of physicality to Pennywise as a character), it's the voice that will really sell it in the end. Sort of like Darth Maul in TPM...acted by Ray Park but masterfully voiced (albeit breifly), by Peter Serafinowicz.

The truth is, in the 80s miniseries, they could have put Pennywise's makeup on anyone and anyone could have done decent facial expressions, but it was Curry's voice that stole the show.

[Hubunkey]

They need to keep the orgy scene from the book in the movie lol.
Stephen King is a pervert

[BladeRunner2007]

Originally Posted by Hubunkey

They need to keep the orgy scene from the book in the movie lol.
Stephen King is a pervert

Imo it works wonderfully in the book. But no movie could make it work... ever!

[punkguy03]

Out of every scary movie this one still scares me! Stupid clown! My mom and gf both will post junk of "IT" on fb and stuff just to mess with me.

I think I need to try watching the movie again to get over it.

[Shawn Elestren]

Originally Posted by Col. Zombie

Couldn't agree more. With today's techonology, who cares who is behind the physical mask (because there really isn't a lot of physicality to Pennywise as a character), it's the voice that will really sell it in the end. Sort of like Darth Maul in TPM...acted by Ray Park but masterfully voiced (albeit breifly), by Peter Serafinowicz.

The truth is, in the 80s miniseries, they could have put Pennywise's makeup on anyone and anyone could have done decent facial expressions, but it was Curry's voice that stole the show.

Disagree with every syllable of this.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by Hubunkey

They need to keep the orgy scene from the book in the movie lol.
Stephen King is a pervert

I'm not sure that'd be legal.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Shawn Watson

Disagree with every syllable of this.

agreed - you can't just toss people in makeup and expect it to work. Look at the Halloween films. They tried that with Nightmare on Elm Street 2 and quickly realised it wasn't going to work so they called back Robert Englund and never tried it again. The voice is part of it but you need someone who understands what is going on in the mind to make the proper expressions and such otherwise it just looks bad. If it was as simple as you make it sound, why do they bother spending all this time casting superhero movies? Just go to comic-con and you will find your Superman or Batman right there all dressed up ready to go.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Hubunkey

They need to keep the orgy scene from the book in the movie lol.
Stephen King is a pervert

Wait for the porn parody - that will be the whole film although I am a little worried about where the horn noise will be coming from when thier version of Pennywise arrives.

[BladeRunner2007]

Someone here suggested Jackie Earle Haley for Pennywise. Please don't! He will only bore us with his Rorschach voice.

[Hubunkey]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

I'm not sure that'd be legal.

It would have been in the 70s lol, thay made a tone of "kiddy diddle" flicks back then with actual children playing the parts. Pretty Baby, Puppy Love, Little Lips, Beau Pere.

The got away with having a 12 year old Dakota Fanning being raped in Hounddog so Im sure they could find a way to cut around the really graphic parts and still include it

[Show spoiler]I was joking the first time I mentioned including the scene and am 100% sure that scene will never see the light of day in any Film Adaption of IT, and it shouldn't be included

[Hubunkey]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

Someone here suggested Jackie Earle Haley for Pennywise. Please don't! He will only bore us with his Rorschach voice.

To short, Jackie doesn't have the presence to be a true horrorfying character.

[BladeRunner2007]

Should the new movie(s) show the events chronologically like the tv mini series did, or should it keep the timeline from the novel? What do you think?

[Joeinar]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

I would not call this new movie a "remake" of the 1990 movie, to me the definition of a remake is when it's based on a motion picture produced earlier and an original screenplay not based on any existing source material like say The Blob or The Hills Have Eyes or Maniac, TRUE remakes in every sense of the word. A re-adaptation means a separate adaptation of a book, comic or novella that was filmed before on film and it's another adaptation yet has nothing to do with the film that came before it like say The Thing, Carrie, I Am Legend films, War of the Worlds, Batman Begins etc.

To call this new version of IT a "remake" of 1990's movie is like saying every Dracula movie is a "remake" of 1931's film and 1922's Nosferatu, nope they are all separate adaptations that have nothing to do with each other.

This should be a good separate adaptation and it should be 2 parts ala Harry Potter 7 and can be a big screen mini-series compared to the enjoyable if PG-13 mini-series on TV.

Jackie Earl Haley should be Pennywise

semanitics!!!

It was made once, they are making it again, thus a remake.

I do not want Jackie Early Haley, he was poor as a new Freddy, and he seems way too small.

[Kevin Holly]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

Should the new movie(s) show the events chronologically like the tv mini series did, or should it keep the timeline from the novel? What do you think?

Same as the novel! No need to change anything!

[growsinwater]

This is one of the few things I've seen in my life that actually scared me... and then the ending completely took that all away lol

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by Shawn Watson

Disagree with every syllable of this.

[detective392]

Adaptation of Stephen King's IT Shifts from Warner Bros. to New Line

The Hollywood Reporter brings word this morning that the feature adaptation of the Stephen King's IT has shifted from Warner Bros. to their New Line division, which the outlet reports will now take the lead on all things horror for the studio.

True Detective's Cary Fukunaga was hired to helm the adaptation back in 2012, and it still seems that is the case. The studio is eyeing to release the film in two feature length parts, the first one focusing on the characters as children and the second featuring them as adults.

Previously adapted as a television miniseries in 1990, King's official site describes IT as follows:

A promise made twenty-eight years ago calls seven adults to reunite in Derry, Maine, where as teenagers they battled an evil creature that preyed on the city's children. Unsure that their Losers Club had vanquished the creature all those years ago, the seven had vowed to return to Derry if IT should ever reappear. Now, children are being murdered again and their repressed memories of that summer return as they prepare to do battle with the monster lurking in Derry’s sewers once more.

Fukunaga himself will also attend to scripting duties alongside Chase Palmer with David Katzenberg, Roy Lee, Dan Lin and Seth Grahame-Smith producing.

[camper]

Two films is certainly promising, but one film as children the other as adults?

Part of what 'makes' it such a good story is the slow and deliberate weaving of both timeframes to the conclusion.

I hope this just means they'll treat the time frames and film them as two movies, but release them after they've been meshed together.

[BladeRunner2007]

Originally Posted by camper

Two films is certainly promising, but one film as children the other as adults?

Part of what 'makes' it such a good story is the slow and deliberate weaving of both timeframes to the conclusion.

This^^